Ask Me Help Desk - Could the Catholic Church be EVIL?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

Yes, they can...and they do every day. Just look at all of the garbage in this thread.

There are just too many Anti's out there that are more interested in bashing someone for what they THINK they believe then digging into history and reality to see that the differences are far less than they realized.

Let's all try some Ecumenical Apologetics instead of judging others.

And what do you call your church keeping idols? Is that God's will? I love the fact that you don't even mention it. Is there any reason to worship idols when according to God we shouldn't? God said "You should have no gods before me" gods with lower g, there is one God, but you guys have gods! In other words, not the real God, creator God, but gods that can't speak or do anything because according to the Creator they are "worthless". Isn't that more like God's thinking rather than our own thinking? According to the bible, isn't it clear that people who worship, bow down to, and praising idols show hate to God?(Ex 20:4) and you have the guts to say "there are just too many anti's?" when the church you belong to practice these things that are detestable and hated by Creator God? Isn't idolatry an ANTI-CHRIST act as well, and yet your church is known for that?

Open your eyes, see things from Christ's point of view rather than from the church's point of view.

Catholics do not worship idols.

Again, you're just spouting anti-Catholic rhetoric that you've been taught.

Bash bash bash but don't answer questions or back claims. That's the only way Anti's can work since they're not arguing from fact or truth. You're not interested in learning what Christians have done for the past 2000 years... you're just interested in bashing Catholics.

In the event you want to read some truth, read this:
Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

Catholics do not worship idols.

Again, you're just spouting anti-Catholic rhetoric that you've been taught.

Bash bash bash but don't answer questions or back claims. That's the only way Anti's can work since they're not arguing from fact or truth. You're not interested in learning what Christians have done for the past 2000 years...you're just interested in bashing Catholics.

In the event you want to read some truth, read this:
Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Sure... Let's see here

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...pe_worship.jpg

http://www.ciai-s.net/madonnafatima.gif

http://propheticverses.com/images/im...dolworship.jpg

http://www.biblelight.net/idol1cp.jpg

Ex 20:4

Don't bow down to them nor worship them nor serve them. But yet the pope does it?
You can deny it as much as you want, but your father, the pope does it. Isn't he the head of the church?
What do you call that? Isn't that the pope and your very people bowing down to and worshiping idols?

By the way, you are in error. You think it was the bronze snake that cured the Israelites from the snake bite? No way, it was not the snake
But the very WORD OF GOD! When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree, you think it was the fruit itself that was poisonous
NO! It's God's word, because God Said so. Why is it so hard for you to understand that is what God said not the objects that God used. God said "Do not add
do not take away" You guys can come up with as many "worldly" excuses as you want, but God already knew from the beginning this was going to happen and
Warned us ahead of time. But some choose to still do it. I have not been taught "anti-catholic" as you call it, I've been taught through the bible, something that when I went
To Catholich church I never used because the priests usually hands out little booklets. Specially with your pagan holidays, like Christmas which is really more like Christ's - Mass, and
Easter, Thanksgiving among other pagan holidays you have welcomed into your church other than God's feasts.

I can not attest to what Catholics may do, only what the church teaches. The catechism is clear and explains what the church teaches about not worshiping idols. Paragraphs 2149-2132 of the catechism explains this well.

Will, you bash and condemn what you do not understand.

Worse yet, you keep quoting bible verses that we believe too. We use the same Bible you do, Will.

It really comes down to authority. Who do you rely on for what it all means? Don't say the Spirit, because it's impossible that only you are hearing Him right.

What the Catholic faith teaches is available for all in the Catechism, which is here. None of it contradicts the Bible.

You have tactfully hidden the group that you belong to. What is it and where is it that we can learn what you believe?

Seems you have the same problem as in other forums, those that come to get people hyped up and love to see there own stuff in print and the reactions of others.

