Will the true Christians please stand up?

[RickyZ]

One day Jesus is walking down the street and a group of people bring a blind man to Him seeking healing. Jesus spits on the ground, makes a little mud, puts some in the blind man’s eyes, and tells his friends to take him down to the river and wash it out. They and the crowd do just that, and when the man washes he is healed and can see. So off this group goes, preaching that one must received ‘spit in the eye and wash at the river’.

Another day, Jesus comes across another blind man seeking healing. Jesus tells the man to go to the temple and pay his alms. The man and the crowd around him do so, and he is healed and can see. So off this group goes, preaching that one must ‘give their alms’.

On still another occasion, a blind man is brought to Jesus wanting to be healed. Jesus asks the man if he believes He can do it, the man says yes, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching one must have ‘faith and belief’.

So now we have these three groups going at each other, insisting that you can only be healed by ‘spit and washing’, or only by ‘alms and giving’, or only by ‘faith and belief’ - each ‘denomination’ insisting that only it is right and exclusive of all the others. But in debating about the how, they totally lose sight that there are many ways Jesus restores us, and that they are not exclusive of each other.

None of us has the whole picture... but we all have a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. So while we're trying to force-feed our piece of the puzzle into the big picture, we should pay attention to the picture formed by the puzzle pieces around us. Because even with as much as we think we know, today is not the day to stop learning.

 

[mikeuk]

The problem is OPINION, everyone has one. The Holy Spirit doesn't have opinion, He has only Truth.

This thread has meandered a long way from the original post.


Some echo sentiments which all Christians can agree , which do nothing to answer the problem, using " true" in a rather different sense that that intended. So rather than address the doctrinal differences , they address the difficulty of living out the vocation and remaining "true" to it . Clearly important but not the subject of this thread.

Some play the popular card of " only we the cogniscenti know we are right about doctrine because God / Holy Spirit / Jesus tells us so, and all others are wrong. " Whether or not that is true, it is also the rallying cry of all religious deluded fanatics, who have done horrendous things in the name of religion. And in some of those who claim it here, I find it hard to believe it is true , because Christians acting out the vocation would never act in such a rude and condescending way to others as some of these do, in contravention of the gospel. Where is humility? Where is kindness? Where is the warmth of evangelical Christianity , I saw as it's main strength? Long on warmth, but shaky and uncertain on theological underpinning.


Some prove what was said in the OP and slip back straight into the usual forum comfort zone uniting an attack against RCC rather than answer the question, I suspect because it is easier than addressing the profound and irreconcilable doctrinal differences aired between Protestants factions, the actual subject of this thread.

And whilst i do not want this thread to discuss RCC as it is scarcely relevant to Protestant divisions

I feel obliged to observe that the attackers fail to recognise several problems in pure logic with the attacks on RCC
(a) there can be no logical platform to attack RCC based on "drifting from a true interpretation" since there is no "true interpretation" on which many, let alone all agree, so arguing RCC drifted from "it" is therefore bad critical thinking until you can all agree on " it" , and you don't. That was my problem as a Protestant, later evangelical, and scientist so trained logical thinker. It does not make any sense without the unified definition of " it" which does not exist.
(b) indeed, love it or hate it, most criticise RCC for failing to move with the times , as witness contraception, the doctrine changing little in millennia so the two attacks against it of on one hand drifting , the other intransigence are therefore mutually contradictory!
(c) they accuse wide variations in Catholicism, which accusation misunderstands Catholicism. You cannot BE a catholic unless you accept the catechism, and teaching of the magisterium as a whole, so there can be no such variations as are claimed by those outside it. RCC is the only place you cannot make it up for yourself! Some argue against the doctrine, even vocally , but that does not change doctrine one iota, which is by definition united. Many fail to study their faith properly, particularly cradle catholics so go off at tangents, but they do not represent it either. Love it or hate it, it does not have dogmatic divisions.

And in any event, the main gripe Luther had , which occupies many of his theses, of the " pardon preachers" selling indulgences, was made clear in papal statements at the next council (Trent) a couple of decades after his death. Selling indulgencies Is wrong,and those who did it had strayed and must cease. On the wider point Luther was right in his annoyance that the reformers opened Pandora's box allowing all and sundry , to mix and match doctrine and so define their own denomination, something he abhorred as well, but even he cannot have forseen quite how many and bad the divisions would become on a forum such as this.

