[Brother Temperance]

It's been quite a while since I reposted one of these... too long, in fact. Here you go:
THE FORGERY OF TOBIT
Try as I might, I cannot find the Book of Tobit in my KJV. Now, my copy is rather old, and it has been through a fair bit, so it is possible that this book just fell out. Or maybe the Cathylickers just use made-up non-biblical scripture to support their false cult, instead of turning to the Song of Solomon in the KJV like any True Christian™ would!
In this 'book', a woman, Sarah, is married seven times, and in every time the husband have dies on the wedding night. Instead of killing her for witchcraft like any normal person, Tobias marries her, but, in the highly dubious version created by Jerome, waits three nights before consummating the marriage, and survives for this reason. Now this bizarre forgery may just seem like a harmless myth, but it had serious consequences. As recently as the 18th century, French bishops were charging Catholic men money for the privilege of skipping the first three nights and having sex –with their own wives – on the wedding night. But in this barbarous catlick system, the 'right' of the jus primae noctis meant that the feudal lord could sleep with a virgin wife before the husband could. Of course, it seems strange that anyone, let alone a limp-wristed Frenchie, would want to sleep with a Frenchwoman, but that's how it happened in those days. And this is important – Catholics hate normal Christian marriage! To those pederasts, the normal love between a man and a woman with goat-like hair and sheep teeth seems as sick and twisted as their kiddy-fiddling does to us! To a typical catlick, the 'Tobias nights' would be a good thing, as not sleeping with their wife would give them more free time to spend with the choirboys. THIS CULT IS DEDICATED TO SEXUAL PERVERSION, AND STONING IS THE ONLY CURE FOR THESE SCUM!
Tune in next time to see the myth of the 'Virgin' Mary debunked. Until then – keep killing katholics for the Lord, folks!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

I for one am sick and tired of all these mary-worshipers who "see" Jesus or more often Jesus' mommy in every burrito, water-stained door and puddle of dog vomit they run across. According to THIS, secular scientists have begun to study this satanic behavior and have labeled it for what it is:crazy delusion. Unfortunately, the secular world can't tell the difference, believe it or not, between a cult like the roman papists and the one true church, Landover Baptist. Believe it or not, in their delusion, WE all look alike!

Brothers and sisters in Christ, please do all you can to separate True Christianity™ from idolaters like the catlicks!

Mariology, Superstition:
Is seeing Mary in cocoa a miracle or just satanic?

The wonder, believers said, appeared in a chunk of chocolate. A worker arriving at a Fountain Valley, Calif., candy factory saw it in a sugary glob at the mixing vat’s spout: an amazing likeness of the Virgin Mary standing in prayer.

“It’s absolutely a miracle,” said Jacinto Santacruz, a 26-year-old Roman Catholic who in August discovered the 21/2-inch-tall apparition at Bodega Chocolates.

All over the world, people like Santacruz have been finding religion in very odd places.

False Christians aren’t the only ones to find the holy in the ordinary: Followers of Islam have said they’ve seen the Arabic script for “Allah” or “Muhammad” on fish scales, chicken eggs, lambs and camel poop.

The phenomenon is so common that scientists have given it a name: pareidolia, the perception of patterns where none are intended. And according to Stewart Guthrie, one of a handful of professors who have studied it, such perceptions are part of the way human beings are “hard-wired.”

“It’s really part of our basic perceptual and cognitive situation,” said Guthrie, a cultural anthropologist, retired Fordham University professor and author of the book “Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion.”

“It has to do with all kinds of misapprehensions that there is something human-like in one’s environment, when really there’s not.”

At the root of the phenomenon, he said, is the survival instinct.

“It’s a built-in perceptual strategy,” Guthrie said, “of better safe than sorry. In a situation of uncertainty, we guess that something is caused by the most important possibility.”