Magprob started this with bang, and we have heard a lot from Catholics, as may be expected. I don't think any group should be condemned for the actions of a minority of that group. Words like intolerant, and persecuted have shown up in these and similar threads, and I would like to say something about that before I come to my main point. Personally, I do not think I have been persecuted just because you disagree with me, however warmly you do it. Only if you have attempted to deprive me of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness have you persecuted me.
Now, I want to talk about the Pope from the Pentecostal's perspective. Catholics view him as the vicar of Christ. I believe this is arrogant. How can you believe that Christ can be represented by a single human being?
1 Cor 12:27
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(KJV)
Unless you disregard this verse, you have to concede that the Church is the representative of Christ, not any individual. How can this be?
Luke 4:17-18
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(KJV)
Notice that Jesus claims the anointing of the Holy Spirit for the work He will do. Now turn to Acts, ch. 2 and read what happened to the obedient believers on that day. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Watch this closely, when Jesus was on Earth, He could only be one place at a time. After He sent the Holy Ghost back to His disciples, He could be any place that one of them was, because the same Spirit He operated in was now in His disciples. Any church without the living presence of the Holy Ghost has no credentials to offer to an unbelieving world. Hence, I reject the idea that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Further, the idea that he is infallible (ex cathedra) was not even formalized until 1870.

I am convinced that magprob started this half sarcastically. I hope I am not wrong, but I do not believe that he thinks a group is evil just because of the evil deeds of one of it's members. I'm convinced that he knows well that members of his own faith have committed evil acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Have any of you ever read Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy? He was a contemporary of President Lincoln. It makes interesting reading, and I think you can get it on line. Not sure about that though.

Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest, wrote a book (1885) titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome in which he made many scandalous allegations against the Catholic Church, including the accusation that the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 had been the result of a conspiracy by the Catholic Church, and that the assassin John Wilkes Booth was a Catholic who had been corrupted and led by the Vatican to commit the murder. Chiniquy, who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 1858, claimed that "emissaries of the Pope" had promised Booth "a crown of glory in heaven" for the killing of Lincoln. According to Chiniquy, the assassination was perpetrated by the Church in revenge for Lincoln's defense of Chiniquy in a 1856 lawsuit. Chiniquy's writings are still widely distributed and promoted, in books and on webpages, and eagerly devoured and believed by the gullible.

M:)RGANITE - a sucker for the truth

It's too bad that there are so many gullable suckers out there that this sort of thing is still read and taken as truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will144

Sure... Let's see here

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...pe_worship.jpg

http://www.ciai-s.net/madonnafatima.gif

http://propheticverses.com/images/im...dolworship.jpg

http://www.biblelight.net/idol1cp.jpg

Ex 20:4

don't bow down to them nor worship them nor serve them. But yet the pope does it?
you can deny it as much as you want, but your father, the pope does it. Isn't he the head of the church?
what do you call that? Isn't that the pope and your very people bowing down to and worshiping idols?

By the way, you are in error. You think it was the bronze snake that cured the Israelites from the snake bite? No way, it was not the snake
but the very WORD OF GOD! When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree, you think it was the fruit itself that was poisonous
NO! It's God's word, because God Said so. Why is it so hard for you to understand that is what God said not the objects that God used. God said "Do not add
do not take away" You guys can come up with as many "worldly" excuses as you want, but God already knew from the beginning this was going to happen and
warned us ahead of time. But some choose to still do it. I have not been taught "anti-catholic" as you call it, I've been taught through the bible, something that when I went
to Catholich church I never used because the priests usually hands out little booklets. Specially with your pagan holidays, like Christmas which is really more like Christ's - Mass, and
Easter, Thanksgiving among other pagan holidays you have welcomed into your church other than God's feasts.

I am surprised and disappointed at this acrimonious attack on the Catholic faith, and find it incredible that any intelligent person accepts that either the Holy Father or other Catholics worship idols. They use statuary as devotional aids, but no Catholic ever prayed to the statue or idol believing it to occupy the place of the deity it represents. That is both a distortion and a misrepresentation. I know that you did not find this vitriol in the Word of God that instructs us to regard all others as we regard ourselves, even though they atr enot of our denomination.

As for Christmass, Easter, and other Holy Days being pagan in origin, that is a claim that is made only by the intellectually lazy and ignorant. I regret having to say this Will but you have the tone of a bigot in this matter, and repeat the words of other bigots. If you will familiarise yourself with ecclesiastical history you will discover that although some Christian festuivals coincide with some old pagan days, that synchronicity is either coincidental, or else it was done to replace the pagan feast with a Christian one. What would you have done? Instituted a Millennial dawn on a pagan day?

It is unchristian to deal thus with other Christians. Whatever will you say next to prove that you have the Truth, and no one else has it? Will you say that Christendom is wrong altogether, and will you blame it on Constantine? Will you also say that the number of those who will be saved is twelve thousand times twelve?