So back to the subject of the thread, the poster above sums up the problem and question very nicely. There can be but one correct interpretation The logical consequence of that was the Original post there are so many Protestant variations, most of them must be wrong.


But alas whilst the post recognises the question, it fails to say who has the right answer: though most here would claim they have it, only a few if any are right, and the differences must leave any new Christian more confused and none the wiser.

It cannot be good.

 

[Utah]

An eight year old boy was in Catholic Sunday school and the nun was discussing eternity. The boy was trying to grasp the concept of eternity and asked the nun to help him gain understanding. The nun replied:

Pick up a grain of sand along the New Jersey shore and start walking. Walk all the way across the state and into Pennsylvania, then Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas then half way into Colorado. When you're in Colorado, place that grain of sand on the ground, then walk all the way back to New Jersey. Using this method, one grain of sand at a time, build the rocky Mountains. And when you're done; when you're finally done, you've just begun your time in Hell!

An eight year old boy tries to gain understanding of eternity and the damn nun throws him into Hell rather than into the arms of a loving, caring, nurturing God who delights in His child's eagerness to learn of Him and His majesty.

That story exemplifies exactly what's wrong with the Catholic church -- too much guilt, too much punishment, too much hell fire, and damn sure not enough grace. No wonder I know more former Catholics than current ones.

 

[mikeuk]

An eight year old boy was in Catholic Sunday school and the nun was discussing eternity. The boy was trying to grasp the concept of eternity and asked the nun to help him gain understanding. The nun replied:

Pick up a grain of sand along the New Jersey shore and start walking. Walk all the way across the state and into Pennsylvania, then Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas then half way into Colorado. When you're in Colorado, place that grain of sand on the ground, then walk all the way back to New Jersey. Using this method, one grain of sand at a time, build the rocky Mountains. And when you're done; when you're finally done, you've just begun your time in Hell!

An eight year old boy tries to gain understanding of eternity and the damn nun throws him into Hell rather than into the arms of a loving, caring, nurturing God who delights in His child's eagerness to learn of Him and His majesty.

That story exemplifies exactly what's wrong with the Catholic church -- too much guilt, too much punishment, too much hell fire, and damn sure not enough grace. No wonder I know more former Catholics than current ones.

Whatever the truth of that Utah, it is irrelevant to the thread. I (normally) respect your posts, as presented in the true spirit of christian fellowship, and I do not include you in what I referred earlier as some who are almost militant fanatic in the way they say they are right, all others are wrong ,and do it with such bad grace it cannot surely be true.

But on this occasion, you go way off topic, and I am sure you appreciate that the actions of one single person or even a group do not define a denomination. Just as ISIS should not reflect badly on peace loving and tolerant islam, which indeed actually respects religious freedom it does not oppose it. Perhaps you might reflect upon JFSurvivors testimony of her relationship with ICOC http://christianchat.com/testimonies/108171-my-testimony-part-2-a.html which proves problems on all sides of the fence. Indeed there were plenty of "hell fire damnation preachers" of protestant denominations in US recent history too, the bible belt was notorious for them, which hopefully is a receding trend! I have never heard such hell fire damnation preaching from a catholic pulpit, though I heard it many times elsewhere, and I accept it has happened in the past!

The question I ask holds true still. Who can claim to be the true teachers here when there are so many mutually exclusive beliefs, so that most teaching must be false?

It is not in my case an attempt to undermine a lot of very worthy people. I knew some of those whilst a part of it!
But I am an eternal searcher, and as a scientist I always look at evidence that opposes my current belief on a subject. I have been interested in what some of the opposing interpretations are for some verses which define catholicism. The problem I have found is that whilst literature ( and folk here) are long on saying what the scriptures do not mean ( and some set new heights for rudeness in saying it) , they often fail to come up with any alternatives, and where they do, they oppose each other, and indeed many do not make sense at all, so I am left none the wiser. Most concerning of all, is that few seem to have thought about some of the issues as if the detail does not matter at all in a relationship with Jesus.