Hence, if you’re alone and hear a strange sound – even on a gusty night – you’re more likely to ask, “Who’s there?” than think it’s the wind. And if you happen to be religious, according to Guthrie, your answer to “Who’s there?” may well be, in a broader context, God. More specifically, Jesus in a fried tortilla.

The feelings generated by these perceptions can be powerful. At Bodega Chocolates, Santacruz and her co-workers quickly placed the chocolate Madonna in a small plastic case, and as news of the apparition spread, a stream of the curious and devout began making pilgrimages to the shop, where they prayed, crossed themselves in awe and knelt in veneration.

“It’s really emotional,” Santacruz said later. “I can’t describe the feeling; the emotions make me cry.”

Other alleged miracles have proved profitable: A 10-year-old grilled-cheese sandwich with a pattern resembling the Virgin Mary sold on eBay in 2004 for $28,000; a pretzel in the shape of Mary cradling the infant Jesus fetched $10,600; and a water-stained piece of plaster cut from a shower wall bearing what looked like the face of Jesus brought in nearly $2,000.

Some manifestations get worldwide attention.

In 1996, the owner of Bongo Java in Nashville, Tenn., said he discovered a cinnamon bun bearing the likeness of Mother Teresa in profile.

Dubbed “the miracle nun bun,” the pastry got so much notice worldwide that he parlayed it into a commercial venture, selling nun-bun T-shirts and coffee mugs on the Internet. The items were taken off the market when Mother Teresa complained, but he refused to stop exhibiting the renowned sweet even after she died.

Eventually the venerated bun was stolen during a 2005 Christmas Day break-in and, despite the offer of a $5,000 reward, only photographs of it were returned – anonymously to a local newspaper.

Starting about the same time, an estimated 500,000 visitors flocked to see the glass facade of a home finance building in Clearwater, Fla., said to bear an iridescent image of a veiled Virgin Mary. Skeptics said it was merely a stain created by corrosion.

Eventually the building was bought by a Catholic revivalist group from Ohio, which dubbed it the Virgin Mary Building before replacing the miraculous windows, broken by vandals using slingshots, with a large picture of Jesus Christ.

But it was the famous Jesus tortilla of New Mexico that some believe set the world standard for claims of miracle sightings.

After discovering it one morning while making her husband’s breakfast, Maria Rubio mounted a display of the tortilla, which, by 1979, reportedly had been visited by more than 35,000 people bearing flowers and photos of their ailing relatives.

Rubio quit her job as a maid to become full-time attendant to the shrine of the tortilla constructed in her home. And although a handful of competing miracle tortillas cropped up in subsequent years, none attracted anything approaching the fan base ascribed to the original.

Religious traditions are filled with tales of apparitions. On Dec. 12, Roman Catholics celebrate the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, who they believe was first seen by a Mexican Indian named Juan Diego in 1531. Similar apparitions of a gentle woman speaking soothing words have been noted worldwide.

But a divine presence gracing a grilled-cheese sandwich?

Church officials say they don’t encourage such interpretations.

“The church encourages Christians to see the face of Christ in the homeless, the poor, the destitute and the immigrant – not in a plate of pasta,” said Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. “Imagine showing up on your judgment day in front of God, and he says, ‘Where did you see me? Did you see me in the poor and the immigrant and the homeless?’ And you say, ‘Well, no, but I did see you in a piece of chocolate once.’ Doesn’t sound so good, does it?”

Yes, imagine showing up on judgment day and saying "I wasted my life as a catlick cultist worshiping an image of your mother I found on a dog turd, Jesus"!

[see_the_light]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

I for one am sick and tired of all these mary-worshipers who "see" Jesus or more often Jesus' mommy in every burrito, water-stained door and puddle of dog vomit they run across. According to THIS, secular scientists have begun to study this satanic behavior and have labeled it for what it is:crazy delusion. Unfortunately, the secular world can't tell the difference, believe it or not, between a cult like the roman papists and the one true church, Landover Baptist. Believe it or not, in their delusion, WE all look alike!