In the matter of the bronze serpent, it was not God's Word that saved the people but the obedience of those who obeyed God's Word. God's Word also says that we are not to bear false witness. Spreading false information is bearing false witness and is also disobedient to God's Word.

M:)RGANITE

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

How can you believe that Christ can be represented by a single human being?
.

Consider this:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

Jesus clearly believed that he could appoint others to represent him, individually, rather than corporately (a canmel is a horse designed by a comittee). The Bishop of Rome is the leader of the RCC, and one of several metropolitan bishops, but recognised as primus inter pares.

You might believe that Jesus said something wrong, but for those who believe that jesus was not mistaken it is quite normal to have Jesus represented by his ministers. Jesus underlines his transmission of authority in another passage:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

I anot a Catholic, Roman or otherwise, but it does itk me to see them castigated for something they do not do, and to be charged with sins they do not have. No Christian would speak lies of another faith or person without becoming absolutely certain of their facts, and that does not happen if the only source of information one obtains about one's enemies is from the lips and hands of other enemies.

Who shall ascend unto the hill (Temple) of Jehovah,
And who shall stand in the Holy Place?
He that has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul unto vanity
Nor sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive the blessing from the LORD,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.

So it is written - so mote it be.

M:mad:ORGANITE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will144

And what do you call your church keeping idols? Is that God's will? I love the fact that you don't even mention it. Is there any reason to worship idols when according to God we shouldn't? God said "You should have no gods before me" gods with lower g, there is one God, but you guys have gods! In other words, not the real God, creator God, but gods that can't speak or do anything because according to the Creator they are "worthless". Isn't that more like God's thinking rather than our own thinking? according to the bible, isn't it clear that people who worship, bow down to, and praising idols show hate to God?(Ex 20:4) and you have the guts to say "there are just too many anti's?" when the church you belong to practice these things that are detestable and hated by Creator God? Isn't idolatry an ANTI-CHRIST act as well, and yet your church is known for that?

Open your eyes, see things from Christ's point of view rather than from the church's point of view.

Are you one of the Watchtower's Warriors? I have asked you to name your denomination because you, promote it as the only truth of all religions, but you seem too ashamed to menation it? Is your sola veritas such a frightful and frightening thing that it requires its adherents to heap insult on the heads and hearts of others as they make them guess at what devilment could prioduce it? Devil worship?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will144

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

In other words, no need to change the bible or come up with your own bibles.

Will, stop it! You make of yourself a hostage to ill fortune and falsehood. Let us consider the quote from John that you claim seals the canon of the Holy Bible once and for all. Although your quotation is taken from the Jehovah's Witnesses own version of the Bible (which is certainlty not the one Jesus left behind, because Jesus didn't leave behind a Bible), yet it is sufficiently faithful to the original for the purpose of you being brought to an understanding of what it really means.

As a starting point, such a statement would only be applicable to the Bible if the Bible was extant when John penned those lines. Because the Bible was not yet set in order and agreed upon at the date of its writing (circa AD 96), it cannot be taken to mean that it was aimed at the Bible.

What is does refer to is the book of John's writing and prophecy, commonly called in English, "The Book of the Revelation of St John."

The caution against adding or subtracting material is an ancient formulaic devioce that was commonly applied to an individual's writings when they thought their work suffieicntly important to be saved for future use.

If your definition is to be believed, than everything in the Bible after the Deuteronomy would have to be discarded because the same formula is found there.

Besides which, the translatiors of the Watchtower Bible had distorted the scripture and added into the verses you quote something that does not exist in the original MSS.

The Greek has "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book."

It says BOOK OF LIFE (biblos ton zoe), and the only possile translation of biblos are: a written book, a roll, or a scroll. There is no tree, so your scriptures have added something that is not there, is not justified, and will, if the scripture be true, attract the condemnation and plagues of God. That is what happens when those with no facility at biblical languaghes undertake to revise the English text along lines suggested by Paton, Russell, and Rutherford.

That you find fault with the pope is stunning because JWs have one of the most autocratic and authoritative leadership structures in all of Christendom. It is odd that you pretend to stand in the tradition of Chjrist, but you condier Christ a created being, and have even changed John 1.1-3 to reflect your peculiar christology rather than the original text. Not one ancient MS conforms to your theological emendation of this passage.