But how so? If that really is Him in the eucharist, then you profane Him to refuse the gift or treat it with other than utmost respect. If on the other hand it is just a symbol, then it is idolatry , heresy of the worst kind, to revere a piece of bread as divine! I do not think it is possible as many do here to sit on the fence. The doctrinal variations are fundamental, not a piece of detail. Is baptism necessary for salvation, or is it valid as an infant some here would say no to that as well. Fundamental.

I came looking for answers, but there were very few who even offered alternatives, most do not make basic sense, and seem to be more of needing to find a way to avoid RCC interpretation , that to offer a meaningful alternative. In the main the answers were much like yours now. Off topic attacks on RCC, which in the main betray ignorance of what RCC actually believes, which is not what the attackers seem to think!.

I do not think protestantism or denominations have any clear sense of identity, indeed some the pastor and elders are free to make it up as he goes along! Which brings us back to the original problem. The enormous range of fundamental, profound and irreconcilable differences between protestant interpretations, which is hard for a new christian to make any sense of, and is an impossible position to criticise RCC for not drifting from the "correct interpretation", since the alternatives of the "correct interpretation" are seemingly as many as people.

So I find it all very confused, and hard to get a sensible conversation (although I do appreciate your efforts on occasion, you are one of the exceptions, not the rule) Doctrine variations are a massive problem.

It cannot be good.

 

[Nick01]

(c) they accuse wide variations in Catholicism, which accusation misunderstands Catholicism. You cannot BE a catholic unless you accept the catechism, and teaching of the magisterium as a whole, so there can be no such variations as are claimed by those outside it. RCC is the only place you cannot make it up for yourself! Some argue against the doctrine, even vocally , but that does not change doctrine one iota, which is by definition united.

I find this a little problematic.We can discuss definitional semantics all you like, but would you agree that there are people who call themselves Catholics, who attend mass regularly, but who may disagree doctrinally on issues such as the nature of the Eucharist, which is of catechismal importance. If you want to say they're not REALLY Catholics (even if they are baptised, have received the Eucharist from a believing priest, married in the church, are accepted by their priest, etc), then you're basically begging the question to start with, and there's not a lot of point discussing further on that front. Your argument only serves to show that a centralised organisation can have an official and wide-ranging stance on issues, and says little about the people who are, for all intents and purposes, in that organisation.

At that point, I might as well say "Evangelical Reformed Presbyterians are all agreed on doctrine, and so are therefore correct, and you all disagree in various ways, how can you consider your non-Presbyterian movement viable or correct?" The argument's the same, the elements have just been moved around, and I'm using a smaller group.

The size of the group does not matter, because I feel at the heart of your question/comment in the OP (which on the surface is a perfectly reasonable question) is actually a giant fallacy that does't hold up - the fact that a lot of people believe the same things does not amount to any sort of proof that they are correct. Equally, the fact that many smaller groups are all disagreed with each other does not mean that any one of them is not entirely correct, or even that a number of the smaller groups are sufficiently correct compared to the one larger group. It's fallacious thinking, otherwise.

But your other main point is taken - obviously, with so many interpretations among Protestants, Catholics, other sects, the majority must be wrong at some level, regardless of which things you consider to be important and which less so. People are wrong about all sorts of things. I'm still not entirely sure what the point is you're trying to make by saying this - if you want a nice tidy school of thought of any issue, you won't find it in your lifetime, on any issue. And, also worth pointing out, the fact that a thing can be interpreted many ways does not necessarily mean that the subject matter is that obscure - it can equally mean that people have other reasons for interpreting differently other than misunderstanding.

 

[PeterJens]

That side steps the question really. So are you non denominational? Does that lack of identity allow you to mix and match between flavours of doctrine? How so if there is but one unique truth? Does it not concern you that there are so many variants of which most cannot be true? Or do you not care what others here believe?

