Tags

24 Tuesday Nov 2015
Tags
Justice for Bishop George Bell of Chichester - Seeking Truth, Unity and Peace
Rediscovering the Middle Ground
a scrap book of words and pictures
reflections, links and stories.
reflecting my eclectic (and sometimes erratic) life
wondering, learning, exploring
Reflecting on sexuality and gender identity in the Church of England
Work and Prayer
Reflections, comment, explorations on faith, life, church, minstry & meaning.
Mental health & loss in the Church
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34
ancient, medieval, byzantine, anglican
Stories From Norfolk and Beyond - Be They Past, Present, Fact, Fiction, Mythological, Legend or Folklore.
Miscellanies on Religion and Public life
Gender, Family and Religious History in the Modern Era
Faith, life and kick-ass moves
More beautiful than the honey locust tree are the words of the Lord - Mary Oliver
A blog pertaining to the future of the Church
Blue Labour meets Disraelite Tory meets High Church Socialist
Poems from life and the church year
Contmplations for beginners
The Catholic Faith Defended
To bring identity and power back to the voice of women
“Whatever you do, do it with your whole heart.” ( Colossians 3: 23 ) - The blog of Father Richard Peers SMMS, Director of Education for the Diocese of Liverpool
Journalism from London.
Mining the collective unconscious
“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” — Maya Angelou
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34
“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.”
Blessed be God forever.
A Monk on the Mission
“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2
Blog for poet and singer-songwriter Malcolm Guite
The Site of James Bishop (CBC, TESOL, Psych., BTh, Hon., MA., PhD candidate)
Reflections from the Dean of Southwark
Happy. Southern. Catholic.
"...a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..."
A daily blog to deepen our participation in Mass
legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi
"Not all those who wander are lost"- J.R.R. Tolkien
Pictures by Catherine Young
The doubt of Thomas was necessary for the extraordinary to happen. It is good to keep this in mind if one has a serious doubt about believing that which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith to either become or remain faithful to Christ and His Church. The same extraordinary help Thomas got is available for all who are in need. His admission of his doubt to others helped. Of course, it is not to be expected that if you have a doubt, the Second Person of the Trinity is going to show up one day in your bedroom and present Himself for your inspection. If you wait for that to happen before grasping what you can, you may never cross the bridge from the sea of doubt onto the safe shore of belief. Doubts need addressing and praying over and study. Knowledge honestly pursued with an open mind and heart is the answer many have found for their doubts. More than one Saint started his own conversion with a doubt or two and entered religious life seeking his own answer and found much more than he even knew was there. But if a doubt is not addressed honestly as such, it can go a whole nuther way. Obstinate. Hard hearted. Stiff necked. Sure of one’s proofs against a matter of faith or morals that must be assented to. It leaves one out of Communion with the Almighty who sent His only begotten to die to set men free. He cannot force Himself on the one who doubts. They hold their own salvation in their hands and can turn to Him at any point for healing of said doubts. “Lord, I do believe. Heal my unbelief.” Very wise words.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oddly enough, those who call themselves Catholics are not the only ones who believe in Christ as Saviour. Still, we can stick with what Christ said, or with what those who claim to be his soe representatives say. That makes you and me heretics according to the Orthodox. It makes me and the Orthodox heretics according to you, and it makes all three of us Christians according to me and Jesus. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey, the most I can expect from you is that you may concur with the Church Christ founded upon the rock of Peter a few points.
God spoke thusly: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
That’s God talking Geoffrey, saying He will build a Church. That is singular. One. Only one Church. Built by God Himself upon the foundation of Peter, the Prince of Apostles who was acknowledged as such by all, including Christ. He gave him the keys to the Kingdom, and declared that whatever Peter bound on earth would also be bound in Heaven, and whatever Peter loosed on earth, God would also loose in Heaven. There is no other man on earth who could lay claim to this singular privilege, not even Moses. Peter passed down his Apostolic authority to his those men who filled his position after he was crucified like his Master.