Brothers and sisters in Christ, please do all you can to separate True Christianity™ from idolaters like the catlicks!



Yes, imagine showing up on judgment day and saying "I wasted my life as a catlick cultist worshiping an image of your mother I found on a dog turd, Jesus"!

Where else could they expect to see satanic images but in worthless garbage?

Cat-a-licks... I loose hope on them... To think that they were once (true, many centuries ago) true breathen of ours...

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Disgusting Mary-Worshipper

“The church encourages Christians to see the face of Christ in the homeless, the poor, the destitute and the immigrant – not in a plate of pasta,” said Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

What is wrong with these people? Have they never read the Bible?

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

The Lord commands separation. It hardly seems likely that He will appear in every dirty Meskin or filthy homeless crackhead.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

We are commanded in the name of Christ to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. I think we can all agree that drunken homeless druggies walk very disordely indeed, when they can even manage to stand upright that is. Why would Christ commands us in His name to withdraw from Him? This fish-head's theology seems very wonky indeed. And I bet he's not even married, either.

[Brother Temperance]

A bumper post for Boxing Day:

THE ‘VIRGIN’ MARY DID IT WITH A MAN!
This seems particularly pertinent in light of that harlot Catholic actress' attempt to emulate Mary:
In Luke 2:48, we are told ‘And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him (Jesus), Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.’
Now, I’m not saying that this proves that Joseph was Jesus’ father. I believe that because God is magic, it’s very possible that Jesus had two fathers. But that’s a different debate for a different occasion. But consider: would you refer to a man you had never slept with as your child’s ‘father’? Didn’t think so.
Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

His brothers and sisters are mentioned in the same context as His parents. I don’t think we’re talking metaphorical here. Mark 6:3 repeats the same point, if you want to check.

THE CATHOLIC WAR AGAINST MARRIAGE:

As we’ve already seen, catlickers hate marriage and heterosexual intercourse. They even forbid their priests to marry, which, as we will see, is in direct contravention of God’s word.
Divorce:
Matthew 19:9 tells us: ‘And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.’ The important part being ‘except for.’ Believe it or not, the false Cathohomer bibles turn this verse upside-down by translate this as ‘even for’. The consequence: Catholics cannot divorce their wives even if they sleep around on them. They are trapped. Faced with that sort of ‘marriage’, no wonder so many of them turn to kiddy-diddling instead.
The apostles were married: In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul the Apostle asks: (1 Corinthians 9:5) ‘Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?’ The message is clear. Paul is asking if he has the power to lead about a wife as the other apostles do. A translation from 383 AD reads (translated into English) ‘a sister as a wife’ (this isn’t as bad as it sounds, here sister is being used metaphorically.) But a translation by Jerome from a few short years later reads ‘a sister as a woman’ (using the word ‘mulier’, which can mean woman or wife.) In 1592, twisting the bible still further, they had changed it to ‘a woman as a sister.’ Thank Jesus for inspiring King James to restore the Truth of His Word, just a few years later.
Bishops must be married: 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 both tell us that a bishop must be ‘blameless and the husband of one wife.’ This is so important that it is mentioned twice. Catholics would have us believe that bishops cannot be married. For shame!
Now, when attempting to defend this heresy they preach, the mewling papist scum will often ask ‘But what about 1 Corinthians 7?’ Well, I say to them ‘WHAT about 1 Corinthians 7?’
Sure, verse 1 looks pretty damming: ‘Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ’ But these asexual freaks never mention the following verse, which states ‘Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.’ ‘EVERY MAN.’ Not ‘every man except priests’, but every man. Towards the end of this chapter is another section, which is almost as popular with perverts as John 3:16 is popular with hippy trash. But it is one of the few sections of the Bible with a disclaimer. 1 Corinthians 7:25: ‘Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.’ It is opinion, not commandment. But even so, it still states (28) ‘if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.’ Pretty clear, huh?
General scriptures promoting marriage to use against Mary-worshipping scum:
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:5 ‘A man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?’
'6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’
1 Timothy 4 (the first few verses are a prophecy of the evils of cathoholicism.)
Ephesians 5:25 ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ himself loved the Church, and gave himself for it.’ (Of course, it’s also worth noting that it’s Ephesians 5 which tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord.)
Stay tuned, and until next time – keep your hands off those choirboys and on the KJV!