You are asking the wrong question. The real question is who was Jesus and do you love him?
I was brought up in an anglican church, went to an open brethren church, got involved in a house church and currently go to a baptist church. My family have been wrecked with schizophrenia, and I have spent my life trying to understand myself and others in Jesus. Jesus came with a mission, to plant love in peoples hearts and see it bear fruit.
At the day of judgement the harvest will be drawn in. There are people of the Kingdom everywhere who speak and live life from the heart with Jesus's love. They have nuiances of emphasis, ideas, things that have moved them, but they all speak the same, Jesus is the source of how love broke free and they grew to maturity. What you see as a mess, God sees as diversity of expression, what you see a weakness, he sees how different people meet different needs.
The movement as a whole is not our concern, just how to meet the next need of the next person we have contact with.
The RCC is bound is heresy, emptiness, ceremonies, idiolatry, missed understanding. But also many other groups and peoples. One thing you will observe, the path is difficult, and only a few find their way through. I hope you do, as you seem willing to try, but I think you need to fall in love with Jesus to start.....

 

[mikeuk]

I find this a little problematic.We can discuss definitional semantics all you like, but would you agree that there are people who call themselves Catholics, who attend mass regularly, but who may disagree doctrinally on issues such as the nature of the Eucharist, which is of catechismal importance. If you want to say they're not REALLY Catholics (even if they are baptised, have received the Eucharist from a believing priest, married in the church, are accepted by their priest, etc), then you're basically begging the question to start with, and there's not a lot of point discussing further on that front. Your argument only serves to show that a centralised organisation can have an official and wide-ranging stance on issues, and says little about the people who are, for all intents and purposes, in that organisation.

At that point, I might as well say "Evangelical Reformed Presbyterians are all agreed on doctrine, and so are therefore correct, and you all disagree in various ways, how can you consider your non-Presbyterian movement viable or correct?" The argument's the same, the elements have just been moved around, and I'm using a smaller group.

The size of the group does not matter, because I feel at the heart of your question/comment in the OP (which on the surface is a perfectly reasonable question) is actually a giant fallacy that does't hold up - the fact that a lot of people believe the same things does not amount to any sort of proof that they are correct. Equally, the fact that many smaller groups are all disagreed with each other does not mean that any one of them is not entirely correct, or even that a number of the smaller groups are sufficiently correct compared to the one larger group. It's fallacious thinking, otherwise.

But your other main point is taken - obviously, with so many interpretations among Protestants, Catholics, other sects, the majority must be wrong at some level, regardless of which things you consider to be important and which less so. People are wrong about all sorts of things. I'm still not entirely sure what the point is you're trying to make by saying this - if you want a nice tidy school of thought of any issue, you won't find it in your lifetime, on any issue. And, also worth pointing out, the fact that a thing can be interpreted many ways does not necessarily mean that the subject matter is that obscure - it can equally mean that people have other reasons for interpreting differently other than misunderstanding.

Thanks for the reply.

I really don't want this to become a discussion of catholicism, since it gets no further on the subject of the thread which is the massive variation in expressed doctrine of denominations and added to that a lot of non denominationals who cannot agree even with any of those!

As regards what you can only call "non expressed" doctrine - that is opinions of dissenters. You may not accept the answer, but those who do not believe in "expressed doctrine" of real presence are no longer catholics. Period. End of story. As a catholic you accept the teachings of the magisterium as a whole. The door is not locked for those who do not agree!
RCC expresses the doctrine in the catechism, so I find it disturbing that others attack it on things it it clearly does not believe. It cannot make it clearer for example, that we are "saved by grace" through faith, but most who attack it do not seem to have read it!

I think perhaps you picked an unfortunate example with Presbyterian , some times called the "split P" because of all the divisions, and fractures, indeed the essential authority on doctrine as I understand it is through a "teaching elder" which gives scope for variation. In any event take an example -abortion is either premeditated murder or it is not. And yet as far as I am aware that is left as a matter of private conscience - it should be a matter of faith.

I accept that size does not determine truth, but in a way that makes the problem worse! - If very few have the right teaching it increases the percentage that do not, and makes it harder to know who to listen to!

My points are simple
-That so many divided doctrines, some of them crucial, no fence sitting possible, is a very bad thing!

-The very existence of those competing doctrines, proves that evangelical mantra of simply reading bible and asking the Spirit to guide you is not enough to find the truth, because the founders of all of those doctrines say the same.

Reality is I could not get credible alternative interpretations to some of the verses that define catholicism (and I do not want to reawaken some of those arguments, so will not represent them here) - but by way of example take john 21:23 - what is the power and who is given the power to retain sins? and how do others use that verse in contemporary setting? For us the basis of sacramental confession? The replies to that question were in the main abusive and anti RCC.

