[Kid Twist]

(06-30-2016 12:15 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

Kid Twist, some questions.

Quote:

So, what is the "point" of Christianity?

To grow in the understanding, eternally, of what it means to be human, shown to us in the Person of Jesus Christ, who defeated corruption and death.

Quote:

Did the eastern orthodox church also not split from the RCC?

No. This is evidenced by the EO churches never changing their creeds or teachings, or their ritual practices, and also being the original, ancient christians. No one else can claim any of these. And you only have 2 options, so the choice is easy :-)

Quote:

What is the view on salvation in the eastern orthodox church. Does salvation come by faith on Christ alone, or faith+works. From my understanding salvation in your church is a "process".

This is a great segue to how language and culture lock you into not being able to convey meaning. What is salvation (sotiria)? For that matter, what is "dispensation" [oikonomia]? These are greek terms. You can understand them without knowing Greek, but only if you have been taught what they MEAN.

Saving you is "making you whole" ie "your faith made you well" "your faith saved you". It is what delivers you from your enemies.

What is your enemy? DEATH! The last enemy! Why does that make you complete, whole, and pass you from what isn't right (decay and corruption in this world)? Because you were made to live forever, obedient to God who is the source of life --- that's who you really are!

Oikonomia is the "law of the house" that is, the plan that God has as the Authority of all creation.

I point these out because they cannot be disentangled from their own respective cultures and languages and understood. If you study any number of languages you become immediately aware of this fact and how complex it is!

Quote:

What exactly is wrong with sola scriptura? All this means is that you recognize the Bible, as the final authority on all matters. Not man's word, not church tradition, not your feelings, etc. It's an anchor that keeps you attached so you don't float away with the winds of cultural change like so many Christian and Catholic churches are.

First off, it was never a teaching of the church for 1500 years. If that isn't good enough for you, the bible itself never says that it alone should be a Quran, nor did any christian tradition teach that until the middle ages/enlightenment. Beyond that, it is and has always been a part of the church for the church's use. There is one church that hasn't floated away with the culture, and what's more, its interpretation of the Bible is accurate, because this church wrote the Bible. On what basis do you claim that you or your elder, not having received it from the Apostles, has a valid understanding of the Bible? You don't have one.

Quote:

What is your view on the Eucharist. Do orthodox men believe that bread and wine genuinely become the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ by some great holy mystery?

Another teaching that has never changed and has always been practiced by the church. You know the answer.

Quote:

You wrote one can read a Bible and not understand what it means because they don't speak Greek. Does that mean for someone to be properly be saved they must learn Greek and become Orthodox? That's like Muslims saying you need to learn Arabic to understand the Quran. Looking at the tower of Babel it's clear God wants different languages. That's why in Acts they were given the power to preach the Gospel in different languages to men of all nations. The King James Bible is crystal clear for English speakers.

I treated this subject above. The King James Bible isn't crystal clear anything. It is one of many translations; please note I'm not saying it is a bad one. But if you don't understand from my above examples how translations can WRITE IN (or OUT) theology (look at other translations), or how woefully inadequate they can be, I'm afraid you'll never understand. Even if you had all the words, you still need the framework to understand the story!!!

Quote:

You wrote earlier about people are tired of hearing about being damned to hell. Do actions not have consequences? Does the Bible not speak of hell more than it does of heaven? Is this not one of many reasons why we Christians feel compelled to give the gospel to save people from the wrath of God? Yes God is loving in that he paid the price and is wishing that none should perish. But as is written in Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God." For the wages of sin is death, and death outside of Christ means hell.

This topic would be better dealt with elsewhere. Suffice to say that when we are confronted with the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we will become very aware of who we are --- rebels or those that want to be part of God's life. It has nothing to do with punishment.

"Hell", whatever that is, will be locked from the inside.

[Khan]

(06-28-2016 11:19 PM)Beijong Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:54 PM)Khan Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:58 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

This liberal Marxist fucker - is this really what 1.2 Billion catholics stand for? It

Not entirely, but sadly the majority of people who declare themselves as Catholic will probably laud this move.

It really was just a matter of time, the Catholic Church is no more immune against subversion and infiltration of liberal/universalist values than any other institution. What is soon going to be decreed from above by the Pope (women grabbing power in the Church) has already taken place 'below'. Just visit any local Catholic parish, if you have the stomach for it, and you'll see a lot of them having their layman activities run by post-Wall women who live in sexless marriages. I'm speaking from experience because as a practicing Catholic, I've had some opportunities in the past to witness the growing degeneration within the Church.

Manly Catholic men such as Charlemagne, Jean de Vallette or Jan Sobieski are a thing of the past - instead, the modern, politically correct Catholicism of today has already begun to raise an army of schmucks. You'll hear from them more often in the years to come.

I haven't been to mass in 6 months. My priest recommended that we all go to a protestant service as a way to atone for our past intolelrance of protestants and that he would be going to X church X service. He wanted to bring a protestant minister as a guest speaker to the youth group I was running. He said we should pray for the same sex couples with adopted children because they're just as much of a family as a regular family. I haven't gone back, and a lot of people complained the the archbishop but he's still there slinging his stuff at the laiety.

Disgusting. Have you tried finding another priest in another parish?

I've done just that after having enough with the priest in my local parish. The guy is feminized, fat, has a weird fixation with Virgin Mary and speaks with an almost crying voice. I couldn't stand him anymore so I switched to another parish. It's run by Franciscans (huh, ironic isn't it) who hail from a mountainous region of my country, where people still retain conservative, patriarchal values.

Their sermons are much better as they're manly and strict to the point. Sometimes they'll yell at the congregation and debase leftists, homosexuals, 30+ careerist women with poodles, and other degenerates of our society. I've found those Franciscans to be much more to my liking.

