From the Daily Sceptic... Matthew 24:9 is coming true: you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake...
https://twitter.com/01brain_dead/status/1790607386908201078
"Muslim candidates and elected representatives… need make no excuses for their personal faith. To criticise a Muslim, or any other minority, for the illiberal tenets of their faith would be prejudicial. But Christians? They’re fair game."
And the Christians are showing they will no longer tolerate the left. It's time to put the shoe on the other foot.
I'm fed up I tell you. Fed up to the throat. It's as if they are the only people who are entitled a life and freedom. So we stand up now with the full armor of God and hold up our swords/word of God and let them have it full force. Amen.
The left doesn’t want freedom. They fear it for themselves and others. They fear the intellectual effort that is required for real freedom. The capacity for that critical thought has been beaten out of them by their masters.
Our nation’s recovery from this abuse of our citizens will take decades to properly educate and train succeeding generations in the skills needed to sustain the Republic.
Most of the people who espouse leftism today are lost to us, victims of a vast criminal conspiracy whose aim is the destruction of our nation.
I think it's more accurate that they have a warped sense of freedom, and they also have no problem directly revoking it from people they disagree with.
They think government control doesn't come to them, because they're so smart, they're so virtuous, they're better than everyone else.
Delusional, in other words.
Participation trophies (especially participation trophies with the same reward or status) could be a cause, as could snowflake syndrome where they feel they have to be different and take "normal is overrated" so far that they depart reality.
"The best slave is the one who thinks he is free.”― Johann von Goethe
Thank you. I do have occasional flashes of illumination.
Theyre not free, only truth makes you free. We are free.
Amen.
We are more than them.
i remember those, i honestly thought they were going to be for the un-vaxxed.
Agreed.
That’s right.
Amen. ETC......................
The Left is Showing That it....Wants You To.... No Longer Tolerate Christianity.
FREEDOM is a Choice , choose wisely.
I have no plans of leaving my Lord and Savior. These Demons are barking up the wrong tree.
The HOWLING begins soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g57LxM-GcSc
You ain't kidding.
Jesus Christ is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He proclaims that "no man cometh to the father except by me."
There will be a judgement day. And justice will be served. I do not need to see it, although I would delight in seeing some hang by the neck. It is enough for me to know that the evil people who think they are prospering by their wickedness will one day be held to account.
I pray for these people that they may mend their ways and seek forgiveness by professing faith in Christ before it's to late.
BINGO my friend!
The left is prospering like you said, we the Christians are in financial trouble, but we will see their day of judgement by our Lord and his son Jesus. Ezekiel 25:17 I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them.”
Time to get myself a nice Cross to wear ostensibly.🙏🏻💐
🙏🏻🔥💐
The righteous are as bold as a lion. Now let's get straight on Jesus Christ.
idk if that would work? all those evil, degenerate rappers wear big crosses without hesitation, they talk about praising God, etc. they are fake and gay and evil. no one seems to bat an eye at seeing those pedo's wearing a cross.
Just wear it simply and elegantly, no rapguy bling bling way. ✝️
^This.
I was thinking of buying a cross necklace today.
Should I try Amazon or any Christian stores you can recommend?
Also, I wonder if I should say a prayer to bless the necklace or anything to do before wearing it?
I guess I just like to be thorough
The necklace itself will not hold any virtue or value other than what you give it.
You're fine just buying one or making it if you can. God himself does not protect someone more or hold someone in higher esteem because of the jewelry or ornamentation which surround him. God will bless and keep you if you are seeking Him righteously and endlessly.
When you find the necklace, just be ready to defend what you believe in and why with a level head when people ask you why you are wearing it. God bless you!
Thank you.
I agree, and that's why I've never worn a cross necklace before. I'm still afraid to this day if I behave badly in public or doesn't conduct myself well while wearing a cross, I can't be a good representative and will send the wrong message to the non-believers.
Can I put in my recommendation for one of the "Fully vaccinated by the blood of Jesus" shirts, ideally the crucified on the cross version with American Flag in the background? It's unabashedly Christian, but also pro-American and anti-authoritarian. It's by far the shirt I get the most positive comments about because it hits three critical points.
If others don't already know , it won't help.
Neither shall men say, Lo here, or lo there: for behold, the kingdom of God is within you. --Luke 17:21 -- Geneva
If there’s a small guy making his own jewelry around you, go there. Maybe also try a pawn shop or a flea market to redeem someone who had to part with his. Go see a man of the cloth. He would know exactly how to consecrate it.🙏🏻
I got a lot of good mileage out of my "Fully vaccinated by the blood of Jesus" tshirt (bonus because it's crucified Jesus with an American flag in the background). In 2021 I decided I was going to very unmistakably make my beliefs obvious to the world in terms of what I wear and how I present myself. It has been nothing short of remarkable.
The number of positive conversations that this shirt and others like it has sparked has been very affirming. I'm a friendly dude, so whenever I'm out in public I'll have random conversations with people in passing, but an unmistakable sign of belief like that changes many of those from just fairly trivial chit-chat to substantive discussions, plus an array of "love the shirt", "God bless you", and "right on brothers" (the beard and the coyote brown US flag hat I think bring that out more).