I know you cannot accept this stuff, but you need to at the very least agree that it is God talking about building His Church and placing upon the shoulders of a single man, a unique position and authority never before given to a man.
I believe God accomplished the building of said Church as have 2000 years of persons. He said He would and He did and He is still building no matter what anyone else says to the contrary. His Church will endure until the end of time. Doubt no more.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
what you can expect from me is an absence of the narrow sectarian spirit which confines Christ’s work to one tradition. The Orthodox use the same argument – against you, so at best, it is a two-edged sword, and I’d be interested to know how you answer the Orthodox case.
There is one Church, that of all who acknowledge Christ, The Matthean passage does not say that Peter will found a church in Rome and that only Rome can claim to be that church; indeed you will find nothing before the writings of Leo the Great which systematically make such a claim. The Orthodox, who, unlike yourselves (and my lot) have added nothing to the Nicene Creed, would argue that we have taken a liberty and therefore we are not that Church Christ founded.
My Bible, and yours, makes it clear that all the Apostles had the power of binding and loosing, not just one of them; my Bible, like your Bible, says nothing about any ‘privilege’ being passed on only by one elder.
And no, you will find no warrant either in Scripture or in Patristics before Leo for anyone saying Peter was the ‘Prince of the Apostles’ – read Peter’s own letters and see what he, in all good Christian humility, calls himself – clue – it isn’t ‘Prince’.
So, yes, God is talking, but he is not saying what your church (hardly an unbiased party) claims. Of course your church says what it says, but it cannot find anything before Leo in the 400s which makes the same case, and it can’t find anyone outside Rome accepting Leo’s case. I can offer you some good reading on all of this from the Orthodox side – most not on line, but this is not a bad summary on line:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx
LikeLike
Geoffrey, saying it is so doesn’t make it so. You’re wrong as usual. But being convinced that you are right, you can’t even open your mind up a wee bit to let in the Truth. God founded a Church. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and every Apostle living and learning at Christ’s heels know this as well as every Church father and Church member ever since. it wasn’t as you wish, a discovery of Leo after 400 AD or any other person you’d like to twist the words of. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Nuther thing Geoffrey. As it turns out Dave has the same narrow sectarian spirit and is in full Communion with the Catholic Church as i am. Why respond to me with hostility, but to Dave in another fashion? In all the time I’ve come here, more than once I’ve heard Dave say the exact same thing about the Church being founded upon Peter and being Apostolic in orientation as I have. Yet, you are friendly to him. Why is this? Same message gets given by him as me. He is just as Catholic as I am and together we eat the very same Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist each Sunday. I’m also certain Dave goes during the week sometimes as I do, if not every day. So, why if the message is the same, is your response different? Hmmmmm……I could guess but you’ll probably say something else nasty about my attitude and judge whether or not I’m loving and charitable in my delivery or some such nonsense. Too bad. I speaks volumes to me about some things you cannot change even if you desired to.
Clue: they shall know us by our love.
God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because he is not sectarian in the way he presnts his case and you are. Next question?
LikeLike
Well Geoffrey, there seems to be many voices before Leo in the 400’s, as you can see by this article. http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html
Ginny, I too would like for all to be Catholic, as I believe it’s the fullest expression of Christianity. But, our Catholic Church, since Vatican II has taught that there is a link, via a truly Christian baptism, to the fruits of Christ. As Dave has said on this subject, “the Church has spoken.”
Now as to why Geoffrey reacts to Dave differently than to you, let me offer my thoughts. Might be the Mars vs. Venus thing, i.e. man vs. women. Or it might be that a great bond and a true friendship has developed over 3+ years of almost daily contact, with both of them realizing that each has a profound love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, I think the main reason is that Dave presents ideas and makes them sound reasonable. Dave argues in a friendly and learned fashion. In other words, Dave gives Geoffrey things to think about and reasons why he should. Examples: Don’t bring the hammer down on the anvil by saying “Obstinate. Hard hearted. Stiff necked.” Now be honest, how would you react? “You’re wrong as usual.” No, no, tell him why he is and in a friendly way. “you can’t even open your mind up a wee bit,” Ginny, as in any debate, it’s your job to give him reasons why he should open his mind.