[DamienCasanova]

To the surprise of no one, Pope Emeritus Benedict talks about the "gay lobby" in the Catholic's Church and their behind the scenes power play for control of the Church.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/benedict-tell...tml?ref=gs

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/memoirs-ex-pop...29237.html

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Former Pope Benedict says in his memoirs that no-one pressured him to resign but alleges that a "gay lobby" in the Vatican had tried to influence decisions, a leading Italian newspaper reported on Friday.

The book, called "The Last Conversations", is the first time in history that a former pope judges his own pontificate after it is over. It is due to be published on Sept. 9.

Citing health reasons, Benedict in 2013 became the first pope in six centuries to resign. He promised to remain "hidden to the world" and has been living in a former convent in the Vatican gardens.

Italy's Corriere della Sera daily, which has acquired the Italian newspaper rights for excerpts and has access to the book, ran a long article on Friday summarizing its key points.

In the book, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a "gay lobby" made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions. The article says Benedict says he managed to "break up this power group".

Benedict resigned following a turbulent papacy that included the so-call "Vatileaks" case, in which his butler leaked some of his personal letters and other documents that alleged corruption and a power struggle in the Vatican.

Italian media at the time reported that a faction of prelates who wanted to discredit Benedict and pressure him to resign was behind the leaks.

POPE'S DIARY

The Church has maintained its centuries-long opposition to homosexual acts.

But rights campaigners have long said many gay people work for the Vatican and Church sources have said they suspect that some have banded together to support each other's careers and influence decisions in the bureaucracy.

Benedict, who now has the title "emeritus pope," has always maintained that he made his choice to leave freely and Corriere says that in the book Benedict "again denies blackmail or pressure".

He says he told only a few people close to him of his intention to resign, fearing it would be leaked before he made the surprise announcement on Feb. 11, 2013.

The former pope, in the book-long interview with German writer Peter Seewald, says he had to overcome his own doubts on the effect his choice could have on the future of the papacy.

He says that he was "incredulous" when cardinals meeting in a secret conclave chose him to succeed the late Pope John Paul II in 2005 and that he was "surprised" when the cardinals chose Francis as his successor in 2013.

Anger over the dysfunctional state of the Vatican bureaucracy in 2013 was one factor in the cardinal electors' decision to choose a non-European pope for the first time in nearly 1,300 years.

Benedict "admits his lack of resoluteness in governing," Corriere says.

In the book, whose lead publisher is Germany's Droemer Knaur, Benedict says he kept a diary throughout his papacy but will destroy it, even though he realizes that for historians it would be a "golden opportunity".


Thanks for stepping aside and letting the gay lobby take over the Church there Benedict Arnold.

[Kid Twist]

More support of my points (and this isn't about me).

It's about you guys realizing and discerning what is "not of this world"

Benedict was an honest man, I always appreciated that. But it is supreme irony that he still called the EO churches "defective" in not recognizing a universalist Rome!

I wonder how he feels about that now ...

[redpillage]

(07-01-2016 12:14 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

In the book, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a "gay lobby" made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions. The article says Benedict says he managed to "break up this power group".

Alright, I haven't read the book and thus have no clue as to what they have on him. But if he had a choice - why did he leave? He was literally the head of the RCC and his resignation brought the bear the full force of cultural Marxists who are now clearly running it. It doesn't matter what books he writes now. He should have fought tooth and nail to prevent communists like Bergoglio from taking over.

He failed in his mission! And he failed the Roman Catholic Church.

Other popes have been embarrassed or demonized in the past. Tough luck. But there is one major difference between a pope and a politician. You can un-elect (i.e. fire) a politician. It's next to impossible to get rid of a pope unless you have fotos of him in bed with a dead hooker.

[redpillage]

(07-02-2016 05:59 AM)redpillage Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 12:14 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

In the book, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a "gay lobby" made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions. The article says Benedict says he managed to "break up this power group".

Alright, I haven't read the book and thus have no clue as to what they have on him. But if he had a choice - why did he leave? He was literally the head of the RCC and his resignation brought the bear the full force of cultural Marxists who are now clearly running it. It doesn't matter what books he writes now. He should have fought tooth and nail to prevent communists like Bergoglio from taking over.

He failed in his mission! And he failed the Roman Catholic Church. He failed all of us.

Other popes have been embarrassed or demonized in the past. Tough luck. But there is one major difference between a pope and a politician. You can un-elect (i.e. fire) a politician. It's next to impossible to get rid of a pope unless you have fotos of him in bed with a dead hooker.

[Orion]

(06-30-2016 07:48 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

Yes and hence why they find themselves in the precarious position of being ruled by technocrats and their countries invaded by what the Bible would refer to as strangers. All stemming from ignorance of scripture.

I was talking here about spiritual character. Positive, glorious civilizations were built and maintained before scripture was assembled.

[RexImperator]

I've mentioned the "gay lobby" in another thread. There was a Frontline documentary produced a few years ago ("Inside the Vatican" or something like that) which described a life of debauchery for some priests living in Rome.

[RexImperator]

It's actually "Secrets of the Vatican" and you can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/s...e-vatican/

TLDW: Just fast forward to 44:00 and watch for a few minutes if you want to throw up.

[Spectrumwalker]

(06-30-2016 03:31 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Quote:

What is your view on the Eucharist. Do orthodox men believe that bread and wine genuinely become the actual  and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ by some great holy mystery?

Another teaching that has never changed and has always been practiced by the church. You know the answer.

Yes. Unfortunately I do know the answer. And I wouldn't want to admit it either if I believed in it. The reason I ask this one question among others is it immediately brings into suspect other doctrines taught by the church. Like salvation most importantly. Obviously only what's in your heart concerning the Gospel is between you and God. I see how no man who says they believe on, honor and trust Jesus Christ as their savior can support or condone this doctrine. I fail to see how Bible believing Christians are "crypto papists" when the orthodox church still imitates the mother ship in many ways. And this is one thing the RCC used to burn people at the stake for preaching out against. The passage in John 6 is symbolic. All common sense does not go out the window when reading the Bible. This is not rocket science.