I've never really had a bad interaction. Most people are too polite, or scared, to really challenge someone over that, so the worst interaction I've had was mostly related to me not wearing a mask, once that period passed the worst I see are some dirty looks from people wearing masks, but even that is a bit hard to tell because the mask covers their face.
Perhaps you mean "ostentatiously." I'm for that. I used to wear a steel ring embossed with crosses---but replaced that with a tungsten wedding ring when I got married. I'm of divided mind when it comes to display. It puts me in mind of Christ's criticism of the Pharisees.
both exist in French where ostensible would mean something not as provocative as ostentatious.
That's a new one on me. I can see that "ostensible" would have a "for show" aspect, but I understood it mostly to be for the sake of a "cover story." As in, "Ostensibly, he works as a freelance writer, but in reality..." I will look it up.
Let’s see if we are dealing with faux amis:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ostensibly : Seemingly, apparently, on the surface.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ostentatious : Intended to attract notice.
So, it’s not quite the same as in French, where both words mean a different degree of showing off, whilst the English word ostensible would actually indicate it is to be seen, but not necessarily willingly.
Thanks, I learnt something today.🤓
Christianity is based on the freedom of conscience, and hence, upon the internal authority of each man.
These are all delineations of one single rule: love god above all else and your neighbor as yourself.
Judaism, Islam are not based on such notions. Both are based on subjugate now, else we will make big problems for you. Catholicism is a system where the Christian root is being parsed and taken over. Outside of the confines of the Church and Pope there is no salvation. Submit! and if you do not, we will subjugate. Protestantism is more socially repressive, but given the many schisms, it at least recognizes a personal conscience. At least, this is what history shows.
What history has also shown, is what conscience does: it causes a disturbance in the force of slavery, upheaval, irritation with the masters, interference with their work, etc, ending in an ultimate referendum of the people with one single outcome: eradication of their system.
In the Netherlands, this sort of language is now parsed in reports from the .gov institutions. I would project it to increase, as fear increases of a back lash, the boomerang. It is not for nothing the laws on referendums have been scuttled on a country level. Now they are being scuttled on a Provincial level. Technically, The Netherlands is now ruled by a junta, unaccountable, unelected and pushing through on high speed their WEF agenda. Pressure increases, it will come to a head. Hence, the need for more and stricter measures to increase control. Which will lead into is vicious cycle, with one end.
Ha, and they really think by constructing a prison, they can divorce the people from their birth right: sovereignty. Only when people are turned into drones.
The bright message then is: we have the opportunity to shine our humanity in full glory. And, I belief, this also is one of Jesus' sayings: to hang a lamp up high, so it may shine on all.
What a wonderful morning read, thank you
Yes. 👍
No other church has the true body and blood of Jesus.
John 6:53
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
So how much life is in you?
Google “who started the Catholic Church?”
You will not find force conversion in the teaching of the Catholic faith. Stop lying as all liars have their place in the lake of fire and you’ve been commanded by God not to bear false witness against your neighbor.
Jesus himself said the ONLY way to the Father is through His Son Jesus Christ. He didn't say visit and confess to your nearest priest, catholics pray to Mary, to the saints. WE are His Saints.
Jesus also said to confess your sins to the Father, His Father, not a human priest. confessing your sins to priests is how the catholic church ended up blackmailing many, many people. and saying 10 hail Mary's is NOT going to save you.
Who started the Catholic Church? Did you look?
So yes, HE DID.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-chooses-to-uses-human-intermediaries
You blew past every one of the things I said. Stop shifting the goal post like a leftist.
show me where Jesus told us to pray to his earthly mother. i'll wait. earthly as in HUMAN. she is dead. she cannot answer your prayers.
We pray to Mary, and the Saints, for the same thing we pray to Jesus for, for INTERCESSION on our behalf with God the Father. Jesus is the intercessor with God the Father for all men. It's really no different than if a sick friend asks you to pray for them. It isn't about you, they aren't worshiping you, it's about God, and they're asking you to be an intermediary.
that to me is like saying that Jesus can't handle all our prayers Himself.
on earth, in human form, we ask our brothers and sisters to pray for us and with us because we are told that where two or more are gathered together in His name (Jesus' name) it shall be done.
Jesus said no one comes to the Father but through the Son.
The Bible literally references intercession:
1 Sam 7:8
You'll find other references in the Bible about outcries being so great God acts, so why wouldn't you enlist other people to assist in your petitions by asking them to pray for you?:
Genesis 19:13
As far as no one coming to the Father except through the Son that means there is no salvation except through Jesus, no eternal life except through Jesus, not that you can't pray to God directly or ask others, living or dead, to do so on your behalf.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-pray-to-mary
She isn’t answering the prayers, she is taking them to Jesus as she took the wedding feast lack of wine issue to Jesus.
Boop.
Edit: https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Pray%20to%20mary Study all of em
i refuse to study your cult Catholicism. i guess you think your pope is pure? haha!
You literally wanted answers and when provided, you bail. Nice. You seem more interested in feeling like you on than actually learning. How intellectually dishonest.
Dead? You think Jesus in heaven is dead? People in heaven are not dead, they are alive in Jesus. What the…
Just like you can ask your ALIVE mother to pray for you, you can ask Mary who is alive in heaven to pray for you. What’s next, intercessory prayer doesn’t work?