LikeLike
No, my job isn’t to find ways that make a person like Geoffrey respond to the Truth. The Truth is the Truth no matter who presents it and how. If a person claims to love Christ yet will only listen to Him speak when that same Truth is presented in a certain way, then they already have placed limits on what they will accept about the Truth. I love Jesus too and that is why I study, to get to know Him better so as to love Him in a fuller way. I do not find Geoffrey’s limited scholarship and revisionist historical perspective fulfilling. He is used to be affirmed no matter what he says. I on the other hand, cannot sit comfortably long when those who claim to be speaking for God thru their interpretations of Scriptures disparage or misrepresent the Man, Jesus Christ who is supposedly the object of their love as well. He is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Therefore those who know Him should be conveying the very same Message thru all generations. Everything else is one’s own ideas, not the Gospel.
On a personal note, I’ve been loudly mocked, insulted and demeaned by Geoffrey on more than one occasion and never has he offered an apology. I am a woman and deserve respect simply because I am a woman. We are known by our love, yet for some unknown “reason,” Geoffrey has decided that it is acceptable to treat me in a less-than manner. I have responded to that with hostility perhaps, but that is my response to insults and disrespect that hasn’t been imagined or read-into a statement out of feigned sensitivity. Ignorant is one of the descriptive terms Geoffrey has used towards me in a public way. That was not done to edify. It was hurtful and meant to hurt. It didn’t. How to respond to that? I’m Christian, so I turn the other cheek if that is possible on a website. No, I’m not ignorant. Magna Cum Laude and VP of my Honor Society and a list of honors and scholarships way behind me in the years past. I just don’t think it is necessary to offer one’s credentials when speaking of Christ. He after all chose a few fishermen, tent makers, carpenters, tax collectors and a few other blue collar types to bring His Message to the world. Humility is a much higher priority in my corner of the world than intellectual pride. No, comments like Geoffrey made actually do come from the ignorant themselves.
So I’ve said enough. Who cares anyway? It all good.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
You’ll note that there are snippets. You will also note that the site quotes those snippets as though everyone accepted that view. This is bad history, and in my considerable experience, those who resort to bad history do so because they can’t quote good history.
I can’t fault your analysis of the difference between Dave and ginny and my reactions 🙂
LikeLike
But Geoffrey, that is history. It is only “bad history” in that it doesn’t corroborate your personal interpretations of Scripture and the Church Fathers and subsequently, your living of your type of Christianity. It is a very good little apologetic for the subject and though it doesn’t go into great detail, it pretty much sums up an opposing interpretation accurately. It defends the Scripture, the Tradition of the Church as well as those who adhere to both.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
No, it is bad in that it does not corroborate with good history books. The only people who accept your version are a few Catholic historians. Non religious historians, Protestant historians, Orthodox hisrtorians, Hindu historians, and Catholic writers such as Raymond E Brown are all wrong. Of course you are free to believe that. What I think you miss is that many others hold traition and Scripture in respect, and doubt your church because of the changes it keeps making and then claiming were there all along. There is no filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which declares it is not to be added to. Your church added to it. No one doubted the primacy of honour of the Pope, but then your lot pushed it by claiming he was infallible and had universal jurisdiction. It is the RCC which keeps changing things. I’ve no problem with that, what I have a problem with is the claim that it has changed nothing – it has, and when it become honest about this, I shall lose the last bits of suspicion I have about it. Why tell fibs?
LikeLike
Geoffrey, it is useless to try and convince a Protestant that what he has learned and/or taught is false when he accepts it as truth. Most Protestants accept whatever they are told by their pastors and teachers as truth. But telling everyone that the Church “fibs” about history is not nice. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
If you can find one Catholic Patristic source which says that the Pope is infallible, I will accept that the Church does not ‘fib’; if you can’t, you are gullible and accept what your church teaches without examining the evidence. I look forward to you ither doing something no Catholic historian has ever done, or admitting you can’t. I expect you to bluster your way through without doing either, but look forward to be you proving I am wrong about that.