It seems to me If catholicism is so wrong, there should be far better answers, and people should know what they are. Worse, a lot of the interpretations proposed seem simply intended to disagree with catholicism rather than point at a viable alternative. Take the distinction of Petros and Petra is wholly artificial in Greek translation. In the conversation which took place in aramaic, Peter was the Rock. No doubt about it. "bar jonah" proves the original language! Luther and Calvin accepted that. They argued succession and scope, not that Peter was the Rock.

So I had hoped you guys had some good alternatives to Catholic interpretations I had not heard before, that would set me thinking. Alas not. I actually think a lot of the unthinking anti RCC posting is more to unite around something todisguise the lack of unity in home denominations!

But sadly I am leaving little the wiser, having learned very little, other than on every subject there are massive divisions, and I do not like the tone of much of that discussion!

I really must go.

 

[mikeuk]

Farewell and God Bless.
...............................

 

[Jeff_56]

I feel like this thread is coming from an RCC point of view. ..

it is an attempt to justify the rcc catholic heresy lie from hell without breaking the rules, or without appearing to break the rules of RoboOp and ALL the Admins. (as they have posted - no promoting the heresy (the lie) of the rcc is allowed)

... I would avoid anything that has to do with Islam.... Please, please avoid Islam. The entire faith is an obvious attempt to undo what Christ did for you, created by the one that you are told came to steal, kill and destroy you.
Also, I dont really like that there are people on here accusing other Christians of hate when they generally just dont agree with the same issue. Doesnt that seem kinda....well.....hateful? ...

the heresy (hypocrisy/fake christianity) lie worshiping demons is worse danger and threat and more bad than islam. but they cannot help but try to justify themselves.

One day Jesus is walking down the street .....
None of us has the whole picture... but we all have a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. So while we're trying to force-feed our piece of the puzzle into the big picture, we should pay attention to the picture formed by the puzzle pieces around us. Because even with as much as we think we know, today is not the day to stop learning.

you haven't met a small group of ekklesia yet, apparently, and that is true of most people on earth.
if you meet 2 or 3 or 20 meeting together in the body Christ, you are most blessed, and you will know it.(hopefully).
it's not a matter of someone 'having' the whole picture, but of knowing personally, experientially, and living IN UNION WITH YAHWEH IN YAHSHUA, with all the ekklesia by grace and by faith and by Yahweh's doing(man cannot accomplish this if they think they can , but Yahweh does accomplish this in those who rely on Him and trust Him)...

it's a tragedy and a deception that the rcc is the world's largest view of (fake) christendom for so long.

but wherever the ekklesia are, even the unbelievers around them see the difference in their lives.
the ones who don't see the difference are of course the ones who believe the lie, whether it's the heresy of the rcc catholic abomination, or any other religion opposed to Jesus.

it is uncommon for someone on earth to be saved.
so
it is uncommon for someone in the heresy to be saved. that is no surprise. the surprise is when /if they are saved! all the angels in heaven rejoice with great joy every time ! (that anyone is saved).

several active members of the roman catholic heresy keep posting throughout the forum. nothing from that can be trusted, regardless if it's related to religion or not. they are until they repent active members in the heresy, and as such they are still subject to the prince of the power of the air (i.e. to demons) as we all once were according to Ephesians et al Scripture.
thus, they may totally believe what they say, and it is written that Yahweh has given them over to believe their own lies/delusions,
but they might still some day be able to "stand up with the real ekklesia".... ... ... ... ... 'if'.... Yahweh shows them mercy and chooses them.

 

[PeterJens]

Thanks for the reply.

I really don't want this to become a discussion of catholicism, since it gets no further on the subject of the thread which is the massive variation in expressed doctrine of denominations and added to that a lot of non denominationals who cannot agree even with any of those!

As regards what you can only call "non expressed" doctrine - that is opinions of dissenters. You may not accept the answer, but those who do not believe in "expressed doctrine" of real presence are no longer catholics. Period. End of story. As a catholic you accept the teachings of the magisterium as a whole. The door is not locked for those who do not agree!
RCC expresses the doctrine in the catechism, so I find it disturbing that others attack it on things it it clearly does not believe. It cannot make it clearer for example, that we are "saved by grace" through faith, but most who attack it do not seem to have read it!