The saints, including Mary, are alive in heaven.
i NEVER said Jesus is dead. you are making shit up. re-read my post. if you can't fight with facts, fight with lies. who does that sound like?? a freaking lefty, SJW.
THEY cannot answer your prayers!!!
do you use a Ouija board??? sounds like you are delusional.
Re read my post. You said they cannot answer prayers and I told you they intercede. What, you don’t believe people can successfully pray for you? You didn’t answer.
God's lines reach everyone.
Why do you need an operator?
Dial direct.
You’ve never asked someone to pray for you? There’s requests here on GA all the time. Intercessory prayer is great.
see ya handshake troll.
Not a troll, just always booted for telling the truth about our enemy, the SOS, like Jesus did.
You are plucking that ONE verse out of the entire chapter of John 6, and thinking it means you need to eat bread and drink wine to symbolize your belief.
That is NOT what the chapter, or that verse, means.
In fact, it means exactly the OPPOSITE of what you think it means.
Read the entire chapter. It is helpful to look at versions of the Bible other than the KJV, as well. The Expanded Bible gives more detail and makes references to other verses in the Bible, which I find helpful.
In context, Jesus was saying that the "bread" that the people must eat is their BELIEF, and NOT actual physical bread that you ingest. He even said that their ancestors had eaten physical bread, yet they died. But to live, you must "eat" the "bread" of Jesus, meaning understand and believe. And I would add that to "believe" means to live your life in accordance, by following The Law. Otherwise, you don't really believe (though that aspect is not included in this passage).
Just taking a slice of Wonder bread and eating it, thinking that it has any real meaning is childish behavior. It is nothing but performing a ritual. It is not actual understanding. And without understanding, you cannot believe. All you are doing is parroting what the others are doing. That is not real. That is fake.
And what did Martin Luther challenge the intellectuals of his day to do regarding the doctrines of the Catholic Church? He challenged them to DEBATE him, and they refused.
Among his 95 points to debate were these:
https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html
Regarding Lake of Fire and other references to burning in the Bible, it does not say that it will be the liars. It says it will be the tares, which are also people who lie, but it goes way beyond that.
And just because someone says something YOU personally don't like does not mean THEY are a liar. Maybe YOU are. Or, maybe one or both MISUNDERSTAND what the Bible says.
Try reading Matthew 13:34-47 in both the KJV and the Expanded Bible versions.
The EXB gives a little more detail and alternate verbage to understand better. The Wheat and the Tares are the people who are one thing or another. And that is what is referred to regarding the Lake of Fire or the furnace, etc.
It is not merely someone who lies, or who YOU think is lying because you don't agree with their opinion. After all, as Martin Luther stated, Catholics do NOT have any authority to dictate what the Bible itself SAYS, and that includes your pope, who wears the goofy hat with the Star of Remphan, which is a Pagan symbol, and demonstrates the idolatry of a FALSE GOD.
Book of Acts, Chapter 7 --
The 2nd Commandment:
How do you reconcile the FACT that your pope wears the hat of a false god, yet God commands His people to NOT have other gods?
How do you reconcile the FACT that your pope claims to have the authority to wipe away sin, when the Bible says only God can do that?
If you follow what a mere man, who goes by the title of "pope" says, INSTEAD OF what God says, then aren't YOU worshiping a false god?
This is what Martin Luther was saying 500 years ago.
If you wonder why the majority of people in the world today are NOT Catholics, these are some of the reasons why.
The Catholics practice a false religion, according to the scripture of the Bible.
As a result, Catholics follow RITUALS, and not the Bible itself. This is why so many people think of Catholicism as a cult.
In your post, you plucked a single verse out of the Bible to JUSTIFY YOUR RITUAL, and NOT to understand the meaning of the scripture.
Martin Luther was right.
In context, Jesus was saying that the "bread" that the people must eat is their BELIEF, and NOT actual physical bread that you ingest.
No it doesn’t. That is your interpretation. We know it is the case that Jesus’ flesh was supposed to be eaten because some Jews took issue with this and left Jesus over this teaching.
When it comes to the famous “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter six of the Gospel of John, Catholics often argue that Jesus meant his words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” literally. This is in large part because he didn’t backtrack when confronted with the suspicions of either the Jews (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”—6:53) or his disciples (“This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?”—v. 60).
But some Protestants counter that Jesus did clarify his meaning in John 6, and he did so in verse 63: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” Protestant apologist Matt Slick, founder of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, interprets this text as Jesus “stating that the words he was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.” Slick concludes, “[Jesus] did not say they were literal words; that is, he did not say that they were his actual body and blood.”
Slick seems to be arguing that Jesus’ words were intended to be interpreted in a spiritual sense—that’s to say, his words were intended to have a spiritual meaning and not that his words refer to his actual body and blood.
Let’s take a look at how we might respond and see whether we as Catholics need to abandon the above line of reasoning in support of our belief.
One problem with Slick’s argument is that it doesn’t explain why Jesus’ disciples still leave him. The disciples leave Jesus immediately after he gives the “spirit and life” teaching (v. 66). Why would the disciples still leave Jesus if Jesus were clarifying that he intended his words to have only a spiritual meaning?