The diference between us is I read widely in history and you don’t. I don’t accept what a psttor, priest or bishop or Pope says just because they say so, I examine why they say it and ask for sources. It is by that scholarly standard I question the veracity of what you have been taught. You seem to question my view because someone has told you otherwise. Again, if you have read widely in the Patristic sources, let me know. If you have, you will know I have set you a task you can’t fulfil – but have fun with it.
LikeLike
BTW, are you also calling everyone mentioned in the Article Steve gave a link to liars as well and all that information fibs about history? Just curious.
LikeLike
I called no one a ‘liar’ – please don’t judge by your own ad hominem low standards.
There are a number of explanations for the dissenting views which would present themselves to an educated person with no bias.
One is that the sources being cited are being cited out of context to ‘prove’ an argument which the person using the quotations can prove in no other way. That might mean that the person concerned was unaware of this because he or she is taking those snippets from others who have done that consciously.
Another would be that they are all relying on a Catholic history which rests upon a long confessional reading of the sources – a sort of group-think, which they, like you, fail to question.
It might also be the case that given the sources, you and Steve are misreading them.
All sorts of possibilities arise before one has any need to resort to name-calling. Have you ever wondered why you go to that source straight off?
LikeLike
Goodness, Ginny, forgive me, but recently you advised someone else on this forum to look to his own sins rather than point figures and now it appears you are not taking your own advice. Calling people heretics, as you have Geoffrey, does not win over converts or friends. There are kinder and gentler ways to win people over to your cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Grandpa, I am not on a winning souls for Christ campaign, nor am I looking for pointers on how to preach a Gospel message that offends no one. I am a Catholic and when I see error, I speak up. I have no problem letting people know that something is heretical. If they believe that something that is heretical then there is nothing I can do about that. I mentioned that the bloodshed we see today as ISIS was started as a heresy. That is a fact that cannot be changed. It goes ignored as does the warning it should be for those careful of error. Some even deny this fact of Islamic history and revise it out of their historical record so as to distance heretics in general from one of the bloody outcomes of heresy. Heresy has a very bloody history. It divides the Body of Christ and serves no purpose of any worth or value to God or His Church. It needs stopping before it gets started. It shapes and molds history and to ignore it is folly. To hide it is to enable it to prosper. Those who are genuinely interested in conversion to Christ don’t defend heresy and error. They are willing to listen in order to grow and learn. They are in earnest and seeking to place that which is false in their beliefs behind so as to be pleasing to Christ. Then there are those whose conversion is only cosmetic and the enter our Church with a view to change her and save others from her rigid, legalistics and as has recently be claimed, her sectarian nature. Oh well. I’ve said enough. God bless Grandpa. Have a wonderful holiday. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Yes, ginny, you’re the sort of Catholic who ensures that your church loses people in the West – so keep it up and you will help produce the ‘remnant church’ that many in the West foresee. Me and my house, we preach as Christ preached – he who is not against us is with us. Try it some time – it works – over the past forty years the Spirit has helped me bring hundreds of souls to Christ. If your method isn’t working, pray about why. I did.
LikeLike
But Geoffrey, if you claim to have brought some souls to Christ by your method and have led them any other place then the Catholic Church, you have led them astray and will have to answer for that when your time comes. God said He would build a single Church founded upon Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and Christ’s Vicar on earth. He did. It is still standing and very welcoming. If you teach anything else, you are deceiving those you preach to. You’ve led them away from the Church and that doesn’t bode well for anyone. You say I’m fibbing by sticking to the historical record in some instances recently, but if you consider the Gospel’s account history, as it is, then how do you interpret away the actual historical value of these events recorded by an eye witness to them? It would seem to me the interpretation you give is to satisfy your own personal intent: that is to remain away from the Church and see to it that others do as well. This is not good and cannot be glossed over. There is no charitable way to see it or speak of it. It certainly isn’t anything to brag about. But many do and are proud of the greater numbers than you have accumulated, of souls kept from Communion with Christ in His Church and union with all her members, militant, suffering and triumphant.