There is no higher blasphemy than transubstantiation or whatever you care to call it in the EOC. If a priest stands before a cracker and wine and ostensibly turns it in to the actual flesh and blood of Christ; that is witchcraft in ever sense of the word. They mock God; and God is not mocked. Only Satan takes pleasure in mocking God. In John 10:9, Jesus says "I am the door: by me if any man enter in he shall be saved...". Why don't the RCC, EOC, or any other blasphemous church that condones this make a door frame for their parishioners to pass through while they're at it before kneeling down to commit cannibalism. And per Leviticus 17 this is something God would not approve of.  Remember what goes in must come out. Next time you partake in the Eucharist and think to yourself you just actually drank the blood of Christ and you stop at the urinal on your way out to the parking lot remember what your pissing out.

You wrote that your church " wrote the Bible". No one church denomination can claim ownership of the Bible. The words of the Bible were given to us by God through, say again, through, men he selected, sanctified, and set apart to deliver us what we now have in the scriptures. It was not men giving us God's word, it was God giving us his words through men. They were the pens, but not the penman. Psalm 119:89 declares "Thy word, O Lord, is settled in heaven forever." The words of the scriptures already existed before the creation of the world.  Does the scripture not say in Luke 1 68-70 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began". Or 2 Peter 1:20-21, that "Knowing this that no prophecy of the scripture is of no private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Or in 2nd Peter 3:16 that " All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."? When you deny the Bible as God's inerrant word it opens you up to false doctrine. False doctrine like works salvation, eating Jesus Christ, or that hell is merely a "separation". I once fell for the Bible trashing liberal lies about hell and I'm still pissed about it. Where in the scriptures does it say copyright of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

If you are not "sola scriptura" you are essentially saying that the Bible, God's word to humanity is not good enough. You are doubting. And like I posted in another thread recently, it's not wrong to doubt. It's natural. But when you constantly rely on dead men's interpretation of the Bible, rather than the book itself shows your doubting so much you can't trust God at his word. Which if you rely on Bibles where the underlying manuscripts were found in a trash can or kept in a room at the Vatican I can understand. It's then you start relying on man's fallible philosophy and coming up with ludicrous doctrines. Ask yourself this question. Do you, or do you not believe in God's promise to preserve his words for all generations per Psalm 12.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

If you do your heart is probably in the right place and you trust that we do in fact have his inspired and preserved word in the completed Bible. If you don't, well, simply look around. Most churches are not sola scriptura. What exactly are any of the churches whether they be Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox doing to contend for the faith and bring people to Jesus Christ. Largely nothing because they're afraid to stand for the Bible as it is. Afraid of ridicule or losing their tax exempt status. If our faith is to survive the onslaught from all fronts it's going to be from men like us who have spines and are willing to stand ground, defend the Bible rather than a specific church. And preach the Gospel rather than apologize for a specific church. Put your allegiance to God and Country. If one believes the Bible, we already know how this ends. But this mission calls for sailing upwind, not downwind with the winds of the world like we are seeing now. Strive to fight the good fight, and bring people to Christ using the power of the scriptures. Don't deny them.

The point of Christianity, man, I don't even know what you said. The point was God himself redeeming the world and offering his sacrifice as a free gift for anyone willing to believe and trust so that they may be made righteous upon death and go to heaven. For us to rest in the finished work of Christ. Don't be telling people they need to speak Greek. God gave us the commandment to preach the gospel to all nations. All nations do not speak Greek. If you tell someone that, they'll be rolling their eyes and dismissing the Gospel before you even get a chance because they simply will not want to put in the effort to understand "the meaning". There is a beautiful simplicity to salvation, but it is by no means easy. Don't make it any harder.

[Orion]

The end game of "sola scriptura" dogma is complete theological fatalism. Since scripture is evidently unreliable, contradictory, discontinuous, then the only honest conclusion of an honest adherence to "sola scriptura" belief is that "nothing is certain", which pretty much describes the fatalist, defeatist, ultra rigid and dogmatic worldview of majority of Evangelicals, who are sometimes so stretched as to be forced to defend completely opposing viewpoints.

Such religious inflexibility in Evangelicals is considered as a cause for celebration among them, but to the outsiders it appears often as self-destructing.

[Mercenary]

Even God is pissed off with this pope now.
He feel over today during mass in Poland.

Different angle, where you can see it better:

[WalterBlack]

'Not my Pope' hashtag highlights French divisions

Quote:

When Pope Francis made a comment about terrorism and Islam it was bound to get attention. However, the sentiments expressed by the man who has been described as the "world's most popular leader", was not welcomed by all.

Speaking onboard the papal plane as he returned to Rome from Poland, the Pope told reporters why he doesn't uses the word "Islam'' when discussing terrorism.

"It's not right to identify Islam with violence. It's not right and it's not true,'' he said. "I believe that in every religion there is always a little fundamentalist group.'' And referring to organised crime in Italy, he added: "These are baptised Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic violence.''


It was the mention of Catholicism that caught the eye of one French social media user @HaussmannParis who tweets extensively about Catholic issues and has written several critical blogs about Islam. It inspired @HaussmannParis - who Trending has approached for comment - to create the hashtag #PasMonPape which translates as "not my Pope". A hashtag which within hours became the number one trend in France, which has suffered several Jihadist terror attacks in recent weeks.

The Pope is such a coward and a cunt - where the fuck are the Catholic terrorists he's on about?!

I'm not a Christian, but even I recognise that the leader of a religion should defend the religion, and stand for its principles. This guy is a gay loving faggot.