The whole point of interpreting his words as having merely a spiritual meaning is to suggest that his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood is not that difficult a teaching. The difficulty, therefore, seemingly would have disappeared for the disciples after this supposed clarification, and they would have thereby stayed with Jesus. But that’s not what happened.
Now, Slick, or another Protestant, might reply, “The remaining difficulty was accepting Jesus’ divine claim to have the power to give eternal life.” But the disciples were “disciples,” which means they were already predisposed to accept such a claim, assuming they weren’t already believing in Jesus’ divinity, but only in his messiahship.
Furthermore, elsewhere in John’s Gospel where Jesus makes divine claims (8:58, 10:30-33), his disciples never leave him. It’s “the Jews” who oppose him and try to kill him (John 8:59, 10:33). So it would seem that Jesus’ disciples leave him in John 6 not for divine claims, but for the reason of the difficulty of his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Slick’s counter-argument also fails because it doesn’t consider Jesus’ statement about “the flesh,” which he contrasts with “the Spirit”: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (v. 64). Understanding the idiom of “the flesh” sheds light on what Jesus meant by his statement, “my words are spirit and life.”
“The flesh” is a New Testament expression that often describes human nature apart from God’s grace (Rom. 8:1-14), as well as those who see reality only from an earthly perspective. John uses the expression this way in John 8:15, where Jesus says to the Pharisees, “You judge according to the flesh [Gk. ho sarx].”
So when we come back to John 6:63, and Jesus says, “The flesh is of no avail,” Jesus means that his teaching can’t be analyzed from an earthly perspective. The eyes of faith are needed, since eating his flesh and drinking his blood is going to involve the miraculous, like his ascension into heaven, which Jesus appeals to in response to the disciples’ difficulty with his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood (vv. 60-61).
The need for faith is the reason why Jesus puts these commands within the bookends of his teaching: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (v. 44) and “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (v. 65). It’s not that his exhortation to “eat” and “drink” have only a spiritual meaning, but rather that his words are discerned, not in a worldly or world-focused way.
The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up this explanation nicely:
In the scriptural opposition of “flesh and blood” to “spirit,” the former always signifies carnal-mindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin.
The argument that Jesus is clarifying his disciples’ literal understanding and helping them with their difficulties by saying his words are “spirit and life” doesn’t hold water when critically examined. A Catholic, therefore, doesn’t need to give up on the argument that appeals to Jesus’ doubling down in the face of the interior objections of both the Jews and his disciples.
That is so laughable that it doesn't really deserve a response, but I will anyway.
Why didn't His disciples cannibalize Jesus?
And why don't you eat your priest, to symbolize eating Jesus' flesh, rather than a piece of bread which is actually eating wheat, which if anything, would symbolize the opposite of what you want it to (but that point will be totally lost on you, sad to say)?
You completely ignored my statement about reading the entirety of chapter 6 of John, rather than just looking at a single verse. By ignoring all that came before that verse, you have no context.
Instead of doing that, you simply ignore it and rattle on about other things.
I do not consider that to be a valid authority for what the Bible says.
You have no interest in discussing the subject in detail.
You only want to hit your talking points.
You are following a cult.
Good luck with that.
“ I do not consider that to be a valid authority for what the Bible says.”
who put that Bible together, boy? 😂😂 oh yeah, Catholic pope!
Regarding transubstantiation:
https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Cannibalism
Always the same ol tired Protestant nonsense
"You will not find force conversion in the teaching of the Catholic faith. Stop lying"
Then why did the catholic church burn Christians alive?
Fuck all the popes! Christ is King!
Churches, Catholic or Protestant, seldom actually executed people. Instead, civil authorities executed people for heresy, witchcraft, and such, which were civil offenses. The last group of “witches” hung (not burnt at the stake), by civil authorities in Massachusetts Bay Colony was September 1692.
What is left out of these discussions is that heretics were revolutionaries. Nobody was being burned for private dissent. People were being burned for treason. This neat and clean separation of "politics" and "religion" didn't exist back then.
People were forced to recant their protestant faith and Jews were forced to convert to catholicism both under the penalty of being tortured and burnt at the stake. catholic apologists don't deny that happened but they don't apologise either so don't talk shite.
If I came here defending the zionists (which I don't support) I'd quickly be admonished but here you are fagging for your holy father that haunted Europe for 1600 years.
Your church is clearly one of the bad guys through history and here you are lying to defend it when your first post was a warning people not to lie because it makes the pope mad and he'll send you to the burny place.
Eat a bag of dicks papist
Haunted Europe? The Catholic Church was keeping Islam and Judaism at bay. You’re so ignorant. The church was dealing with the JQ and Zionism looooong before it was hip.
The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. Look it up.
