The American Spectator : Same-Sex Marriage for Methodists?

Text Size

A Further Perspective

Same-Sex Marriage for Methodists?

By Mark Tooley on 6.27.11 @ 6:07AM

A surprising turn in the Rev. Amy DeLong saga.

As if part of its liturgical calendar, the United Methodist Church every several years convenes a high-profile church trial over homosexuality. The most recent one has just concluded, with a semi-openly professing lesbian minister getting a 20-day “suspension” for having conducted a same-sex rite, defying the church’s prohibition.

Virtually any penalty for the Rev. Amy DeLong would be symbolic, as she does not work for any church, instead running her own small liberal advocacy group in Wisconsin called “Kairos CoMotion” for “progressive theological issues.” So her 2009 announcement of intimate cohabitation with a woman, and subsequent performance of a ceremony for another female couple, did not entail any great professional risk. But DeLong and her co-belligerents almost certainly hoped that a jury of her clergy peers in relatively liberal Wisconsin would nullify church law. The jury did acquit her of violating the church’s prohibition against actively homosexual clergy because she coyly declined to testify as to whether she and her partner are sexually involved. But the jury unanimously convicted her for conducting the forbidden ceremony.

Four major Mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S. have now abandoned their traditional teachings about marriage. The two million-member Presbyterian Church USA took the plunge earlier this year, having been preceded by the four and a half million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the two million-member Episcopal Church, and the one million-member United Church of Christ. Liberal activists claim momentum, without acknowledging that all these denominations have shrunk for decades, and the shrinkage accelerated after sexually liberalizing. The United Methodist Church, with 7.7 million members in the U.S., has uniquely resisted the trend among liberal-led Mainline Protestants. Liberal Methodists hope next year’s governing General Conference will finally grant the prize.

It’s not likely. United Methodism has lost over three million members in the U.S., where most of its bishops and other elites are liberal. But it now has nearly four and a half million overseas, almost all in Africa, where Christianity is conservative. About 40 percent of the delegates to next year’s convention will come from outside the U.S., up from just 30 percent four years earlier. United Methodist churches in Africa have gained nearly one million members in just four years, more than compensating for the U.S. church’s annual 60-70,000-member loss, and making United Methodism a growing church for the first time in over forty years.

The American church’s preoccupation with sex unsurprisingly amazes African Methodists. To the extent they learn about it, church members in Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere will be befuddled by the Rev. Amy Delong’s saga. She and her female companion registered together two years ago under Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership Law. In a communication to local church authorities, DeLong identified herself as a “self-avowed, practicing homosexual,” placing the phrase in quotes, in reference to United Methodist law. But during the trial, in a rare instance of real life actually imitating television drama, the church’s prosecutor reportedly ignited “audible gasps” from the audience when he asked DeLong if she had “genital contact” with her partner. Apparently asking an actual question about sex, at a trial about sex, gave the courtroom crowd, mostly DeLong’s supporters, the vapors, though hopefully nobody fainted. DeLong declined to answer. A previous United Methodist high court ruling had declared that “self-avowed” requires the defendant specifically to admit to sexual acts. It’s a policy that apparently does not apply to heterosexual naughtiness. Clergy caught in adultery or fornication don’t have to “self-avow” to merit potential penalty. The jury acquitted DeLong on the homosexuality charge but convicted on the same-sex marriage charge. Besides the 20-day symbolic suspension from pastoral duties that she largely does not have, DeLong was also sentenced to write a paper on upholding the clergy’s accountability within the church. No doubt she will get to work right away.

But it is significant, in a liberal area of the church, that the legal process was followed, and that DeLong was convicted for doing what many of her Wisconsin Methodist clergy colleagues support. In contrast, an Omaha United Methodist minister conducted a lesbian rite in 1997, for which a church court acquitted him. He was convicted and defrocked only after he conducted a similar ceremony for two men two years later. Also in 1999, 68 California United Methodist clergy presided at a nuptial for two prominent lay women. Their sympathetic bishop never brought charges against them. In 2004, a San Francisco United Methodist minister evaded penalty after wedding 14 same-sex couples during that city’s “Summer of Love,” before a court decreed that the city lacked authorization for same-sex marriage. This year, about 500 United Methodist clergy in Minnesota, Illinois, New York, and New England, many of them retired, announced their willingness to perform same-sex unions. The denomination has over 45,000 clergy in the U.S., of whom 24,000 pastor churches.

Despite the defiance over the years, United Methodism’s General Conference keeps reaffirming the prohibitions. In 2008, delegates rejected same-sex marriage by 66-34 percent. Presumably that margin will increase next year, after a nearly 100-delegate shift (out of nearly 1,000) away from the U.S. and towards Africa. DeLong’s Wisconsin will have only six delegates, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo will have about 124. While United Methodism in the midwestern U.S. has lost over 40 percent of its members, the African church multiplied by 10 fold. United Methodism in the relatively conservative Southeast U.S. also has grown slightly, while the very liberal West Coast area has lost nearly half its members. Angola now has more United Methodists than California.