Pope Benedict was not pro Islam:

Quote:

The Regensburg lecture or Regensburg address was delivered on 12 September 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he had once served as a professor of theology. It was entitled "Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections" (German: Glaube, Vernunft und Universität — Erinnerungen und Reflexionen). The lecture is considered to be among the most important papal statements on world affairs since John Paul II's 1995 address to the United Nations, and sparked international reactions and controversy.

In his lecture, the Pope, speaking in German, quoted a passage about Islam made at the end of the 14th century by Manuel II Palaiologos, the Byzantine emperor. As the English translation of the Pope's lecture was disseminated across the world, the quotation was taken out of context and many Islamic politicians and religious leaders protested against what they saw as an insulting mischaracterization of Islam.

Mass street protests were mounted in many Islamic countries, the Majlis-e-Shoora (Pakistani parliament) unanimously called on the Pope to retract "this objectionable statement".[3] The Pope maintained that the comment he had quoted did not reflect his own views, and he offered an apology to Muslims.[citation needed]

The controversial comment originally appeared in the 7th of the 26 Dialogues Held With A Certain Persian, the Worthy Mouterizes, in Anakara of Galatia,[4] written in 1391 as an expression of the views of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, one of the last Christian rulers before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire, on such issues as forced conversion, holy war, and the relationship between faith and reason. The passage, in the English translation published by the Vatican, was:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

[Kid Twist]

(07-03-2016 09:31 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

The point of Christianity, man, I don't even know what you said.

This sums up your post.

I can thoughtfully and extensively show you where your above post is in error time and time again, but your tone and derogatory attitude to ancient, classic christian teachings and practices reveals that you have no interest in learning about the ancient, original christian church.

What's more, your authority comes from nowhere. And nothing, but your own vain delusions. You should really think about that for a long, long time. If the pillar and foundation of truth is the church (1 Tim 3:15) then you must seek to find the true church in the best way you know how.

You, my friend, are not the church --- and your statements prove it, thinking you could just wake up in 20th or 21st century America and understand the bible at your own whim(s). You have to be a member of the body, and have understanding of it in this light, to have foundation of the truth, which is a person, who is Jesus Christ.

What this has to do with "salvation" is an entirely different issue. So don't go jumping to that, which is another frailty and trap of this culture and time (as well as protestant understanding) that you seem inescapably linked to.

Open your heart and mind.

[DamienCasanova]

Pope Cuck pushes for Female Clergy

http://www.france24.com/en/20160802-vati...ch-deacons

Pope Francis on Tuesday appointed a special commission to examine the role of female deacons in the Church, in a potentially historic opening on the possibility of women joining the clergy.

The 13-member commission, made up of seven men and six women, will study the question of female deacons with a particular focus on the history of women having played this role in the early years of the Church, the Vatican said in a statement.

The move follows a pledge made by Francis in May during a question-and-answer session with members of female religious orders.

Advocates of women serving as deacons have long argued that they are pitifully under-represented in the Church's hierarchy and decision-making processes.

Allowing women to enter the clergy at a rank just below a priest would represent a first step towards correcting this imbalance, they argue.

They also insist there is no theological obstacle to the move because of the precedent established by women performing the role in the early centuries of Christianity.

Francis said in May that he was unclear about the history and that it "would do good for the Church to clarify this point."

He made it clear however that he did not see women becoming priests, an option that was categorically rejected by one of his predecessors, Pope John Paul II, following a 1994 study.

The Vatican did not set a date for the commission to begin work or a deadline for it to reach conclusions.

[Kid Twist]

The first things article on women deacons in the church

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusive...en-deacons

exposes the oft brought up story for what it is.

The fact is, there is no liturgical need whatsoever for women in any capacity than currently already undertaken --- and they are already valuable members of the body.

This (insert adjective) pope has absolutely no ability in discerning what's really going on, and that's why he is so damaging. Even granting these requests or tantalizing them with suggested advancement is doing a disservice to the tradition and culture.

Then again, as I've argued, it is the reason why the RC church has lost, and will continue to lose people --- it has been entrenched in politics for a long, long time now and its proclivity towards putting people in places like Jorge Bergoglio always leads to greater and greater dangers, which is what this thread is about.

[Ghost Tiger]

This pope is not incompetent, he's evil. Like Mrs. Bill Clinton, he hides behind the veneer of incompetence. He is all in with the globalists. He's a money-changer in the temple. It's time to bust up a few benches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

[Captainstabbin]

(08-04-2016 10:14 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

This (insert adjective) pope has absolutely no ability in discerning what's really going on

False or Anti are two good ones that come to mind. I resisted sedevacantism for a long time but current departure from traditional teaching is too overt. I'm beginning to doubt whether or not he's really even a priest.

[Spectrumwalker]

(08-02-2016 04:00 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I can thoughtfully and extensively show you where your above post is in error time and time again, but your tone and derogatory attitude to ancient, classic christian teachings and practices reveals that you have no interest in learning about the ancient, original christian church.

Well, when a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, whoever can actually provide a good Biblical defense for things like eating Jesus Christ maybe I'll listen. But there is none. You guys give serving God a whole new meaning. Doing some hocus pocus and serving him on a dish to be consumed and digested by the congregation. Until then I'll go ahead and gladly keep my mind closed. My tone comes from being justifiably angry over false doctrines hoodwinking people and keeping them lost and unsaved from the wrath of God. Like when I used to hold the theory that hell only meant to be "a little further from God". That happened because I allowed myself to be influenced by teachings of men, and not the Bible itself. Never again.

Deuteronomy 8:3 is the first place to mention that man can not live by bread alone, but we need every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. This is again reitered by Christ when being tested by Satan. How can we as men live with our spiritual needs met if we do not have God's words? We do have them. And if one believes we have them, they must be defended now more than ever.
The Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith.
All scripture, not some scripture, not old scripture, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine.

