[ChristiCrusader]

The Catholic Church has several Catechisms, none of which are infallible. The Athanasian Creed, however, is infallible and it very clearly refutes the lie of salvation for Non-Trinitarians.

Moreover, Pope Pius XII addressed polygenism in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Since most evilutionists deny the fact that Adam and Eve really lived, and that all human beings who ever lived are their descendants, this makes them polygenists (believers in several Adams and Eves) and thus their views are not compatible with infallible Catholic teaching.

[James Hutchins]

Quite frankly, I am deeply offended I have been ignored. I've extended a hand and a hearty hug in the spirit of True Christian™ friendship only to have my advances rebuffed.

[BrotherLarry]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Quite frankly, I am deeply offended I have been ignored. I've extended a hand and a hearty hug in the spirit of True Christian™ friendship only to have my advances rebuffed.

I know I would never rebuff your advances, Brother Jim. For someone to do so is just - well, wrong. Take heart in the fact that it was an outsider who did so and not one of the many here who think of you all the time.

[BrotherLarry]

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

The Catholic Church has several Catechisms, none of which are infallible. The Athanasian Creed, however, is infallible and it very clearly refutes the lie of salvation for Non-Trinitarians.

Moreover, Pope Pius XII addressed polygenism in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Since most evilutionists deny the fact that Adam and Eve really lived, and that all human beings who ever lived are their descendants, this makes them polygenists (believers in several Adams and Eves) and thus their views are not compatible with infallible Catholic teaching.

I recommend the research of your Adam and Eve. Many catholic apologists proclaim that the first couple are a "concept" or "allegory" and not the true first man and woman. Others are more strict and consider Eve the "first eve" with Mary being the second eve." Nonsense. Eve was the first and only EVE and Mary was the first and only Mary, in the sense that she was the Mother of Jesus.


The Athanasian Creed was declared infallible by whom? (I know - but do you?) Hint: It wasn't Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God.


Come out of her, woman! The only hail mary that means anything is the pass that makes the game at the last minute. Jesus is my touchdown and God is my goalpost. The Holy Spirit makes my playbook and HEAVEN is my someday home where I will have a mansion next door to my Lord. No purgatory, no in-between. Christ made me worthy to see Jesus the moment I pass into Glory.


He's coming SOON (Rev. 22:12), so don't tarry!

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

Popes are only infallible when they speak ex cathedra. Not a single Pope has spoken ex cathedra saying that Catholics must believe in evilution,

If anyone ever told you to believe in evolution, that person had no idea what they were talking about. Science is about evidence, not belief.

Nonetheless, more than one pope discussed validity of the scientific method and scientific findings - including evolution. In this regard, wasn't John Paul II speaking ex cathedra when he was addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?

Originally Posted by Pope John Paul II

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points...
4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis...
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

And here is the problem - acknowledging scientific evidence led pope John Paul II astray and away from the Holy Bible. He failed to realize that God created scientific evidence to lead people to Hell.

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

As far as the whole "pagan saints" thing goes - keep in mind that the devil could have copied Saint Brigid from the future in an attempt to mock her with the pagan goddess Brigid

If you think that Satan made pagans pre-steal most of Catholic gods, I mean, saints, then you must admit that Satan was quite successful in using that tactic to pollute Catholicism with non-Christian, purely pagan beliefs and practices.

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

In much the same way that Tertullian, a Church Father, wrote the following about similarities between Christianity and Mithraism:

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."

That, actually, is an excellent example of Catholicism and a pagan religion mutually plagiarizing themselves, as they were competing for believers. Great marketing move - nonetheless, I would argue that copying from pagan religions cheapened the Catholic product.

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

Moreover, Pope Pius XII addressed polygenism in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Since most evilutionists deny the fact that Adam and Eve really lived, and that all human beings who ever lived are their descendants, this makes them polygenists (believers in several Adams and Eves) and thus their views are not compatible with infallible Catholic teaching.

