If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
please show me the bit in romans.
Well they kind of are man...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm
the bible gives grave warnings to men who change such things ...the popes changed everything to make sure that the festivals of the sun continued to be enacted ...fertility rites etc.
as for popes and bishops living in palaces and swanning abpout with kings and generals ...all very anti christian.
for the newer people here ...i best mention now that my views on religion have been aired on here many times ...most people will know that i HATE ...religion.
Me I don't need to say what I think of it, my username state it clearly
And I agree with you btw... But catholics in their miond are related to christianity, or at least that's what they try to make me believe during my 14 years of religious education... :yuck:
Perhaps, but there is litlle doubt that consumerism lessens under a socialist government, take the Atlee government for an example. Since the Thatcher/Blair era, (I thought I would miss out Major, being the nobody he was) this country has become more capitalist and therefore more consumerist. In Capitalism it is taught that we should strive to be better than everyone else, this philosophy is not apparent in socialism.
They are Christians, just not good one's. Actually, let me rephrase that, the leaders aren't good Christains. Most Catholics I know are very devout and kind.
you are worshipping the sun and taking part in ancient babylonian rites which are totaly against not just christs teachings but the god of the bible himself.
idols ...praying to women ...etc etc.
not done it myself yet but i will have google for you later ...i'll type in ...the first pope ...see what i get.
would peter have lived in a palace and dined at the tables of kings and generals ...i think not.
but no ...peter wasn't.
popes and bishops who wear on their heads the symbol of the fish god dagon?
That Jesus gave permission for the first Pope to build the first Church.
I think you'll find on all sides there have been Holy Wars for money, greed, land, power and corruption.
Not really, it was a metaphore, the "rock" was Peter...
Yes the church as a group of believer, not as a buildng...
did peter go off and build huge palaces ...amass wealth and political power?
not what jesus would have had in mind.
jeaus didn'tASK THAT HIS FOLLOWERS WEAR FISH GOD HATS ...CHANGE THE SABBATH ...TORTURE AND KILL PEOPLEopps caps for reading the bible ...
Nope, but for any religion, you need an arena for sharing beliefs. As for the rest, yeh that's unfortunate. So who is the first Pope then?
It is a shame - if he existed (and it seems from evidence he did) he was a great chap... to have his beliefs twisted into this monster.
Do you mean apart from being the First Pope?
tragic would be more like it.
Nominations didn't happen at first, but he was the original Pope. It's because of him that the Vatican is where it is.
Thinkabout it though, kinda hard to have voted for someone else, wouldn't you say?
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
cut and paste obviously.
in the new testament it tells of a great apostacy that will take place in the church ...teachings in opposition to those of the apostles ...that this apostacy would come quickly and the man of sin would declare himself god like ...to be worshipped on a throne ...
i could go on ...
what realy gets me is that anyone who has the smallest grain of knowledge regarding chritianity cannot see that the whole catholic doctrine and practice is actualy anti christian.
why can't you people see it?
“In Christ’s right I am a sovereign. I acknowledge no civil superior; I am the subject of no Prince, and I claim more than this – I claim to be the supreme judge on earth, the director of the consciences of men; of the peasant that tills the field and the Prince that sits on the throne; of the household that sits in the shade of privacy and the legislature that makes laws for the Kingdom. I am the last sole supreme judge on earth of what is right and wrong.” ― Henry Edward Manning, speaking for Pope Pius IX in a sermon in the pro-cathedral, St Mary Moorfields, Kensington (the church of his episcopal ordination and consecration as archbishop), reported in The Tablet (a Catholic weekly published in London), Sunday, Oct 9, 1864.
no ...this is in fact anti christ.
1827 Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; and with respect to this the pastors and the faithful of whatever right and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church [which is] spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
[p. 164] The dogma of Papal Infallibility … involves a question of absolute power… [p. 165] It is the direct antipode of the Protestant principle of the absolute supremacy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. It establishes a perpetual divine oracle in the Vatican. Every Catholic may hereafter say, I believe—not because Christ, or the Bible, or the Church, but—because the infallible Pope has so declared and commanded… If the dogma is false, it involves a blasphemous assumption, and makes the nearest approach to the fulfillment of St. Paul’s prophecy of the man of sin, who ‘as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God’ (2 Thess. ii. 4)
i hate the pope and all he stands for!