Original Christian Church. Talk about vain deception.

[dispenser]

The few benefits the Church brought were all about male domination.

Take male domination away, and all you're left with is suicidal asceticism and self-destructiveness, also known as "selflessness."

Some complain about the political, social, and economic power of the Church, but as far as I'm concerned, those were its saving graces.

All the flowering of art, music and architecture the Church brought couldn't have happened without the domination of rich and powerful men.

And now, it's turning into the Green Party for eunuchs.
The Church of Michelangelo will probably be commissioning Malinese basket weavers and Down's Syndrome finger painters for its new art.

[Kid Twist]

(08-06-2016 07:30 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 04:00 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I can thoughtfully and extensively show you where your above post is in error time and time again, but your tone and derogatory attitude to ancient, classic christian teachings and practices reveals that you have no interest in learning about the ancient, original christian church.

Well, when a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, whoever can actually provide a good Biblical defense for things like eating Jesus Christ maybe I'll listen. But there is none. You guys give serving God a whole new meaning. Doing some hocus pocus and serving him on a dish to be consumed and digested by the congregation. Until then I'll go ahead and gladly keep my mind closed. My tone comes from being justifiably angry over false doctrines hoodwinking people and keeping them lost and unsaved from the wrath of God. Like when I used to hold the theory that hell only meant to be "a little further from God". That happened because I allowed myself to be influenced by teachings of men, and not the Bible itself. Never again.

Deuteronomy 8:3 is the first place to mention that man can not live by bread alone, but we need every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. This is again reitered by Christ when being tested by Satan. How can we as men live with our spiritual needs met if we do not have God's words? We do have them. And if one believes we have them, they must be defended now more than ever.
The Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith.
All scripture, not some scripture, not old scripture, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine.

Original Christian Church. Talk about vain deception.

Spectrum, I'll be charitable and try one (probably final) time. If the "Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith" and it is a book with a profound, complicated history which requires so many levels of hermeneutics, on what basis do you have the authority to say that your interpretation is the correct one? What authority would you have to tell someone else that they have the wrong one? The problem is (and you dodged this question last time) that you don't have an answer to that critically important question. You just keep bringing up the Bible as authority when you yourself have no basis on which to judge any given interpretation of it!

In Luke 10:26, a lawyer asks Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life. This response by Jesus condemns your position, spectrum. The answer is, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"

This question by Jesus proves that a) there were many existing interpretations by the Jews at the time, and it was important how one read it, how one rightly understood it. By deduction it also shows that b) there is a proper way to do so. What's more, he continues with a parable to illustrate what it means to "live".

The Ethiopian Eunuch also asked, "How can I understand the scriptures unless someone guides me?"

These concepts are obvious to any free thinker out there.

The Bible isn't a Quran that just fell out of the sky, telling us what to do each and every step of our life. You treat it as such. Yet even that constructionist, literal syllable by syllable [false] "revelation" had interpreters over the years. How much more should a book that was created by the Church for the church's use liturgically and foundationally be interpreted within the proper framework!

Finally, you know very well that John 6 is the clear indication of the holy mysteries for liturgical use for the body of the church. But what's worse, beyond your not admitting that the church always had the same understanding of this teaching from the earliest days (which is a proof in itself that it is a true and correct one) you stop reading.

John 6:66 states, "After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him." Earlier they complained it was a "hard teaching."

If he was just kidding, why was it a hard teaching? Why didn't he correct them in their lack of understanding of what the teaching was? Why did they reject the teaching and then "no longer went about with him."

They are you, my friend.

Every point betrays you, tradition, continuity, even your OWN value on interpreting scripture. Yours makes no sense on every level. I say this to be firm because it is the truth, and it has been proven several times here. Of this topic, I will speak [write] no more.

[The Beast1]

(08-06-2016 07:30 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 04:00 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I can thoughtfully and extensively show you where your above post is in error time and time again, but your tone and derogatory attitude to ancient, classic christian teachings and practices reveals that you have no interest in learning about the ancient, original christian church.

Well, when a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, whoever can actually provide a good Biblical defense for things like eating Jesus Christ maybe I'll listen. But there is none. You guys give serving God a whole new meaning. Doing some hocus pocus and serving him on a dish to be consumed and digested by the congregation. Until then I'll go ahead and gladly keep my mind closed. My tone comes from being justifiably angry over false doctrines hoodwinking people and keeping them lost and unsaved from the wrath of God. Like when I used to hold the theory that hell only meant to be "a little further from God". That happened because I allowed myself to be influenced by teachings of men, and not the Bible itself. Never again.

Deuteronomy 8:3 is the first place to mention that man can not live by bread alone, but we need every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. This is again reitered by Christ when being tested by Satan. How can we as men live with our spiritual needs met if we do not have God's words? We do have them. And if one believes we have them, they must be defended now more than ever.
The Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith.
All scripture, not some scripture, not old scripture, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine.

Original Christian Church. Talk about vain deception.

The eucharist is a ritual loaded with symbolism. One could try and explain why it says, " this is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, given and shed for you" however your complaints really stem from bad religious leaders who haven't explained the bible and its stories' properly.

I had a pastor once who pulled me to the side and told me that he believed that it was the body and blood of jesus christ in a different spiritual realm one not bound by the physical. He believed that the realm was what drove our emotions (his personal belief).

He told me he has to keep his sermons, lessons, and stories easily palatable because most people wouldn't appreciate nor understand the real gritty aspects of biblical theology and the symbolism behind the rituals.

Do your own research with an open mind. Read the new testament and then if you're into stranger bites check out the gnostic texts and translations. The journey and lessons are there for you to discover.