No, Geoffrey. What you expect is a very long winded apologetic of the historical facts regarding the unchallenged authority given to Peter right from the start and respected and preserved down thru the centuries. I do not have either the time nor the inclination to do so for you. If I placed say, 1000 words of reliable internet sources of proofs of these very historical facts here, you’d simply scoff and call them fibs and ignore them. This means you have absolutely no real desire for genuine ecumenism. You simply are here as an extension of your ministry to “save” folks. If I took the time and trouble to prove my point, you’d simply say you don’t believe it at all and call me a liar again and insult my Church more. So, why should I give you the opportunity to prove you have no intention of ecumenism? You aren’t. And you don’t. Your desire is simply to convert folks via your “method.”
God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLike
I suggest you try reading before you respond, it would make what you write more accurate.
Can you pinpoint where I made any claim for myself? I wrote that with the help of the Spirit I had been of some use to the Spirit – it is the Spirit who leads, not me, not you, not even the Pope. Your own church lacks a developed pneumatology, so I supose you can be forgiven for missing that point and reinterpretingin it incorrectly.
God did indeed say what you said, but the interpretation that he would build it on Peter as Bishop of Rome is a later interpretation accepted, oddly enough, only by Rome. It is one of many interpretations, and you, of course, have your own sectarian view of it; others take the view Jesus took, which is that those who are not against him are with him. I have never yet seen you or any other Catholic apologist discuss that one. This is one of the many reasons I engage with your group-think, which seems to me lacking in intellectual rigour.
To claim that the Petrine claims are unchallenged is very humorous of you, and now I have finished laughing at the group-think, let me point to an example of what I mean by suggestio falsi. This comes from the distinguished Orthodox Scholar, Professor John Meyendorff, discussing the usual catena cited by Catholics from St Cyyprian:
‘“Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage…For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops” (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).
Now, there is a distinguished Patristics scholar who comes from a tradition which never messed with the Creed and never changed anything, setting out, better than I can, my view. You might try to refute it; I look forward to it.
What I expect is what I don’t get from you, which is some attention to my arguments and some engagement with the facts. I have never yet, in many years of apologetics, refused to examine an argument or a set of readings. I have spent many years in ecumenical endeavours and find them most useful when all sides examone actual evidence and abandon theor habitual group-think.
As others who have been here far longer than you will confirm, not once have I attempted to prosletyse, I do that on Saturday mornings in all weather in the streets of local cities.
I have neither called you a liar, nor insulted your church.
My method is one yu cannot cope with – scholarship and intellect. I have consistently invited you to engage with the substance of what I say and have cconsistently received Boscoeque ad hominems to which I do not resort. Your own fellow Catholics have given you wise advice about how to proceed, you, as seems to be your pattern, refuse to listen.
I remain eager for you to engage with my arguments – you might start with the Meyendorff.
LikeLike
Good brother grandpa Zek, good sisterginny wins me as a friend for calling that heretic good brother Jeff a heretic.
LikeLike
Since you are also a heretic, by her standards, that seems to show that fundamentalists of all sorts can always agree on being sectarian; not really news you know.
LikeLike
Ginny, respectfully, I was not addressing the heresy of Islam in my comment. I was addressing the need to look to our own sins and not looking at those of others, as you have advised.
Thank you for the kind wishes for a happy holiday and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
LikeLike
Suit yourself, Bosco, but I gave up name calling a long time ago.
LikeLike
As do all really born again. Bosco, you can tell the really bron again from the loud mouths by this sign – if they are not against me, they are for me – now who said that and why do you and ginny agree on disagreeing with him?