This massive demographic shift for America’s third-largest religious body leaves liberal activists puzzled and often resorting to dramatic defiance, sometimes leading to colorful church trials. DeLong’s courtroom drama, complete with its “audible gasps,” won’t be the last.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (247) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Conserdude| 6.27.11 @ 1:47PM

The Bible also requires ministers to be male, not female. The so-called "mainline" (liberal) Protestant churches long ago jettisoned that Christian tenet, so it should surprise no one that their heresy should continue in other areas like homosexuality. In reality, these churches are a law unto themselves, and doing what's right in their own eyes.

drudge ette obama| 6.27.11 @ 6:52AM

I thought all this institutionalized religion was about God, but DeLong seems to make it about herself and force-feeding her sexuality on established rules of a church. My advise is to form your own church and then marry the
neighbors'cats, if you want.

While I am sympathetic with domestic unions, I am befuddled when I see gay couples dressed in extreme clothing, men wearing women's wedding gowns, women dressed in masculine tuxedos and an adoption of male-female gender roles when it comes to gay marriage.

Keep pushing society to the brink, then the push-back will become harder and harder.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:21PM

You mean like allowing concealed weapons to be carried - as in Texas? Even in a bar with inebriates or a car with a "road rage" victim? Now, there's something to be really worried about.

Aces and Eights| 6.28.11 @ 9:34AM

This is a really stupid remark, Mr. Purp. A non-sequitur.

POST American| 6.27.11 @ 7:06AM

The ever sinister Rockefeller/Carnegie/Ford
Foundation's infiltration op and EUGENICS agenda bubbling right along.

----------------------RIGHT ALONG indeed...

lydia | 6.27.11 @ 8:28AM

I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
While I am sympathetic with domestic unions, I am befuddled when I see gay couples dressed in extreme clothing, men wearing women's wedding gowns, women dressed in masculine tuxedos and an adoption of male-female gender roles when it comes to gay marriage.

michigander_sandusky| 6.27.11 @ 8:51AM

The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin (1 Cor. 6:9). I'm glad some posting to AS still recognize this truth. But it is sad that most fail to recognize that same Bible CLEARLY does not recognize the Methodist Church (or for that matter all the denominations mentioned in this article) as the church (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Jesus promised to establish His church (Matt. 16:18) and He only built one (Eph. 1:22,23; 4:4). He did not die to establish the multitude of sects that have arisen over the years (Jn. 17:20-23). Everyone of these sects are anti-scriptural by their very existence, thus it should come as no surprise that they continually devolve to the point they approve of every manner of sin, degradation and wickedness. They may claim to know the Lord, but they "practice lawlessness" and are not recognized by Christ (Matt. 7:21-23). Harsh? No, just the unvarnished truth.

Maddox| 6.27.11 @ 9:50AM

Thank you for that post m_s. I believe denominations exist to allow men to determine what is comfortable for them in worship and obedience rather than what Jesus died to establish.
The Bible does clearly establish homosexuality as a sin. GOD loves the sinner but hates the sin. Should we be different?

David T| 6.27.11 @ 10:02AM

Yes, the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," as defined by the Nicene Creed in the 4th century and as believed and practiced by the Church from the Day of Pentecost.

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 12:30PM

Ummm...if it was "believed and practiced by the Church from the Day of Pentecost", then why did it need to be codified by the Nicene Creed in the 4th century??

David T| 6.27.11 @ 1:14PM

For much the same reason that, although the moral law was believed and practiced for centuries before Moses, it was finally codified in the Ten Commandments. The act of reducing something to writing tends to reify and memorialize what people already know to be true. And it also acts as a buffer against (and a tacit warning to) antinomians and apostates who would spread their vicious lies and distortions.

Sammy| 6.27.11 @ 5:43PM

I hate all gay people and wish they were dead.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:33PM

Catholic, small "c" simply means universal.
The Catholic big "C" church came along later, and its doctrines are NOT Christian.

Need I post again the hundreds of false doctrines practiced by this church that are unscriptural?

Christ's church is the Body of believers who actually believe in and obey His own Words as written by God, Jesus Christ, and the Apostles.

HIS WORDS MEAN EVERYTHING.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 4:25PM

The Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil Didn't Get The Memo.

CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:34PM

You are not anything I would recognize as a Christian, Clint; nor a decent Catholic (and I know plenty).

I completely despise the Presbyterian Church USA. Got to know those scum in Kentucky, where they are headquartered.

You, Clint, are not worthy of picking up Margie's discarded feminine hygeine products.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 7:22PM

You Seem So Upset & PMS'y Neo-Nuker Chickenhawk Israel Firster Screwball, Tool Job.

Was It Something I Said Bibi Boy ?

Hmmmmm ?