[Dameon_ACLUtard]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

THE ‘VIRGIN’ MARY DID IT WITH A MAN!
This seems particularly pertinent in light of that harlot Catholic actress' attempt to emulate Mary:
In Luke 2:48, we are told ‘And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him (Jesus), Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.’
Now, I’m not saying that this proves that Joseph was Jesus’ father. I believe that because God is magic, it’s very possible that Jesus had two fathers. But that’s a different debate for a different occasion. But consider: would you refer to a man you had never slept with as your child’s ‘father’? Didn’t think so.
Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Have you not considered that they had the other kids later, after Jesus. She's only a virgin with Jesus, it being the emaculate conception and all. Plus Jesus would refer to Joseph as his father on Earth because he would have been the one to raise him. Thus Mary calling Joseph his dad seems perfectly normal.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

Have you not considered that they had the other kids later, after Jesus. She's only a virgin with Jesus, it being the emaculate conception and all.

How could Mary be a virgin with Jesus? Jesus is His own father after all.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

Have you not considered that they had the other kids later, after Jesus. She's only a virgin with Jesus, it being the emaculate conception and all. Plus Jesus would refer to Joseph as his father on Earth because he would have been the one to raise him. Thus Mary calling Joseph his dad seems perfectly normal.

I'm not denying that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and that she had other kids later. I am just disproving the Mary-Worshippers' myth that she somehow remained a virgin throughout her entire life. Typical Catholic lies.

[Dameon_ACLUtard]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

I'm not denying that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and that she had other kids later. I am just disproving the Mary-Worshippers' myth that she somehow remained a virgin throughout her entire life. Typical Catholic lies.

They don't believe she remained a virgin her whole life, hell everyone knows she had other kids. No human can live without having sex. It's just not done.

[Jesus is Lord]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

They don't believe she remained a virgin her whole life, hell everyone knows she had other kids.

Actually, cat-o-licks do believe that.

Originally Posted by Cat-o-lism for Dummies, page 267

Her never-ending virginity
Mary's virginity before the birth of Christ is a matter of Catholic dogma: No human father was associated with Jesus, because he was the Son of God as well as the son of Mary. Having a human mother gave him his humanity; having no human father but by the power of the Holy Spirit being conceived in his mother's womb gave him his divinity.

But what about after the birth of Christ? Did Mary have other children besides Jesus? Some people say she did, because the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Although it certainly wasn't necessary that Mary and Joseph of their own, Sacred Tradition says that they didn't. The way Catholicism sees it, the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is no harder to believe than the miracle of the Virgin Birth, which most Christians accept. If Mary could remain a virgin before and during the birth of Christ her son, then it isn't any more difficuly to believe that she could remain a virgin after his birth.

Some people ask the Church to explain the reference to James as the brother of Jesus in the Bible (Matthew 13:55). But the word used to mean brother in the Bible's original Greek was adelphos, which can also mean relative, cousin, or kinsman as well as sibling. In the Bible, referencing the father indicates close relations. Jesus is referred to as the son of Joseph and the son of Mary, but no one else in the Bible is ever called the son or daughter of Joseph or Mary. So many possible scenarios exist for understanding the term brother of Jesus but only one for understanding son or daughter. Why doesn't the Bible call James the brother of Jesus and the son of Mary or just the son of Mary? The reason is that Mary had only one son. She was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 15:40 mentions Mary the mother James, but the belief is that she was another Mary -- not the Mary who was the Mother of Jesus. The mother of James was in the distance looking on, while the Mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross.