For someone who does not believ in the divinity of Jesus to comlaiun that someone claims to be his representative is quite extraordinary. You say that Jesus was an archangel before ehe was born as a ordinary mortal, and make yourselves equal with Jesus as joint sacrificers, mediators, and reconcilers, so he is no big deal.

Russel said:

The ransom for all given by the man Christ Jesus does not give or gurantee everlasting life or bloessing to any man; but it does guarantee to every man anothe ropportunity or trial for life everlasting.

To the JWs, Jesu is now just naothe rbusinessm,an: "The Chief Executive Officer of Jehovah."

You have here exhibited the loveless condemnation of other Christians as devil-controlled. A group that claims to be Christian that is yet so vicious in its attitude to others who follow Christ is guilty of an inner contradiction, for its spirit denies it profession of faith.

Your 'new revelation' fails on four main counts. Your doctrines are based on arbitrary interpretations of a few prooftexts. Those interpetations are usually out of harmony with what is written and are extremely naïve.

Your doctrine is largely based on obscurities with Daniel and Revelation, implying that the revelations of ZGod are a tangled skein of inaccessible notions huidden from commonm view that can be unravelled only by the subtle minds of your cult.

You use the Bible as others use Old Moore's (or Poor Richard's) Almanac of predictions, which is to misnderstand the fundamental purpose of the Bible, and to claim to know more than jesus himself who confessed that hem did not know the time when the Son of Man would return in the clouds. The JWs made the very public mistake of saying it would take place in 1914. When it didn't, it was back to the drawing board and issue some specious and highly suspicious explanation saying that he hasd come 'spiritually.' Doubtless dressed as the Kaiser's armies.

FInally, your cuilt offers salvation at too cheap a price, affirmiong thatpaytment for it can be made at a later time. This repudiates the urgent either-or of the Bihle, and sentimentalises the concept of a holy God. It also suggests that salvation is merited solely by good works. This is born out by a strange fact. Only the worthy are amditted to the once a year celebration of the Lord's Supper. In 1951, 623,760 Russellites attended this private ritual, but of them only 21,619 were adjudged worgthy to receive the bread and fruit juice.

Now, Will, I amnot given to pointing out errors in the programs of other sects, cults, or denominations, preferring to t-reat each little bit of theorlogy or history as a single entity regardless of whether I agree with its doctrinal content or intent, and so forth. But since tyou have uindertaken this campaign of hatred towards the Roman Catholic Church and iots leaders and peo;ple, I felt it was about time that someone gave you a good hard look at the oddities that betray the man-madeness of your own cult, and its irreconcilable differences from Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, and God Almighty, even Jehovah.

As the song says,

"You had it comin' to yah,
But you don't like it do yah?"

Now, settle down like a good Christian and show us all what a true Christian looks and sounds like.

M:)RGANITE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will144

I've been taught through the bible

Perhaps you have, but which version of the bible? NWT? If so, then you have been mistaught by your Bible. Can you be sure that the 'translators' of your special Bible knew what they were doing? Consider the following:

Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell once sued a Baptist pastor, Rev. J.J. Ross for libel after the minister published a tract entitled, Some facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Russell. According to a New York newspaper, The Brooklyn Eagle, (11 January 1913, p. 7) Rev. Ross, the pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, accused Russell among other charges of teaching, "the destructive doctrines of one man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian". Russell's attorney was none other that Joseph F. Rutherford who was to become the Society's next president after Russell's death in 1916, (when he took upon himself the title 'Judge' although he was never a judge).

Russell lost this case and was unable to prove libel in Rev. Ross's accusations that Russell, "...never attended the higher schools of learning; knows comparatively nothing of philosophy, systematic or historical theology and is totally ignorant of the dead languages,".

A portion from the legal transcript reveals a small amount of the overwhelming evidence that helped Rev. Ross win in court. The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross's attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.

Question: (Attorney Staunton) "Do you know the Greek Alphabet?"
Answer: (Russell) "Oh yes."
Question: (Staunton) "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
Answer: (Russell) "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Question: (Staunton) "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?"
Answer: (Russell) "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
Question: (Staunton) "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?"
Answer: (Russell) "My way ..." [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]
Question: (Staunton) "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Answer: (Russell) "No."