Forced conversions are against the faith, whoever may have done it:
1885 A.D. - Pope Leo XIII - “[No] one should accuse the Church of being wanting in gentleness of action or largeness of view, or of being opposed to real and lawful liberty. ... [R]ulers [may], for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow...each kind of religion [to have] its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’ ” (Immortale Dei 36)
1876 A.D. - Archbishop Gibbons - “A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God. Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled religious intolerance. This religious liberty is the true right of every man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon him. … [The] Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty… [W]henever any encroachments on these sacred privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church, were committed in palpable violation of her authority. … Her doctrine is, that as man by his own free will fell from grace, so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled.” (Faith of Our Fathers Chapter 17)
1608 A.D. - Robert Persons - “[Consider] the grievous sin which they commit, who force, and press other men to swear against their consciences, then which, almost nothing can be imagined more heinous: for it is to thrust men headlong (especially such as are fearful) into the very precipitation and downfall of hell itself. ... For he that [would] force a Jew, or Turk to swear, that there [is] a blessed Trinity, either knowing or suspecting that they would do it against their Conscience, [would] sin grievously, by forcing them to commit that sin. This is Catholic doctrine, which I also think the learned Protestants themselves will not deny.” (The Judgment of a Catholic Englishman Living in Banishment for his Religion Section 1 Paragraph 35)
1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More - “The fear of [the] outrages and mischiefs [which] follow upon [non-Catholic] sects and heresies, with the proof that men have had in some countries thereof, have been the cause that princes and people have been constrained to punish heresies by terrible death, whereas else more easy ways had been taken with them.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
And: “[The princes] never indeed [would have] fallen so sore to force and violence against heretics, [unless] the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themself against good catholic folk, [drove] good princes thereto.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
And: “[As] I said before, if the heretics had never begun with violence, though they had used all the ways they could to [attract] the people by preaching...yet if they had set violence aside, good Christian people [would have perhaps] yet unto this day used less violence toward them than they do now.” (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas - “[T]he heathens and the Jews...are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the [free] will.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 8)
And: “Christ's faithful...wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 8)
And: “Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue.” [[Note: in classic Catholic theology, God doesn't prevent all evil because doing so would take away a greater good, that being man's free will.]] “Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred.” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 11)
And: “[The] rites of [some] unbelievers...[may] be tolerated...in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans...” (Summa Theologica II-II Question 10 Article 11)
1201 A.D. - Pope Innocent III - “It is contrary to the Christian religion to force others to into accepting and practicing Christianity if they are always unwilling and totally opposed.” “The one who never consents and is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality [rem] nor the character [characterem] of the sacrament because express dissent is something more than not consenting at all.” (Letter Maiores Ecclesiae causas to Archbishop Humbert of Arles)
~1150 A.D. - Gratian's Decree - "Those who sincerely wish to lead people who stand outside the Christian religion into the proper faith should strive to do so by gentle means rather than by harsh means, lest adversity alienate the mind of those whom a reasonable argument would have been able to attract. For those who do otherwise and wish to force them, under such pretext, from the customary observance of their rite are seen clearly to attend to their own affairs more intently than those of God." (Distinction 45 Causa 3, quoting Pope St. Gregory I, as quoted in Dwayne Carpenter, Alfonso X and the Jews: An Edition of and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 "De Los Judíos", Volume 115, [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986], 80.)
1065 A.D. - Pope Alexander II said: “Although We have no doubt it stems from the zeal of devotion that your Nobility arranges to lead Jews to the worship of Christendom...you seem to do it with a zeal that is inordinate. For we do not read that our Lord Jesus Christ violently forced anyone into his service, but that by humble exhortation, leaving to each person his own freedom of choice, he recalled from error whomsoever he had predestined to eternal life, doing so not by judging them, but by shedding his own blood. Likewise, the blessed Gregory forbids, in one of his letters, that the said people should be drawn to the faith by violence.” (Letter Licet ex to Prince Landolfo of Benevento)
866 A.D. - Pope Nicholas I said: “Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong. ... Furthermore, violence is never in any way to be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For whatever is not from an inner desire [ex voto], cannot be good.” (Ad consulta vestra, Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians)
633 A.D. - The Fourth Council of Toledo decrees against religious intolerance: "No one should henceforth be forced to believe, [for] God hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth; such men should not be saved unwillingly but willingly, in order that the procedure of justice should be complete; for just as man perished obedient to the serpent out of his own free will, so will any man be saved—when called by the divine grace—by believing and in converting his own mind. They should be persuaded to convert, therefore, of their own free choice, rather than forced by violence." (Fourth Council of Toledo, Canon 57)
602 A.D. - Pope St. Gregory the Great - "Those who sincerely wish to lead people who stand outside the Christian religion into the proper faith should strive to do so by gentle means rather than by harsh means, lest adversity alienate the mind of those whom a reasonable argument would have been able to attract. For those who do otherwise and wish to force them, under such pretext, from the customary observance of their rite are seen clearly to attend to their own affairs more intently than those of God." (Letter to the Bishop of Naples as quoted in Dwayne Carpenter, Alfonso X and the Jews: An Edition of and Commentary on Siete Partidas 7.24 "De Los Judíos", Volume 115, [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986], 80.)
308 A.D. - Lactantius - “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)
So you copy and paste a bunch of papists saying one thing and doing another.
Are you honestly denying the inquisition and the persecution during the reformation?