I think perhaps you picked an unfortunate example with Presbyterian , some times called the "split P" because of all the divisions, and fractures, indeed the essential authority on doctrine as I understand it is through a "teaching elder" which gives scope for variation. In any event take an example -abortion is either premeditated murder or it is not. And yet as far as I am aware that is left as a matter of private conscience - it should be a matter of faith.

I accept that size does not determine truth, but in a way that makes the problem worse! - If very few have the right teaching it increases the percentage that do not, and makes it harder to know who to listen to!

My points are simple
-That so many divided doctrines, some of them crucial, no fence sitting possible, is a very bad thing!

-The very existence of those competing doctrines, proves that evangelical mantra of simply reading bible and asking the Spirit to guide you is not enough to find the truth, because the founders of all of those doctrines say the same.

Reality is I could not get credible alternative interpretations to some of the verses that define catholicism (and I do not want to reawaken some of those arguments, so will not represent them here) - but by way of example take john 21:23 - what is the power and who is given the power to retain sins? and how do others use that verse in contemporary setting? For us the basis of sacramental confession? The replies to that question were in the main abusive and anti RCC.

It seems to me If catholicism is so wrong, there should be far better answers, and people should know what they are. Worse, a lot of the interpretations proposed seem simply intended to disagree with catholicism rather than point at a viable alternative. Take the distinction of Petros and Petra is wholly artificial in Greek translation. In the conversation which took place in aramaic, Peter was the Rock. No doubt about it. "bar jonah" proves the original language! Luther and Calvin accepted that. They argued succession and scope, not that Peter was the Rock.

So I had hoped you guys had some good alternatives to Catholic interpretations I had not heard before, that would set me thinking. Alas not. I actually think a lot of the unthinking anti RCC posting is more to unite around something todisguise the lack of unity in home denominations!

But sadly I am leaving little the wiser, having learned very little, other than on every subject there are massive divisions, and I do not like the tone of much of that discussion!

I really must go.

Sorry I do not believe you. The catholic church is merely a mechanism structure, with inconsistent theology and emphasis.
Some push Mary, some the saints, some mass etc. As a group it has one label but many sub groups, so your artificial construction of catholicism verses protestant views is an illusion.

The protestant label was actually about abandoning church dogma which created purgatory, and masses for the dead etc.
The rest of the doctrines and theology varied depending on the theologian but often was wild speculation.
The core issue about what makes you saved or not saved is actually a mistake. Salvation is dependent on having love in the core of your being and letting it be expressed to others.
The apostles expressed it by saying you cannot say you have this if you hate, because hatred has no part in love.
The problem with intellectuals is they took speculation too far and wanted to define the undefinable and then disagreed with their own particular version of it. Jesus asks you about what drives your life and actions. If you do not know him at this personal level, then you do not know the kingdom. So do you know Jesus as Lord and your saviour?

 

[mikeuk]

Sorry I do not believe you. The catholic church is merely a mechanism structure, with inconsistent theology and emphasis.
Some push Mary, some the saints, some mass etc. As a group it has one label but many sub groups, so your artificial construction of catholicism verses protestant views is an illusion.

Peter. I am no longer willing to have long conversations, that time is past.

But the above is simply not true of dogma which is consistent and in the catechism. Sure there are "charisms" of both religious and lay congregations which focus more on some aspects of spirituality, but they do not undermine any dogma, they reinforce specific parts of it. All are united in real presence and mass and so on. Sure some (generally cradle) catholics have the wrong end of sticks and speak out in contravention of dogma , but they are not speaking for it when they do!

There is but one belief set. It is there to read. Anyone who does not like it knows where the door is.

The protestant label was actually about abandoning church dogma which created purgatory, and masses for the dead etc.

I think perhaps you should read the articles of Luther that started the rot, and indeed preceded the word "protestant" His first prime focus was such as paid indulgencies, and rightly so, the pope spoke out against the practice at the council of trent shortly after Luthers death.

At least five articles at quick glance 17/25/27/29 refer to purgatory accepted as a fact, so Luther certainly believed it! But As for prayers for the dead, we all owe a lot to our Jewish roots, or at least those who know their jewish roots! Too many Christians ignore the jewish roots and old testament, so look only at th new, which is why they go at tangents some times. But the NT cannot be understood without the OT or jewish tradition.