Instead of throwing random words around, it's usually useful to research them first. What you wrote makes no sense and has no relation to modern theory of evolution - polygenism has been debunked a hundred years ago. The debates of human evolution today center more on issues of lumping and splitting, and out-of-Africa vs. multiregional evolution. You could try to argue that multiregional evolution echoes polygenism... except that it really doesn't, as it assumes constant gene flow between all strands.

Now, here at Landover Baptist church, we know that discussing evolution on scientific grounds is pointless. All that scientsy evidence only leads to damnation. So instead of engaging in discussions about subjects you don't understand, you should reject the Catholic heresy, accept Jesus as your Savior, and trust the Bible and only the Bible.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

The Catholic Church has several Catechisms, none of which are infallible. The Athanasian Creed, however, is infallible and it very clearly refutes the lie of salvation for Non-Trinitarians.

Dear suinner,

Based on your posts on this (God's Favorite) Forum it is becoming clear that you do not accept or share the dogma that is distributed by the elders of your cult. Which is totally cool. However, this begs the question, what is your point in remaining a Catholic? The Vatican spends 126 million € a year for its personnel, the main function of which is to support the "Holy See" in its activities, which consist of producing material that you - apparently and good for you - find fallible. If your church has spent almost 2000 years producing documents that you find not to be accurate, what really is the point? In addition, your tithes will go to support the 4-billion-dollar business of your churc: the legal fees to the lawyers who fight to enable the continued anal rape of children by your priests. You could just accept your creed (more about that below) and study the Bible under a Pastor who shares your views. Instead, you cling to an organization that - as you admit - produces erroneous documents that lead people astray.

Why?

OK. Creeds. In our own Statement of Faith we mention creeds as follows:

All Scripture is totally True™ and trustworthy. It reveals the sole way we should live our lives, the absolute principles by which Jesus judges us and it is the supreme and only guide by which all human conduct, scientific study, entertainment, culture, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

Creeds do not have preference, only Jesus and the Bible do. While the creeds often contain useful material for the feeble-minded, they must be assessed against Biblical background.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This is also true of the Athanasian creed. Let us examine it. Scholars, including Catholics, agree that it couldn't have been written by Athanasius.

In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his "De Tribus Symbolis", gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following:

• firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and
• secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin.

The original language in this case seems to have been Latin (probably one of the reasons why uneducated Romans preferred it over Greek originals), but Athanasius wrote in Greek. It is also targeted at matters, including the filioque debacle, that only appeared after Athanasius's time. Regardless of the content this makes the creed a forgery.

Why would the Holy Spirit channel a forged document as "infallible"?
By being pseudepigraphical, the document by definition cannot be infallible. It is the product of men, and as such it cannot be infallible.

Please, get an education about your denomination! You desperately need that! In addition, I am still waiting for your comments about the use of Latin ablative, the significance of graven images + likenesses, and on 2 Thessalonians 2:15.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Faith_Machine]

Hi Christi, just a point of clarification: we're not Protestants, and we don't promote Protestantism, which is an heretical subsect of Catholicism.

We are Baptists. Our religion was given to us directly from Jesus, and thus predates your sect and its various offshoots.

[Faith_Machine]

Now then, Christi is a pretty name, and I do happen to be in the market for a bride. Exactly how Armenian are you? Can you upload a profile pic so I can see whether you have a moustache?

[Jim C. Lombardo]

I didn't know Armenians still existed. Didn't your people get wiped out in some kind of genocide?

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by Jim C. Lombardo

I didn't know Armenians still existed. Didn't your people get wiped out in some kind of genocide?

Jim, Turks say there was no such genocide, and I have no reason to distrust them - it's not like they have a stake in this or anything.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Jim, Turks say there was no such genocide, and I have no reason to distrust them - it's not like they have a stake in this or anything.