Have a read of this
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm
I dont like your church or anyone that defends its acts of evil and its lies, heres why
https://files.catbox.moe/ubcdnr.jpg
My Christian brothers and sisters painfully dying because of babylon
Fuck the pope
Are you repeating Judeo -Freemason history lessons?
https://www.lumenchristi.org/news/2016/08/inquisition-what-really-happened
https://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/shedding-light-on-dark-legends-the-true-story-of-the-inquisition/
And more on “forced conversions”
In the Papal states it was customary to baptize any orphan Jew or gentile child. The Jews see this as a forced conversion especially since in their traditions conversion to Christianity is to be cut off from the Jewish people whether or not their was a legal guardian for the child. the church also being the legal government would take these children as a type of "wards of the state".
the Mortara case is different and is its own can of worms. as the Child was alleged to have be baptized by emergency in secret and therefore by canon law was not a Jew and was taken from his parents. the evidence of the baptism is flimsy and I can't understand Pope Pius IX's mentality of why, he would press this issue at this time with his parents still alive. Either way the backlash in the world press and the Italian risorgimento members caused a brake down in talks with the papal states and led to the reduction the papal states to just the city of Rome.
as for a broad forced conversion no the church didn't forced any large group of Jews to convert. Military/national powers in the north of Europe, in the Americas and during the crusades did practice "forced conversions" but they were dressed up as a condition to trade, as a peace treaty or the king would foist conversion on his subjects after his personal conversion.
Your last sentence contains a command that is sounding quite admirable. I do hope you will come around to do so yourself.
That said: When I wrote my response, I am not a witness against any man, but a witness against a system that has robbed mankind blind for the better part of 10.000 years, and is in the process of killing humanity.
It seems you are quite hurt by that statement. I will say: good for you. The sheer fact that this resistance is showing, is something good for you, as you can now trace its origin.
Perhaps, instead of being affected by the bling bling of an institution, it is worthwhile to meditate in what Q calls: humanity, as it encompasses two concepts:
I also find it interesting that here below, you are accusing u/Godknowstheheart of blasting as a goal post shifting lefty past what you wrote, while at the same time doing that with my response, as you took out only 1 sentence, and never bothered to consider the whole argument, noticing the common ground we all share.
My argument in whole is: each man should come to know and use his conscience and authority instead of cowering before perceived authority of others. That is the Christian way, or the Christ consciousness.
And that brings me back to the first sentence in this response: speaking truth, and sticking to the subject under discussion are admirable ends. It seems you are able to order such, but showing incapability to do so yourself.
not sure who you are responding to here?? you are said "you are accusing u/Godknowstheheart" when you are responding to Godknowstheheart.
No, anon r-s responded to the other anon, but you received the reply as well in your replies directly because you were cited with the "u / name" (no spaces) feature in the text body.
oh ok, i didnt realize that's how it works. thank you for clearing up for me.
My pleasure, friend. God bless.
God bless you as well fren!
I responded to Firepit, who responded both on my response and yours.
i understand now fren, someone had to let me know how that worked. i'm very sorry, i re-read your post and i couldn't understand, that's why i asked you. thank you for your response as well.
What they shouldn’t tolerate is marxism, Muslims & Jews.
Adam King, religious Jew, when asked if he could get rid of one: Catholicism or Islam, said he’d get rid of Catholicism. Hiatorically, they side with Islam.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AANlCwDr9ejI/
Just before Gavin walks out because he’s disgusted. Gavin, a Catholic, spends the whole show defending Jews before being betrayed by one. Not all Catholics are so naive and many at my parish understand the JQ very well.
https://www.nairaland.com/2575567/catholics-did-not-invent-islam
This lie again?
The Lord has told us that we will be persecuted for being Christians in the end times, so we should prepare by:
Many, many ancient cults were built around blood rituals, cannibalism, and human sacrifice, especially child sacrifice. This was happening all around the world.
One of the most important things about the spread of Christianity was that it halted these practices. Now do you understand why the worldwide psychopaths have such a hatred of Christianity?
Yes, the native Indians of central America still hate the Spaniards for invading them and "ruining their culture." Their culture was also built on human sacrifice, which the Spaniards forced them to stop. That's the part they always forget to mention.
Same thing in India. They hate the British for "interfering with our culture." Their culture was largely built on a cruel and rigid caste system, along with customs like suttee - burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband.
Remember this the next time somebody complains about a Christian-based nation "interfering with and destroying our culture!"
As antisemitism laws become more abundant 🤔
Take up your cross and follow me. Yes Lord Jesus.
that's Ok because they will no longer be tolerated by the almighty God.
Well, DEI means "inclusive" too, what's up with that!?
Yes Islam like moronic lefties have the habit of mistaking Kindness for weakness.
"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the [a]earth." Matthew 5:5
I have seen a working definition of meek as power under control...
In ancient Greece, war horses were trained to be meek — strong and powerful yet under control and willing to submit. Aristotle said that the praus person is one who has the virtue of the mean between two extremes. If recklessness were on one end and cowardice on the other, praus might be characterized as steady courage.
When are they going to start bulldozing the churches? That might wake up a few Christian normals.
Arsoning churches is standard practice in France.
Christians should't ever trust the Left.
Tell that to the people i speak to every week who are turning to christ. God promises to fill man's hunger for righteousness and truth. No other Way but Christ can do that.
So true, so true!!!
Not yet but it’s getting close. I was just talking to my family tonight on the phone. I’m really excited about it.