[DamienCasanova]

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/08/02/yes-...-the-head/


Yes, Antipope Bergoglio is Maneuvering to Set Up a “One World Religion” with Himself as the Head

In review, and in the interests of making absolutely certain that we are all thinking and reasoning from the firm foundation of a TRUE PREMISE or premises:

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger submitted an invalid resignation in February of ARSH 2013, predicated upon the error that the Papacy could be bifurcated or in any way shared or expanded. The relevant Canon is Canon 188, which states very plainly and succinctly:

Canon 188
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Last week, one of the most prestigious Vatican journalists, an Italian named Sandro Magister, published a piece called “A ‘Pontificate of Exception’. The Mystery of Pope Benedict Against the Antichrists who are undermining The Church.” In this piece, the VERY influential and respected Magister quotes Italian Canon Lawyer Guido Ferro Canale at length, who honed-in on a very specific German term used by Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein in late May: “Pontificate of Exception”, or “Ausnahmepontifikat”. Canale argues persuasively that Ratzinger may have thrown the Petrine Office into a suspended state of juridical emergency.

Magister also quotes Ganswein at length showing that Ratzinger STILL BELIEVES himself, and RESIGNED WITH THE INTENTION of continuing to BE THE POPE.

Since there is and can only ever be a maximum of one pope alive on earth at any given time, this means that Ratzinger, given his invalid resignation made in substantial error per Canon 188, is still the one and only Pope, and Bergoglio is an Antipope.

The See is NOT vacant. The reality is precisely the opposite of sedevacantism. And yet, as I fully expected, ANY questioning of Bergoglio’s status is characterized and lumped-in and discredited with howling accusations of sedevacantism. Those suffering from the vice of effeminacy, and its direct corollary, the vice of human respect, are certainly cowed by this tactic. All I can do is shake my head.

Given Bergoglio’s massive list of heresies and crimes against God and His Holy Church, which continue to expand on a near-daily basis, the fact that he is, in fact, NOT the Vicar of Christ, NOT the pope, brings clarity and logic to the situation, and allows for some anticipation of Bergoglio’s agenda and actions in light of prophecy.

HEAR THIS WELL:

The true scandal is NOT the fact that an Antipope has arisen, but the continued attempt to reconcile the FALSE PREMISE that Bergoglio is the Pope to the reality. The countless millions of souls who are being ratified in their sins by Bergoglio, fed false and heretical doctrine, or being driven to despair by him; the souls being scandalized unto eternal damnation are so scandalized precisely because he is being erroneously NAMED, and in being erroneously named, imparted with an authority which he does not have.

Names matter. A lot. This is why The Most Holy Name of Jesus has a feast unto Itself. This is why Peter’s confession of Jesus as “The Christ, the Son of the Living God,” in response to Our Lord’s question, “Who do you say that I am?” is one of the pivotal moments in the Gospel. This is why Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, why Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, This is why Our Lord Himself changed Simon’s name to Peter, and Saul’s name to Paul – to indicate a change in their being. This is why angels were sent to convey the NAMES of both John the Baptist, and, of course, Our Lord Himself. NAMES MATTER.

Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the pope. Joseph Ratzinger is the pope – Pope Benedict XVI. “Pope Francis” is a fiction, and thus all of the scandal and damage that this wicked man Jorge Bergoglio is wreaking is, at its core, a function of the fact that we are calling him by a false name. We all know that it is a wicked lie to call Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn”, because to do so is to assent to a lie. If we can all understand the gravity and scandal of a z-list celebrity and madman calling himself a woman, how much more grave is it to call a man who is NOT the Vicar of Christ, “the Pope?”

What it is high time people start discussing openly is the distinct possibility that Antipope Bergoglio is the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist. Students of End Times prophecy tell us that The Antichrist will neither be the pope (obviously), nor even APPEAR to be the pope. BUT, the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist could certainly APPEAR to be “a pope”. And if one thinks about it, it makes perfect diabolical sense for the False Prophet Forerunner to be precisely that – an antipope. He would wield the authority of Peter, auto-destruct the institutional Church, and even establish a false, apostate church, a “one world religion” with himself at its head, all in preparation for the coming of The Antichrist, who will be a secular leader that attempts to deify himself. And if the False Prophet Forerunner were an antipope, the Holy Ghost would be “kept out of the way” with regards to the graces and protections of the Petrine Office. This is why Bergoglio spews heresy on a near-daily basis. It isn’t because The Holy Ghost is failing, or has forsaken the Petrine Office or the Church. It is because Bergoglio is not the pope. It really is that simple.

What I am now convinced Antipope Bergoglio is doing is attempting to draw “all peoples unto himself” and coalesce his power in preparation for the unveiling of a “one world religion” which will ultimately be the client of a “one world government”. This has been the stated goal of Freemasonry for these last 300 years, manifested in the United Nations, the European Union, and the regime now occupying Washington D.C., and now we see the open and aggressive drive to dissolve all international borders, both conceptually and physically, with Antipope Bergoglio as its primary propagandist. This has also been foretold in countless prophecies.

I suspect that Bergoglio will either call an Ecumenical Council, Vatican III, or promulgate a new Ordo Missae, that is, a new “unifying” Rite for the new “one world religion”, OR BOTH.

This is why Antipope Bergoglio is attempting to lure into a clear ambush and trap the Society of St. Pius X (The SSPX).

This is why Antipope Bergoglio is viciously attacking and destroying the very few remaining orthodox Catholic monastic communities.

This is why Antipope Bergoglio has already ratified sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion by Catholics in unrepentant mortal sin, is going to open reception of Holy Communion to Lutherans, and then all Protestants, and then eventually EVERYONE, beginning later this year in Lund, Sweden.

This is why Antipope Bergoglio is one of the world’s leading apologists for islam, and just a few days ago referred to ALL “religions” as “we”.