That is right, Basilissa! Just like the joos and the Germans. I have never met a single person that experienced the claimed genocide there. Just a bunch of tattooed cry babies!

I've been around for quite a while and I have never seen a genocide. The closest I have seen is when the KFC had a batch of bad chicken and that nappy haired boy Shaniqua something or other left a bucket of it on a table and some of the Church members had irritable Bowel distress during services. That was nasty!

[Faith_Machine]

The Turks are Muslims, though. I wouldn't even trust a Turk to make me a falafel sandwich.

[Vengeance Puriel]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Dear suinner,

Based on your posts on this (God's Favorite) Forum it is becoming clear that you do not accept or share the dogma that is distributed by the elders of your cult. Which is totally cool. However, this begs the question, what is your point in remaining a Catholic? The Vatican spends 126 million € a year for its personnel, the main function of which is to support the "Holy See" in its activities, which consist of producing material that you - apparently and good for you - find fallible. If your church has spent almost 2000 years producing documents that you find not to be accurate, what really is the point? In addition, your tithes will go to support the 4-billion-dollar business of your churc: the legal fees to the lawyers who fight to enable the continued anal rape of children by your priests. You could just accept your creed (more about that below) and study the Bible under a Pastor who shares your views. Instead, you cling to an organization that - as you admit - produces erroneous documents that lead people astray.

Why?

OK. Creeds. In our own Statement of Faith we mention creeds as follows:Creeds do not have preference, only Jesus and the Bible do. While the creeds often contain useful material for the feeble-minded, they must be assessed against Biblical background.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This is also true of the Athanasian creed. Let us examine it. Scholars, including Catholics, agree that it couldn't have been written by Athanasius.
The original language in this case seems to have been Latin (probably one of the reasons why uneducated Romans preferred it over Greek originals), but Athanasius wrote in Greek. It is also targeted at matters, including the filioque debacle, that only appeared after Athanasius's time. Regardless of the content this makes the creed a forgery.

Why would the Holy Spirit channel a forged document as "infallible"?
By being pseudepigraphical, the document by definition cannot be infallible. It is the product of men, and as such it cannot be infallible.

Please, get an education about your denomination! You desperately need that! In addition, I am still waiting for your comments about the use of Latin ablative, the significance of graven images + likenesses, and on 2 Thessalonians 2:15.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

I agree with everything you said.

[Vengeance Puriel]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Remind me, whom has Hillary been whoring around with?

There is a fine line, there, and I'm not sure all Catholics see that difference. I've seen many Catholics praying to (worshiping) statues of saints, and even favoring a certain image of St. Mary over another - as if they were different goddesses. (For example, preferring to pray to Our Lady of Perpetual Help over the one from Guadalupe, because the former is perceived as more eager to respond to prayers). While one of your popes (was it John XXIII? I forgot) did quite a good job trying to get rid of saints that are simply new incarnations of pagan gods and goddesses, he definitely did not eliminate them all - last I knew, St. Patrick and St. Brigitte were still considered saints.

And that mess with all of the images of St. Mary, it's a real mess. I've seen St. Mary of one kind (it happened to be the one from Częstochowa) visiting a different St. Mary in another parish. Both images involved in the visit were recent copies - the original image of Częstochowa never leaves the church, and the local parish featured a modern-times painted copy of Perpetual Help - yet everyone involved was deeply moved by the visit of one Mary by another. Even though both images were supposed to represent the same Mary mother of Jesus, each holding the same Baby Jesus.

I was twelve at the time, and that was the first time I began to scratch my head looking for inner logic of Catholicism - and not finding it.

This is an interesting view. Are you suggesting Jerome had online access via Google search and international interlibrary loan to all available versions of the Bible at the time? Also, did he have a degree in comparative linguistics allowing him to comprehend the nuances of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek idioms?

Yes. It also happens to be the language commonly used on this forum. Which makes it more logical to use the English translation rather than the Latin translation. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Please support your view with appropriate passage from the Bible.