LikeLike
Geoffrey, it would seem that as of 12:19pm this Thanksgiving Day, that you have clearly won this debate. But, I will consult with Dave over a great meal at his house and we may take up the challenge. But not today, plenty of naps during the football games will be required. Hope the Misses is doing well and Happy Thanksgiving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She’s fine Steve – and thanks for asking. I like to think of the pair of you replete with good food putting the world to rights between helpings of pumpkin pie! 🙂
LikeLike
Hey good brother Jeff, the Marys keep repeating that Peter was their first pope. I learned something the other day. There was a man who called himself Peter in Rome. Ill go into it in my answer to your lamblasting me below.
LikeLike
I suppose that doubt is simply one of many different ploys that Satan uses to undermine or destroy the zeal of faith. Though, for the saints, the ‘feelings’ of doubt (such as a ‘dark night of the soul’) are belied by the continuance in prayer and good acts by the strength of will alone. It is a grace where it ‘seems’ God has abandoned them but where God still sustains them without any consolation whatever. For those with such a perfect love of God, it is a purification. For those with notably less love of God, Satan may snatch these souls from Christ’s hands. “Lead me not into temptation” or more rightly not to submit to the temptations offered . . . and doubt is simply one of the more horrid temptations that men face in life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, but that’s folk who have come to know Jesus, of course. We do well not to rely on our own strength, but rest faithful in him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a paragraph that comes to mind written on the site Ignatian Spirituality:
There’s an old saying that we should “pray as if everything depends on God, work as if everything depends on you.” It’s been attributed to Ignatius (though there’s no evidence that he said it), and many think it captures the Ignatian spirit: turning it all over to God in prayer and then working tirelessly and urgently to do God’s work. I prefer to reverse it: “pray as if everything depends on you, work as if everything depends on God.” This means that prayer has to be urgent: God has to do something dramatic if everything depends on me. It also puts our work in the right perspective: if it depends on God, we can let it go. We can work hard but leave the outcome up to him. If God is in charge we can tolerate mixed results and endure failure.
http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/13274/work-as-if-everything-depends-on-god#sthash.3vyQvP2P.dpuf
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you, I like your way round – which also, to my mind, matches reality a bit better 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
As often happens when I read your posts, Geoffrey, these words are a healing balm for me today. I can’t analyze why this is or add or detract from you say. I merely want to say thank you for sharing your thoughts and faith with us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Concerning theodicy, I have personally never had any problem with the question of why God allows suffering. Lions chew the ears off lambs. It’s as natural as the way my donkeys chewed up the hygrometer I installed in their stable on Sunday: they thought it interesting, so they chewed it up. I have no philosophical issue with that. In the case of the stable weather station, there is still a thermometer and a barometer which the donkeys have not yet destroyed.
Why did God allow the donkeys to destroy the hygrometer? For one on the edge of doubt it could be the clincher. For me, not desperate to hang onto faith, nor looking for reasons to leave it, the destruction of the hygrometer is quite irrelevant.
Some may get my point… 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where was God in the Holocaust?
LikeLike
Same place He’s always been. He didn’t do that. People did.
LikeLike
Well David, you depress me. Geoffrey just answered you…the Cross of Christ. But if you go back just the last 100 years there are lots of opportunity to doubt. Syria and Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, Russia, WWII, WWI, and various revolutions and civil wars that I have never heard of. Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell. You either believe and have hope or you don’t. Christ told us His kingdom was not on earth, but in Heaven. That’s a very hard concept for my atheist friends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That my sarcastic question to the ABC. If he has a problem with the terrorists acts in Paris, he must be in a real mess about the Holocaust. He’s still a bird brain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God hid his face from the jews and allowed the holocaust. That’s what happens when god withdraws his hand of protection. Isaiah predicted the holocaust. It was no accident. The earth is in for another performance of the holocaust, only on a global scale.
Jesus….don’t leave home without him.
LikeLike
Good brother Jeff goes in and out of sanity. Me thinks he is bipolar. At one time he lamblasts the false religion, and the next second he extols it.