This is why Antipope Bergoglio is ramping up the obvious Freemasonic-Marxist-Communist-Satanic rhetoric about a “new humanity” – because a “new humanity” is going to need a “new religion”, and a “new world order”.

Stay tuned to this space in the coming days for an open letter of fraternal warning from me to the prelates, priests and faithful of the SSPX, as well as the text of the upcoming massively heretical Lutheran Revolt Commemoration in Lund, Sweden on October 31, that Antipope Bergoglio will be co-officiating, in which the Eucharist Itself is target number one.

Mary, Mother of The Church, pray for us.
St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, pray for us.

Christ, have mercy on us.

[Kid Twist]

Damien, this is the inevitable conclusion of the RC schism from the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Your complaints prove it.

You have the choice to either remain and complain, or just find the true church that's always been the same and never changed. Don't do it because some guy on an internet forum said so, do it because it's obviously the truth.

[Spectrumwalker]

(08-08-2016 10:30 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

The eucharist is a ritual loaded with symbolism. One could try and explain why it says, " this is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, given and shed for you" however your complaints really stem from bad religious leaders who haven't explained the bible and its stories' properly.

Do your own research with an open mind. Read the new testament and then if you're into stranger bites check out the gnostic texts and translations. The journey and lessons are there for you to discover.

TheBeast, hey man. The Bible is 1,530 pages from beginning to end. A man can spend an entire lifetime getting to know the book. Everytime it's opened, one can learn something new. Personally I've put in my dues with the Bible. On my own, and with different denominations when I went down the rabbit hole. But the best Bible teachers, or religious leaders, one can learn the most from are in independent Baptist churches. I highly recommend them to anyone seeking to truly know the scriptures inside and out and the men and women are very switched on. Or shall we say "red pill" for lack of a better term. Services are high energy and focus on unapologetically preaching from the Bible; and seem to be the only ones dedicated to hitting the streets and knocking doors keeping in line with the great commission. Not wasting time with seemingly endless rituals followed by a low energy sermon where one is lucky to not hear the priest talk out of his own ass. Baptists are not protestants, make no mistake about it. Baptists are all independent of one another not unifying under a denomination as to avoid top down destruction where Christ is the head of the church (congregation), and the Bible (King James, in English countries) as the final authority. Baptist churches most likely resemble early Christianity from 33 AD on until Romanism hijacked everything and forever paganised the Gospel and spawned all sorts of other perversions. Who Baptised Jesus? What was the title God gave John? John the Catholic? The methodist? The Orthodox? Nay, John the Baptist. A 10 year old raised in a Baptist church probably has more knowledge of the Bible than the last five Popes. As far as Gnostic texts are concerned, I believe there is no way those are inspired scriptures, when compared to the real books. Same with the Apocrypha. They are almost comical. Muslims advocate the gnostic texts to prove Islam when it's clear they are most likely Jewish or Islamic forgeries to try and discredit Christ.

My complaint with the Eucharist is fully warranted. Denominations that teach the "real presence" of Christ are also all guilty of teaching works salvation. Even Lutherans, albeit subtly. I'm an ex Anglican who was suspiciously never told this about communion. And when I did learn this is what the priests were "doing", I walked out the door, and didn't look back. Most Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans whatever genuinely have no idea just what their leaders are ostensibly doing up at the front. Because the parishioners are not told, and they aren't told for a reason. It is a vile and blasphemous doctrine, and there's no excuse for it. Some denominations out there, like Baptists, when sharing in the Lord's Supper are clear in their stance that the bread and wine (or juice) is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. As it should be, like Christ said. In remembrance. He didn't tear off a piece of his skin and have his disciples eat it. But Orthodoxy, among others, is not saying it's only symbolism. No, they are saying that their priests, by some holy powerful mystery, are literally making the bread and wine literally become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ himself. It defies common sense, it's clearly a perversion of scripture and it's witchcraft. God made man. But here we see priests proclaiming to make God and have him be eaten? Does this even sound appropriate? No, it's twisted! I ask any man who partakes in the Eucharist, does the wine taste like blood? Does the little wafer taste like human flesh? No it does not. Because the priests are liars. If the Bible is true, and Satan does in fact exist, I'm sure he's got to be rolling on his back laughing at this. Serving the blood of Christ that took away the sins of the world in a cup to be consumed and pissed out is mocking God. How anyone can even begin to make a rationalisation for this is beyond me. Like I said earlier, there is no higher blasphemy. I can't say for certain based on what you said, but it says like you are in defense of this doctrins. With all respect, it is your religious leaders that promote these practices who must be looked at with skepticism. Luke 20:45 "Beware of the scribes which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts....the same shall receive greater damnation."

More Muslims are aware of this doctrine than actual practicing Catholics and Orthodox. This is something they use to mock Christianity and keep their brethren away by showing that Christians are pagans who think they have to eat God. One of the main reasons they think that God would not make himself a man is because of the simple fact that then God would have to defecate. Because they do not believe God would dishonor himself that way. How then will they be receptive to believing the Gospel if they're being told they have to eat and drink God which would then logically entail that they must also excrete God?? Not gonna happen. No doubt Islam is pure wicked and evil. But credit must be given to Muslims. Jihadist throat slicers aside, Muslims have discipline and strength with their religion. They have unwavering belief in their "holy book". Something that has been purposely bred out of Christian men. Muslims who do see through the lies of Mohammed and can drop their tribal blinders after seeing their faith used as a tool of the Marxists, i.e. Satanists, often bring those qualities with them and become fiercely dedicated Christians. Almost to the point of being revengeful towards Islam and the left. We need strength. If we can't physically block them, or make Islam illegal, we can at least try and convert them. And it is much easier when they are told "no, don't worry, you don't have eat the creator of the universe as a snack on Sundays."