You need to prove that Catholic church has remained to be God's Church, despite going against most of God's Commandments.

Like the second one:

Exodus 24:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Are you suggesting that God is inept? Because nowadays the Bible has been translated to most spoken languages, and nobody has been burned for it in a long while.

Example:

Matt 10:34-36 Jesús laycu jaljtañjjata
(Lc 12.51-53; 14.26-27)
34 “Janiy amuyapjjamti, nayajj acapachar sumancañ churiris jutquirista uqhamjja. Chekpachansa janiw sumancañjja apancti, jan ucasti jan walt'ayasiñanacacwa apantjja.
35 Jakeru awquipampi pitthapiriw jutta, phucharusti taycapampi, yojjch'arusti taycch'impi;
36 uqhamata maynit maynicama familpachan uñisisiñajj utjañapataqui.

And sure, we can keep playing this game - you citing the Bible in a dead language, and I citing the Bible in different living languages.

But, why should we do that, given that we do have a perfectly written version that is easily understandable for everyone involved?

remember she raised Catholic.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by ChristiCrusader

Tertullian, a Church Father

Although Tertullian is imagined as a "Church Father" this has nothing to do with Christianity. Therefore I see no reason to assume he knew anything about the Christian Church. Even if you claimed additional sources they would necessarily be in accordance with Scripture.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Now have you been following Elmer White's posts? His reference to Matthew in Post #12 was particularly interesting because it shows what Jesus thought of false doctrine and catholicism is the mother lode of false doctrine. Perhaps concerning their own idols what they do or think or say is a vague reflection of those traditions but God doesn't care what you call grovelling in front of an idol. Venerating? Reverence? Conglooburition? It's all the same to God because the action itself is prohibited. In Leviticus there are examples of God's ire inflamed by disobedience. You will recall that Nadab and Abihu had cooked up an incense recipe of their own and been incinerated immediately by God after which, in chapter 19, He reminded us of the correct AND INCORRECT ways to adore Him.

Leviticus 10:1-2; 19:1-2, 4; Exodus 20:3-5b And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.….Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

[God speaking]Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

You see God had spelled out what not to do. It's a physical action: bowing. That is what makes the thing an idol, quite apart from the fact that God had prohibited making it in the first place. God compares people who ignore this Commandment to prostitutes and describes the bowing activity, whatever you call it, as whoredom. It is clear then that the pope is a prostitute. Just saying the idol is a "saint" makes no difference; the mere fact of bowing a head or full-blown snivelling on the floor (popes do both) makes your statue into a god, not according to me but spelled out by The LORD God Almighty Himself and catholics have millions of them.

Popes cook up nonsense à la carte on this subject much as Jesus saw in traditions cooked up by scribes and Pharisees which similarly transgressed the Commandment of God. I won't insult your Scripture knowledge by detailing the connection Jesus made when He referred false teachers to The Bible as follows:

Isaiah 29:13 Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.

As you can see, Frank Bergoglio is a liar when he says he's following anything related to God. At every opportunity he acts, quite deliberately, in a way THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what God has commanded. Whether or not God's message is advanced further by extraneous traditions is immaterial here because if it were so the traditions would agree with The Bible. It's like they're all hallucinating! The nonsense they produce CONTRADICTS what we can read for ourselves and in fact fits the antics condemned by God throughout both Old and New Testaments, almost perfectly!

Hence the link with Isaiah 29 where we see similarities with others who challenge God and seek to thwart His plan for deliverance. I have no idea how much toadstool nectar is consumed in the vatican or whether cactus pulp gets rendered down by ardent conglooburists. But the resulting symptoms are just as mush a response as the behaviours themselves. God explains it this way:

Isaiah 29:9, 16 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.….Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Frank Liar has done just that. "God," he announces, "Who made me, had no understanding." Everything we've been told by God has been contradicted by every pope who ever existed all the way back to Babylon.

Turn to Jesus today.