This has always been the true fight. Good vs evil.
Its the same play with racism. Blacks cant be racists and whites cant be anything other than racists. This opens the door to government sanctioned white hate.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/14/peaceful-pro-lifer-gets-years-in-prison-after-biden-doj-targeted-her-under-face-act/
I keep hearing the “there are hundreds of religions and God is the same for all of them” lie.
this is truly a lie of the devil.
How do you typically respond when people say, “but we all come from the same source”? Which is true, God created everything. God also knows everything. Why create something you know is going to be eternally damned if you don’t follow a certain path (in our case, Christianity).
This is one thing I wrestle and struggle with constantly.
God knew from the beginning we were going to need a Savior. Jesus was in the plan from the beginning. God told Adam and Eve that in Genesis when they sinned, that through their bloodline a Messiah will come to save the world.
Jesus' blood covers all our sins. all that is required of us is to truly repent and accept Him as the Son of God and turn from our sinful ways.
we live in a fallen world and God made a way for us to be with Him for eternity. it is our choice. it's not easy, but that is why Jesus had to die the way he did, he took the sin of the world onto Himself so that we would have a way.
God wants true love from us. He could have created robots to do as He says, but He wants us to love Him because He loves us. He even gave the angels free choice knowing full well what was going to happen.
if you have children, don't you want them to love and respect you because they want to, not because you force them too?? Don't you teach them between right and wrong and when they do wrong, don't you scold them, tell them the right way again, but you don't stop loving them because they did wrong. you keep teaching and hope they learn and continue to love you for that.
Are you SURE about that?
Matthew 13:33-42 --
Here, Jesus is speaking to the "multitudes," which means all the people who have gathered, and NOT only His people. He tells them something, using a parable.
Jesus never told the full truth to the multitudes. He ONLY spoke the FULL TRUTH to His own people. If you don't understand that, then many passages in the Bible will not make sense to you. They will seem to say something the don't.
This means that the Old Testament, going back all the way to Genesis, did NOT tell us everything. Jesus came, in part to reveal more information (thus: Revelation, and all the books of the New Testament).
Nobody can understand the OT without also understanding NT, with both in context of each other. This is why both jews and muslims cannot understand the OT.
Go back to Genesis 1 --
So, Jesus says that He came to reveal things that had not been revealed in the OT.
In the OT, everything that God made was GOOD.
In the NT, Jesus tells that everything that God made was good, BUT THEN the Devil (Satan) came along and sowed the BAD seed.
Now, back to the earlier verses in Matthew 13 --
Jesus spoke the FULL TRUTH to His own people, but to the multitudes He only spoke in parables. He did this because ONLY HIS PEOPLE could/should/would undestand the truth.
So ...
What God created was good, which in the parable is the wheat. But then Satan came along and created the tares. One day, God will separate them, and burn the tares and bring the wheat into the Kingdom of Heaven.
If that is the case, then where did Satan come from and how did he create the tares?
Again, Jesus said that he came to reveal secrets that were kept from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 12:7-12 --
Satan was cast down into the Earth. But he had a short time to do his evil works.
Back to Genesis 5 --
IOW: This is the family tree of Adam, as in the genetic family tree, with is direct descendants.
You can trace his family tree from Adam down to Noah in this chapter:
Adam >> Seth >> Enos >> Cainan >> Mahalaleel >> Jared >> Enoch >> Methuselah >> Lamech >> Noah
So ... Noah was a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Adam.
Direct genetic lineage.
This is why all the "this man begat that son" is found in the Bible. It is a family tree.
But ...
Genesis 6:4 --
That is the KJV. But, I believe the meaning of this verse has been corrupted and changed, which makes the TRUE story indecipherable to most Christians. This is one of the BIG reasons that Christians and non-Christians find the Bible confusing.
In the Expanded Bible, we see:
The word in Hebrew was Nephilim (our English pronunciation) and it means "fallen ones," not "giants."
These fallen ones are the angels ("messengers") of Satan, which we see in Rev 12:7-12 was kicked out of Heaven, and fell to the Earth.
Putting it all together:
God created everything that was good. But Satan showed up and made things that were evil. Satan's people mixed with some (not all) of God's people.
Jesus came, partly, to tell us this missing piece of the puzzle that was not told (completely) in the OT (it was a secret kept from the foundation).
The wheat and the tares are the good and the bad. At some point, God will separate them and only the wheat will live on.
Wow. Thank you for that extremely thoughtful reply. I feel like I understood every point you made. You are clearly well read on the Bible, I’d go as far as to say you’re a messenger.
So basically how I understand it is God created everything, but Satan rebelled and polluted the human lineage. This allowed bad seed (tares) to become sown into humanity, which have multiplied along with the good seed (wheat). Gods plan is basically to let the crop grow until the bad seed can be properly separated.
My question now is, what is growing? And how does God know when to “harvest”? All very interesting, thank you again.
now reading this in the context from my reply to Honor+Duty, i respond by saying we all are created by the One true God. it's who we decide to worship that makes man different from one another.