Russell first claimed to know the Greek alphabet, then when challenged said he knew, "some of them" but may make mistakes on other letters. Finally when presented with the Greek letters themselves, he was forced to admit the he did not know Greek - one of the main points of Ross's "libellous" pamphlet.

In another court case in 1954 in Scotland, Fredrick Franz [at the time a Governing Body member and later the Society's President] was placed on the witness stand to give testimony for the defense in a case questioning whether a Jehovah's Witness could be drafted into the military in Scotland. The following is from the typed Pursers Proof, of the case, Douglas Walsh v. James Latham Clyde, representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, Court of Sessions, Scotland. Fredrick Franz is being cross-examined.

"Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954

"Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
"A. Yes
"Q. Do you also know and speak Spanish, Portuguese and French?
"A. Spanish, Portuguese and German; but I have a reading knowledge of French.
"Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
"A. Yes, for use in by biblical work.
"Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures [New World Translation]?
"A. Yes"

However, the very next day, government attorneys decided to check Franz's linguistic abilities with a simple test. He was placed back on the stand and asked:

"Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
"A. I do not speak Hebrew.
"Q. You do not?
"A. No.
"Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
"A. Which?
"Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?
"A. You mean here?
"Q. Yes?
"A. No. I won't attempt to do that."

Apparently, Franz lost much of his "substantial linguistic apparatus" since the day before and was unable to attempt to translate a very basic passage. This not only calls into question the honesty of statements made by Watchtower leaders but also makes one wonder about the scholarly ability of the New World Translation Committee. The man who on the witness stand said he was responsible to check the accuracy of the Old Testament Translation was unable to translate into English a simple passage in Genesis chapter two.

How sure are you that the NWT is reliable and that the whole of the Watchtower organisation is not just another part of Satan's worldwide evil empire that you call Christendom?

Aplogise to the RCC for your bad attitude towards them and I'll call off my dogs!

M:)RGANITE

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJ

I am convinced that magprob started this half sarcastically. I hope I am not wrong, but I do not believe that he thinks a group is evil just because of the evil deeds of one of it's members. I'm convinced that he knows well that members of his own faith have committed evil acts.

Well of course I do "Ricky." And I must say, it has been fun and nice to drag you out into the light of day! Don't get so huffy, You have taught me a lot in this post, so much that I'm thinking of leaving the Mormon church and becoming a Catholic. Would you consider me a cad if I got my very own Pope hat? I just love them! Actually, I just love that little Polish Pope, the last one. I think he was honest and a true sweetheart of a man and even though I am not Catholic, I loved him very much.

Haha Magprob - There is some hope for you as I know you are reading Chesterton :)

If you send me your Confirmation certificate I will send you a Mitre. Even stuffy old Catholics can have a good sense of humor :D

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/g...aturno-hat.jpg

http://www.killcastro.com/blog/uploa...uro-787254.jpg

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2006...and%20Pope.JPG

I love the one with Bono! Made me tingle all over!! LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will144

the bible which most of us use

Hello, Will,

Which Bible do you recommend and why?

M:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganite

Consider this:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

Jesus clearly believed that he could appoint others to represent him, individually, rather than corporately (a canmel is a horse designed by a comittee). The Bishop of Rome is the leader of the RCC, and one of several metropolitan bishops, but recognised as primus inter pares.

You might believe that Jesus said something wrong, but for those who believe that jesus was not mistaken it is quite normal to have Jesus represented by his ministers. Jesus underlines his transmission of authority in another passage:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

I anot a Catholic, Roman or otherwise, but it does itk me to see them castigated for something they do not do, and to be charged with sins they do not have. No Christian would speak lies of another faith or person without becoming absolutely certain of their facts, and that does not happen if the only source of information one obtains about one's enemies is from the lips and hands of other enemies.

Who shall ascend unto the hill (Temple) of Jehovah,
And who shall stand in the Holy Place?
He that has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul unto vanity
Nor sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive the blessing from the LORD,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.

So it is written - so mote it be.

M:mad:ORGANITE

Again, perhaps I have inadequately expressed myself. What I mean is how can so many people believe that Jesus has ONLY ONE representative on Earth? And something else, Maybe the Douay Bible says something about it, but mine makes no mention of Peter ever even being in Rome. Paul spent a lengthy time in Rome before his execution, and mentions names, but NEVER mentions Peter. Doesn't that strike you as strange if Peter was the first bishop of Rome? If he got there after Paul's execution, wouldn't that have been rather late?