Perhaps you might tell Jeff_56 about hatred, he seems obsessed with it.

Anyway...as I said.
Farewell and God Bless Believe what you will.
..............................................................
I came here for answers and found only division.

 

[Jeff_56]

there are perhaps 30 different 'schools' / 'ways'/ 'religions' that have posted on this site in the last week, or even just the last 24 hours ; i haven't tried to count nor identify nor even read most any of them.

the one that is identified by yahweh, yahshua, torah, scripture, the set apart spirit, RoboOp, ALL the Admins,

as heresy ---- the roman catholic abomination ----- is the most dangerous of all, and has wantonly

murdered the true believers and also murdered anyone else they wanted to , wherever they were able to.

this is and has been verifiable and known and true history of the abomination ever since it started;

and the complete and utter deception of the rcc has been known also, by the true believers, Jews and gentiles, and others Yahweh permitted or caused to know the truth.

how did Jesus treat the legal educated religious teachers who taught man's traditions? he called them sons of the devil.
is that 'hate' ? from Jesus ? ....

the deceivers said so. like the heretic claims on this site often- and others deceived with it.

 

[mikeuk]

the roman catholic abomination ----- is the most dangerous of all, and has wantonly

murdered the true believers and also murdered anyone else they wanted to , wherever they were able to.

this is and has been verifiable and known and true history of the abomination ever since it started;

Jeff. You really are a sad person, locked into your web of hate and rants, and I would not ordinarily waste a reply.

But perhaps the truth would be helpful to readers instead. Whilst every death is regrettable, chapters we should all forget, and indeed John Paul said the same and apologized on behalf of the church, but the fact remains protestant killing of catholics was worse. A lot worse.

Take King Henry and his more murderous daughter Elizabeth managed more killings between them than worst estimates of the inquisition. But even they were amateurs compared to Cromwell's Puritan army who managed thousands of catholics a day on occasions declaring that this was "Gods justice on these Barbarous wretches", but even he did not manage to kill ten times as that with starvation during the protestant annexe of ireland.

Even Calvin got a few burned to death! He promised some opposing him would not leave alive, and he kept his promise!

All the deaths are regrettable. But high ground is not on your side. It is a sorry chapter of history all should forget.


........................................

 

[PeterJens]

mikeuk, I am glad you no long want long conversations. It appears you believe in RCC no matter what.
I just believe in Jesus and wish to make his words real in my life. The main problem with the church was when the turned an individual faith into a state church. A faith of conscience and personal obligation does not translate well to a legal framework with courts and civil law. It is the history of theocracies which have always failed because they hold up the idea of creating heaven on earth when men as sinners always fail to live up to these expectations.
You also like most fanatics rather than bring out a balanced view of an institution want people to come up with arguments which you then dismiss. The whole role of the priest hood etc is a corruption along with the sacrement of communion. Too much has been asked of people for an idealism which has failed. The abuse by priests of young people is a prime example along with many others. Idolatry, the use of statues as worship objects etc again is another major stumbling block.
The problem is RCC is in steep decline, and without finding its reality it will soon cease to exist.
The fact you cannot even be honest about what it stands for and its history speaks volumes as to your failure to understand Jesus and the church.

 

[Vernon]

Dear Mikeuk,

I wish you would not leave this forum because of the contention of some here who attack the RCC. This forum is a reflection of the true state of christendom in the world today, and I have seen some here who have changed their beliefs and no longer condemn others who do not agree with their doctrines.
As we talk to each other on this forum we have a chance to discuss the faith with those who disagree with our beliefs and we all can learn from one another.
My post on this thread #51 was my attempt to explain to you how I look at the reality we find ourselves in, there is not some christians who are true and some who are wrong, we are all wrong, only God is true. We know this is true because Jesus prayed that we would be in complete unity, so that the world would know that the Father and Son are one, and that God sent Jesus to save the world. John 17:21 Our separation and divisions can not be blamed on some but on all of us, we have all failed the Lord by our divisions.
This forum gives us an opportunity to discuss our beliefs with one another rather than remain isolated in our own beliefs, we learn from others what they believe and realize while we may disagree, many here have a love for Jesus Christ and have submitted to his Lordship.
I believe through forums like this christians have become less divisive and are more accepting of those with different beliefs. As a catholic myself, I understand your frustration with those who curse our church, they do so out of ignorance and insecurity, having no other way to justify their division from other christians but to believe they are of the evil one.
I try not to argue my faith tradition against others in this forum, but try to express my Love for Jesus Christ which I have found all 'true' christians agree. " Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? " Jesus Christ circa 30ad.