Ive been working in los angeles lately and didn’t have a computer, thankfully, and I was chanell surfing the radio and came across a station called Immaculate Heart Radio. A catholic station run by catholic.com……catholic answers. I listened to it many hours. Like many here and good sisterginny, most of their talk was how their church was founded by Christ. Over and over again that’s what they said, as if to convince themselves of it. They must have listened to Christian stations like the calvary station, because they sounded the same. They said the same stuff, which isn’t at all like the catholic church sounds like, but they have to put on a happy face to keep the people coming. But I noticed that even after all their mimicking the Christians, they never once said to ask Jesus for salvation. They would say that their sick sad sacrements were all that was needed for salvation. Even though they mimicked Christians, they were dry and dead, and a Christian could see thru that sheeps clothing real fast. But they sounded good. Catholics would pray for other people and good things would happen. God doesn’t see catholic…..he sees people. People gave testimony on how lives were transformed thru prayer, but they were still catholic. Satan works in many ways. One might become a good person thru prayer, but go to hell because he wasn’t born again. This catholic station would give a whole half hour every now and then to do this Hail Mary thing. Repeat it over and over again….hail Mary…blah blah, and then the false part……Holy mother of god, pray for us. They mix scripture with falsehoods……95% good food with 5 % poison. That’s how Satan kills now a days. Mormons, Jehovas, Marys, they all wave the bible around, but they don’t believe one gat danged word of it.
LikeLike
It’s a shame that, like others here, that in the absence of an actual argument, you resort to personal abuse. If you were educated, you’d know it is the sure and certain sign that you have no argument.
You seem not to be able to cope with complex thoughts. It clearly has not occurred to you that the reason that Catholic radio sounds like other Christian radio is that all are Christians. Being saved does not, alas, give some people, common sense. When you acquire some, let us all know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ive heard of Simon Magus befor but never looked into it except to know that he brought Babylonian pagan worship to Rome with him. Around Acts 8.10 or 11, Simon Magus sees Phillip doing miracles and preaching. Simon gets baptized and believes Phillip. But Simon wanted to do those miracles too and have a following unto himself. He wanted the glory of being a big spiritual leader. I think it was Peter and Paul that eventually ran Simon off , and Simon went to Rome and impressed some high official, or the Ceaser, something like that, and Simon was given a building or something to preach in. Simon was a sorcerer. So, he began his new Christian church in Rome and mixed it with OT rituals and Babylonian rituals. I believe Eusibeus and some other writer wrote of Simons doings once he got to Rome. Simon called himself Son of God and also called himself Simon Peter. It was this sorcerer Simon who started that Roman Christian Babylonian religion in Rome. And today it still is with us with all its Babylonian symbols and sorcery rituals. In short, the Marys do have a Simon Peter who started their religion in Rome.
LikeLike
Oh dear – go back to sleep. Where on earth did you get that pile of dung from? Yes there was a Simon Magus – he’s in the Bible, and yes he was seen off. The idea that the followers of those who saw him off would have followed him is, even by you standards, bonkers.
LikeLike
I usually forgive you for your hallucinations because of your advanced age. Whos said his Jerusalem followers followed him to Rome? not me. Simon went to Rome and got new followers. His new Christian pagan religion is still with us in all its Babylonian sorcery glory called the Church of Mary. Its deity is Semiramis, the mother child graven image. But the Marys have handy explanations why their religion is full of Babylonian symbols.
Good brother Jeff, you should stop coddling people who are in false religions. They will wake up in hell. Are you a watchman? If you are….sound the alarm.
LikeLike
I will take this very slowly, because you are very stupid. We know Paul went to Rome. On your version, Paul would have had to have said nothing about Simon Magus, no one in Rome would have heard of what is said in Acts, and they would have mistaken Simon Magus for Simon Bar-Jonah. Really? Do you really think any of that even possible? If so, seek help – an education might be a start.
LikeLike
Free lesson for old times sake.
Simon Magus called himself Simon Peter. No one mistook him for Peter….he said he was Peter and people believed it. People still believe falsehoods and claims by the religion he started.