Consuming blood is forbidden in Leviticus. (Lev 17:13-14). The God of the OT, is the God of the NT. Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not...". If God didn't want people drinking blood in Levitical times, he doesn't now. Let alone his blood in his own house. John 6:56 where this all starts, is an illustration. Earlier in verse 33, Christ says "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world". He was referring to himself. He goes onto talk about the manna. And then in v51 he says "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Was Jesus literally calling himself a piece of bread? Come on. He's foreshadowing his own sacrifice and death. A sacrifice to die in the place of sinners which would grant them eternal life if they choose to believe in him. John 6:47 "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." His conversation with the woman at the well. Did he give her an actual cup of water? Did he literally call himself a door in John 10:9? He's referring to the gift of eternal life in his name only by his blood sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. Same in John 6.

@Kid Twist. Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, plainly teaches that faith must be accompanied by works and adherence to the sacraments to achieve "theosis". Salvation is not a process. Matthew 24:13 that Catholics and Orthodox refer to, is not about salvation. It's a tribulation passage about the already spiritually saved Christians literally being physically saved from violent persecution in the end days at the second coming. Acts 16:30-31, "... Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT be saved, and thy house." When one believes on Jesus in his heart he is saved at that moment after being born again of the spirit. Nothing else must be done, and that man will be justified and given the gift of eternal life with God. Salvation is by faith not by works lest any man should boast. Therefore, the EOC is not, was not, has not been, nor ever will be the original Christianity. 1 Peter 1:18 "For as much as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." The moment a man puts his faith in his own hands, or something other than Jesus Christ, that man has rendered the blood of Christ irrelevant and is an unbeliever. Muslims make no apologies that they are working their way to heaven by keeping the pillars and doing righteous deeds. If a Christian man is working to prove his salvation and go to heaven, that leaves little difference between the religions other than different books. That's why Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims all share almost the same answers when asked if they know if they are going to heaven when they die. Muslims being driven to the point of heinous acts to try and prove their worthiness because of the wretchedness that's in their book. Look at the perfection of the universe, of life, and the natural world. Is there anything a man can do, any amount of works, righteous deeds, or rituals he can do to prove himself to a Holy God that created all of this? Never, not even if you spend every waking hour of your life trying. You will always fall short of the glory of God because all have. None is righteous. Ecclesiastes 7:20, "There is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." God bridged the gap for us to bring us back to him; to fullfill the scriptures. And to fulfill God's purpose of creating us, (Isaiah 43:7).

John 6:28-29 "Then said they unto him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him who he hath sent." Getting saved from the wrath of God and being justified in his eyes should be easy. People make it harder than it needs to be and take the simplicity out of it keeping people lost. Giving the Gospel is not really bringing glad tidings of good things if man must continually work and wonder if he is justified in the eyes of God for a free gift that guarantees you eternal life in Jesus Christ is it? 1 John 5:11 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." If you deny the record, you're denying God. Orthodoxy is in denial, teaching it's adherents that the blood of Christ was not sufficient and that each must strive for this so called theosis.

Mark 7:7-8 " Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do." Though that was spoken to the Pharisees, he may as well have been foreshadowing future Christian denominations. There seems to be a growing admiration of Orthodoxy, which on one hand is a good sign that people may be beginning to understand the necessity of faith and forgiveness as we grow and enter different stages of our lives as men to answer the timeless questions of our existence. Orthodoxy on the surface can appeal to the masculine soul with it's traditions, hierarchy, and mystique. But it is not Biblically sound. Men must be careful of what exactly is being taught, always referring to scripture first and doing their due diligence. Mark 8:36 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul." There's not a whole lot options. The Bible is either right or wrong. Either we cease to exist if it all was bogus. Or we go to heaven or hell for eternity. In worst case scenario Islam is true (lol), and we're all screwed. If we believe in a God who gave us life in this universe, it would make sense that he can also handle successfully getting us his clear unaltered message. We can not live by bread alone, but need every word that proceeds from him. Scripture makes it clear that broad and wide is the way that leads to destruction, and strait and narrow is the way to life. God knew perversions of the Gospel would arise. At the great white throne, who is it that he says he NEVER knew. People who prophecied in Christ's name and trusting on their work and vain rituals, and not only in Jesus Christ. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6. The only hope we have as men to be justified is faith...trust...in Christ and Chist alone. Recognizing he paid our debt which he did not owe. If hell is real, it will be filled with left wing atheist SJW'S. Imagine burning alongside SJW'S for eternity. F that, I can't even stand to look at them from the other side of the street. This is nothing to be taken lightly.
If one does not believe in hell, he's either in denial, or ignorant of scripture. It's not fun to think about, but alas it is what is written. Otherwise, what do we even need a savior for?

This thread and headlines like it wouldn't exist if Christian men adopted a "because the Bible says so and that's final" attitude and actually took a stand. Scripture is clear as day on women in pastoral roles, yet Catholic, and Episcopalian buffoon leaders sit around pontificating in their robes and skull caps like it's some great mystery. They can figure out how to turn Christ into a cracker but have to actually think about what to do with ordaining women. Get outa here, complete fools they are. If Muslims can believe in the inerrancy and respect the Quran which is a jumbled incoherent mess, we know we can believe in the Bible which is powerful, beautiful, and congruent from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. If you're a man whose pissed, it's time to abandon the poodle churches who roll over on their backs and have no regard for the Bible and vote with your feet. Churches where the leaders wear dresses and want to be called fathers. Start being Rottweiler's; protecting and proclaiming what's ours. Giving the Gospel to our brethren at home and around the world in the war for the souls of men to save them from hell. To serve as a a roadblock for Globalism as nothing makes those people froth at the mouth more so than Jesus Christ and his people.

TL;DR Take a stand.