Is it really surprising that Mary worshippers believe she was always a virgin?

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

No human can live without having sex. It's just not done.

Humans can live without s**. One doesn't just up and die from lack of s**. Just because something is not done by heathens doesn't mean it isn't possible. Many people go through life without s**. Just because a lot of heathens tend to "sleep" with many, many partners does not mean everybody does.

[Dameon_ACLUtard]

Originally Posted by Jesus is Lord

Actually, cat-o-licks do believe that.



Is it really surprising that Mary worshippers believe she was always a virgin?

They may have once but now it is widly accepted that Jesus would have had half-brothers and sisters.

Originally Posted by Jesus is Lord

Humans can live without s**. One doesn't just up and die from lack of s**. Just because something is not done by heathens doesn't mean it isn't possible. Many people go through life without s**. Just because a lot of heathens tend to "sleep" with many, many partners does not mean everybody does.

Very few do though. And I didn't mean it like they would die if they didn't have sex, I just meant that people need it, it being natural and all.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

They may have once but now it is widly accepted that Jesus would have had half-brothers and sisters.

They are a backwards cult of idolators. They claim their myths are inspired directly by God, and then change them every other week. I doubt even they know what they are supposed to believe.

Originally Posted by ACLUtard

Very few do though. And I didn't mean it like they would die if they didn't have sex, I just meant that people need it, it being natural and all.

Wrong again.
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

[Dameon_ACLUtard]

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

How do you know that means sexually? Maybe they mean it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, ever think about that?

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

How do you know that means sexually? Maybe they mean it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, ever think about that?

Maybe by "woman" it means "ape"? Hell, once we start interpreting the Bible, where do you want to stop? Maybe when GOD says "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me", He meant "urinate on the Holy Bible, smoke marijuana and worship Buddha"? It'd make about as much sense as your reading of that verse.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Ideally, one should avoid touching women at all, but since humans are weak and easily susceptible to Satan, it is better to be married than to fornicate wildly. That doesn't change the essential point here: that Jesus is right, and you are wrong.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

How do you know that means sexually? Maybe they mean it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, ever think about that?

Read Brother Temperance's excellent answer and then return to your Bible. A few verses later, Paul explains:

1st Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Jesus will throw fornicators into Hell. We all know that abstinence is a means to prevent Aids and Hellfire, but if you cannot "contain" yourself, you must at least make a respectable woman of your companion.

[OnYourKnees]

Originally Posted by Dameon_ACLUtard

They may have once but now it is widely accepted that Jesus would have had half-brothers and sisters.

Friend, how familiar are you with Catholicism?

They pray to the VIRGIN Mary. Not the "Former Virgin" Mary, or the "Only Deflowered After Jesus' Birth" Mary, or the "Like a Virgin" Mary. MILLIONS of Catholics fervently believe that which they are taught by thousands of Catholic priests: That Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life and is now the QUEEN OF HEAVEN!

They pray directly to her statues! And "visions" of her! And Mexicans call her the Empress of the Americas!

The Virgin of Guadalupe is a symbol of significant importance to the Mexican identity. Mainstream Catholics believe that Guadalupe was a manifestation of the Virgin Mary in the Americas, and recognize her as "Empress of the Americas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

Dameon, I realize you probably live in a very liberal neighborhood with lots of atheists and ALCUists, but the beliefs expressed by your pals at the mall are not those of the majority of people in the world. You're part of a very small minority, nearly as small as the number of True Christians in the world!

Check out the polls on beliefnet.com if you want a source you can consider "unbiased", and you'll see.

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php...6-092143-7497r

[Virginia Day Templeton]

What's next, a Nazi pope?

...

Oh, right.

[Talitha]

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton

What's next, a Nazi pope?

...

Oh, right.

C'mon, he's far too busy!!

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Oh, he's too busy now. Back in the day, though...

Please forgive the source—this information is known to True Christians™ and Hellbound atheists alike.