 

[keeth]

Jeff. You really are a sad person, locked into your web of hate and rants, and I would not ordinarily waste a reply.

But perhaps the truth would be helpful to readers instead. Whilst every death is regrettable, chapters we should all forget, and indeed John Paul said the same and apologized on behalf of the church, but the fact remains protestant killing of catholics was worse. A lot worse.

Take King Henry and his more murderous daughter Elizabeth managed more killings between them than worst estimates of the inquisition. But even they were amateurs compared to Cromwell's Puritan army who managed thousands of catholics a day on occasions declaring that this was "Gods justice on these Barbarous wretches", but even he did not manage to kill ten times as that with starvation during the protestant annexe of ireland.

Even Calvin got a few burned to death! He promised some opposing him would not leave alive, and he kept his promise!

All the deaths are regrettable. But high ground is not on your side. It is a sorry chapter of history all should forget.


........................................

The above false testimony has already been addressed in another thread -

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/41911-catholic-heresy-record-140.html

see response #2784

 

[notuptome]

Dear Mikeuk,

I wish you would not leave this forum because of the contention of some here who attack the RCC. This forum is a reflection of the true state of christendom in the world today, and I have seen some here who have changed their beliefs and no longer condemn others who do not agree with their doctrines.
As we talk to each other on this forum we have a chance to discuss the faith with those who disagree with our beliefs and we all can learn from one another.
My post on this thread #51 was my attempt to explain to you how I look at the reality we find ourselves in, there is not some christians who are true and some who are wrong, we are all wrong, only God is true. We know this is true because Jesus prayed that we would be in complete unity, so that the world would know that the Father and Son are one, and that God sent Jesus to save the world. John 17:21 Our separation and divisions can not be blamed on some but on all of us, we have all failed the Lord by our divisions.
This forum gives us an opportunity to discuss our beliefs with one another rather than remain isolated in our own beliefs, we learn from others what they believe and realize while we may disagree, many here have a love for Jesus Christ and have submitted to his Lordship.
I believe through forums like this christians have become less divisive and are more accepting of those with different beliefs. As a catholic myself, I understand your frustration with those who curse our church, they do so out of ignorance and insecurity, having no other way to justify their division from other christians but to believe they are of the evil one.
I try not to argue my faith tradition against others in this forum, but try to express my Love for Jesus Christ which I have found all 'true' christians agree. " Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? " Jesus Christ circa 30ad.

Oh yes we need more bloviated words from a papist. Don't forget the condescending attitude that adds a certain essence as well. Delightful conversations.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[SaintJoeNow]

An eight year old boy was in Catholic Sunday school and the nun was discussing eternity. The boy was trying to grasp the concept of eternity and asked the nun to help him gain understanding. The nun replied:

Pick up a grain of sand along the New Jersey shore and start walking. Walk all the way across the state and into Pennsylvania, then Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas then half way into Colorado. When you're in Colorado, place that grain of sand on the ground, then walk all the way back to New Jersey. Using this method, one grain of sand at a time, build the rocky Mountains. And when you're done; when you're finally done, you've just begun your time in Hell!

An eight year old boy tries to gain understanding of eternity and the damn nun throws him into Hell rather than into the arms of a loving, caring, nurturing God who delights in His child's eagerness to learn of Him and His majesty.

That story exemplifies exactly what's wrong with the Catholic church -- too much guilt, too much punishment, too much hell fire, and damn sure not enough grace. No wonder I know more former Catholics than current ones.

Did the catholics make you into a potty mouth?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Did the catholics make you into a potty mouth?

They would me, if that's the best story they could come up with to define eternity.

 

[breno785au]

So no one has stood up yet? Guess I better then *stands up*...Exhorts others to stand with me