There were lots of phoney sects and cults in Rome when Paul was there in prison. He didn’t feel moved to mention them. He wanted to help new believers in their faith. People like you coddle the unsaved. I am a watchman under orders to sound the alarm.
LikeLike
Lesson: find a serious history book which says this: lesson, there isn’t one. We know Peter was in Rome, so was Paul. You are so gullible that I suppose if you had been there you would have believed any old rubbish – you do now. But don’t judge everyone by your own standards of stupidity.
LikeLike
We know Peter was in Rome. Who is we?
LikeLike
Anyone who has read Irenaeus or any decent modern historian; as you’ve done neither, perhaps you should before coming here to moon us with your ignorance?
LikeLike
San Salvador (AFP) – A “well-loved” senior bishop in El Salvador who is also a prominent Church historian was Friday condemned by government officials and a rights organization after being accused of repeatedly raping a girl in the 1980s.
She told authorities and church officials that Delgado started raping her when she was a nine-year-old girl and continued until she was 17.
Delgado, who was ordained in 1962, was a prominent man of God in El Salvador.
He notably wrote a biography of a Salvadoran archbishop who was murdered during mass in 1980, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, and was in the front row at the Vatican a month ago to thank the pope for beatifying Romero earlier this year.
http://news.yahoo.com/el-salvador-condemns-bishop-accused-raping-girl-221819545.html
Of course he was in the front row at Vatican…….well done my faithful son….says Satan.
These false religion Men of God are not nice people. Follow them and wind up in hell with them.
LikeLike
And no other religion and no other man in any other profession, and no Protestant preacher ever did wrong? Which part of the Bible do you begin to understand. We are all sinners you idiot – even you. Sinners do bad things. Were it not so, Jesus would not have needed to hang on the tree. Ye gods and little fishes, you really do fit the stereotype of the Californian air head. A shame you’re not a pretty blonde, at least you’d have some use.
LikeLike
People do wrong all the time. But catholic priests and bishops are supposed to be holymen needed for salvation, and the devotees hang on their every word for salvation. They are priests of the most high god, they claim. The politician and the dog catcher and the grocer don’t claim to be able to dispense god and his salvation. Prot ministers don’t claim to be priests of god. When the dog catcher molests a little boy, he didn’t violate his office as a means for salvation. Im sounding the alarm.
Warning….catholic priests are not priests of god, but liars and priests of Satan. Do not go near them or support them.
LikeLike
Strawman fallacy anyone? Where does anyone, except you and your fellow bigots, say that Catholic priests are different from other men? You make this rubbish up, you set up the strawman and you knock it down. The reason that I, as someone who has know Jesus for more than sixty years know you are a fraud, is that Jesus never encourages his followers to tell lies. You lie, lie and lie again. You do Satan’s work willingly. I have warned you againa and again – I will not be allowed to dip my finger in water when you are burning. That is my warning to you – and when you are bruning in that lake you will wail and ask for messages to be sent to those you loved – that message has already be sent. When the day of wrath comes, you will recall this warning.
LikeLike
Catholic priests are no different from any other man…..ive always said that. As a matter of fact there are no catholic people, or budhist or Methodists. There are two kinds of people…..the saved and the unsaved.
LikeLike
Mkae your mind up. You first say they are different – so you can attack them, then you say this. Do you ever read what you have previously posted, or does it not matter because you are not serious?
LikeLike
Ive always said men are evil…so did Jesus. If I call priests evil, because they are, the playing field is still level. I am evil also. But im coverd I the blood of the Lamb.
LikeLike
We agree, so what’s with your strawman? You started off by pretending to believe that Catholic priests were purer than other men. I recommend you read what you’ve written before you contradict yourself.
God is love. Love is not found in your comments.
LikeLike
Sure I attack them. They cause my brothers to err.They are priests of Baal, and they push a queen of heaven on them.You don’t think people will find salvation praying to a female deity….do you?
Hell is forever.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks.
LikeLike
No, and I don’t think any other Christain does either. I guess if I were as ill-read as you I wouldn’t see that either.
LikeLike