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."
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.