Totally agree. But where i struggle is when i tell people God knows everything. So if He’s all loving AND all knowing, why create them, then allow your creation to worship something that will lead them to damnation? It’s what I struggle with. My mind goes back to free will but that’s not enough for people.
i def understand what you are saying, but the Bible tells us that Gods ways are not our ways and His ways are much Higher than our ways.
i also struggle with this thought about creating something that i love and to know that creation might burn in eternity seems cruel. to be 100% honest, i don't know how God does this? i often think about how He sees all these children being sacrificed for centuries and how He can take it? but i have to always come back to He is God, He knew all of this would happen and yet He still created us. somethings are not for us to know.
i've been crushed different times and have vented on this site and there are some really, really great people on here that lovingly bring me back. a pede on here called Fractualization (sp?) was very gracious to me in his/her words. i will never forget the time and graciousness of his/her words about our Father. we all have bad days, some worse than others and that's why we have to lean on our brothers and sisters and much prayer because satan works OT on us.
i was asked one day, what happens if you don't believe and you die and there is a God? what happens if you do believe and you die and there is NO God? which one would you rather choose?
what do you lose if you die believing there is a God, and there is a God, you have eternal life. what have you lost if you die and have lived a good life and there is no God? you have lost nothing, you gained a good life. why take the chance? having God in your life is a win/win.
100% agree on having God in life is a win/win. But to your point on creation, imagine having a child and knowing it would become homeless before you conceived? It just seems like a wild concept. Like you said, Gods ways are not our ways. I am sure there’s a reason for all of it.
i agree 100% with you but then i realize i have to trust that God knows exactly what he is doing because if not, it would harden my heart. i def never want that. i guess this is where trust and faith come in?
also time for us is different than time for God. 1,000 years is just a blink of an eye for Him. God bless fren, i hope you find peace.
If God's people did not have free will, then they would be nothing but robots. They would have no option, which means it would not be their desire to do what is right. It would merely be programmed into them.
This desire comes from the spirit, which is the concept of God.
An AI compter can never really learn by way of taking in information from mutiple points of view and then discerning truth from falsehood or place a moral opinion on good versus evil.
The ONLY thing it can do is whatever it was programmed to do. So, the result will never be the truth. It will only be whatever information it can scrape from data sources, and then compile that data in a manner in which it was programmed. It does not KNOW that the answer is true, even if "true" is written into its program to spit out that word as part of its answer. To a machine like an AI computer, it is just 1's and 0's. It is not REAL truth as humans understand it.
It does not have a spirt, and therefore, it cannot be like God.
Imagine creating an AI, and giving it instructions that the ONLY source of data it has access to is Wikipedia. Then, you create a second AI, but with this one you give it instructions that the ONLY data it has access to is GAW.
You could ask any question, but you would get very different answers.
If humans were like that, they would not be capable of doing the work of God. They could only do what they were programmed to do.
Having free will allows humans who understand the spirit to follow the spirit, and those who do not will not.
Maybe God wanted TRUE warriors and not mere lemmings.
This might also explain why the lemmings of the Cabal do not have any spirit. They only do what they are told, without any moral compass.
What you’re saying makes sense. It’s just interesting because I have four siblings, we were all raised the same way. I stuck to my faith in Christ while a few of them have all fallen away. “Spiritual” is what they now call themselves. So what happened along the way that they drifted away and I stuck to it? It’s all confusing and something we probably won’t be able to fully answer until the end.
It’s called indifferentism and it’s heresy.
They don't care about Christianity. It's about genociding white people.
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but these must all take place.
If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. - Matthew 10:39
Call it what it is---They are terrified of Jesus and the Judgment Day. They know where their eternal fate lies.
Crusade time!. DEUS VULT!
When did we start talking openly about God again? When Q acknowledged God?
When did Q acknowledge God? Why?
When did Q acknowledge "GOD WINS"?
--
u/#q181
Those who are truly God's children (by faith in Christ) fear the left, as much as Daniel feared the Lions, in the Lion's den.
Without a doubt, it was Daniel's faith in God. (1John 4:18) says "Perfect Love cast out all fear"(when someone comes to the realization than God loves them so much that He gave his only begotten Son to save them, they cease to fear anything) that would include lions. Because if God did not spare his only begotten Son but gave him up for us, how will God with his Son, not give us all other things?). It is a shame and nearly impossible to truly believe that God gave us the (greatest He had) His only begotten Son Jesus Christ) and then would hold back something smaller from us. As it is written, "If God be for us, what can be against us" (that can prevail long-term)? The answer is nothing. Daniel neither feared the Lions or king Darius,because of his faith in God strengthened by his (matured understanding) of God's love for him, in whom he believed. It is the will of God that his children (not just Daniel) live free of (all) fear, including the fear of death. If we still fear, it is because (the love of God has not yet been perfected in us) we have not yet come to the (full) understanding of how much God loves us. When we have (complete)l understanding) of Gods (perfect love) for us, that (revelation) will keep us from fearing anything in this world. And you are right the hills are coverd with God's Angels. And Psalms 91:11 says, "God gives his angels charge over us to keep us in (all) our ways" unlike the prophets servant, we don't have to see them (to know they are there) it is enough for us, that God's Holy Word tells us they are there. It is the same reason we do not fear this movie we are watching. Because God has already told us How It ends. 🙏
Amen and amen.