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:14PM

Occam,

Well, it isn't only Clint/Tim* who slanders me, but in about 3 seconds you will hear from your pal, Ken/Old Tex. He has threatened me in an e mail to stop posting here, else he will "out" me for reading the KJV Bible, among other things. Like that I'm a "Pharisee" for quoting Scripture to the unbelieving.

I am used to this type of threat and accusation for standing on the Word of God.

The Modern day Papal Inquisition continues!

Praise God.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:26PM

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:20PM

You ask for slandering creep. Here are just a few false doctrines taught by the "church" that harbors your type of filth. The year they were introduced is after each one. EACH ONE IS AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD:

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310

Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320

Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375

The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394

The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431

Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500

Extreme Unction 526

The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593

The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600
The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18) 600

The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." 610
The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709
The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). 750.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Ted| 6.27.11 @ 5:20PM

Margie,

You might want to be a little nicer to your Christian Catholic brethren, especially since you will get very little support from the Salafists and leftists... Especially on issues that are rather important to you as a Christian woman. For example: abortion, euthanasia, and gay unions (I refuse to even use marriage in quoations).

You might want to investigate what the Catholic Church actually teaches. And by that I do not mean what some people SAY the Catholic Church teaches.

So calm down,have a cocktail, and open a book...

KyMouse| 6.28.11 @ 8:32AM

I gladly join my Catholic friends in causes such as defending the most vulnerable members of our society, including unborn babies, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

The insurmountable difference between Roman Catholics and Bible-based Christians is the question of authority. I'm among those who reject the RC claim of authority to dispense God's grace through RC sacraments (His grace is freely given directly to individuals, Romans 5:1), and to have the final say about the faith and practice of Christianity. Either it is a fact that (as the Bible says) God saves us freely by His grace through our faith in Jesus, or it isn't. All disputes over Mary, Purgatory, and so on arise from that question of authority.

The Bible, not the Magisterium, is the God-given guide for faith and practice. The Holy Spirit alone is our teacher (John 14:16-18, 26). Whenever we hear a priest or pastor speak, we must check what is said against the Word of God (Acts 17:11).

The role of Mary is a prime example of this problem. The final time we read in the Bible about "Mary, the mother of Jesus," she is merely a member of a group of believers who gather for prayer (Acts 1:14). This occurred after Jesus' death and resurrection. There is no mention of her role as co-redemptrix, co-mediator, queen of Heaven, intercessor for sinners, or anything else. If she were any of those things, the writers of the New Testament surely would have known about it. But Catholics believe those things are true because the Catholic Church says they are true.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, the Scriptures are said to be sufficient for Timothy. If they were sufficient for him, they are for us as well. (While Timothy did not have New Testament writings at that time, this passage is emphasizing the divine origin and nature of Scripture, not the extent of its writings.)

Because the origin of Scripture is God Himself, the authority of Scripture is God's authority. When any church's teachings conflict with the Bible's -- whether that church is RC, Presbyterian, or whatever -- it is the Bible that should have the last word.

That is the root of the difference between us.

Ted| 6.28.11 @ 9:22AM

Except that Christ Himself gave us those sacraments. The Church has never claimed to dispense grace.

"The Bible, not the Magisterium, is the God-given guide for faith and practice. The Holy Spirit alone is our teacher (John 14:16-18, 26). "

The Bible itself makes no claim as being the only guide for faith and practice. And if that were the case, why would St. Paul, in numerous letters, refer to "what you have heard" when speaking to the various churches? St. Paul appealed to the authority of authoritative teaching that, at that time, was not in the Bible.

If the Holy Spirit alone is our teacher, then you exclude St. Paul, assuming that you are not also excluding Christ Himself.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:32PM

"The Church has never claimed to dispense grace."

Lie. Shall I send you my Catechism book that states that Grace comes through the "church?"

The Scripture (and I know it offends some that I dare to quote it) states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ." Jn. 1:17.

Does this not trouble you? Does it not matter to you people that Catholicism teaches another gospel and not that of the Lord Jesus Christ?

You see fit to label and slander Bible believing Christians for standing on the very Word of God, to cast us as haters and disgusting and delusional and as Pharisees and bigots, yet you REJECT the very Word of God and choose instead to replace it with a Religion that has nothing to do with Him and His ways.

DaveS| 6.28.11 @ 11:51AM

Last sentence, next to last paragraph, is false. Don't pretend to know about RC aspects.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 1:47PM

Amen and fully agreed, KYMouse.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:11PM

Read the Bible instead of worshipping the Papacy.
You won't be so calm when you actually open up your eyes and see that NONE of it matches up to His Word.

Isa Potik| 6.27.11 @ 5:45PM

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 4:38PM

"Holy Mary, Mother of God,"

God has no mother. This is another blatant slap in the face of Almighty God and against His Holy Word in which He states:

"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and My Servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me." Is, 43:10.

"pray for us sinners,"

Another lie taught by the Catholic Religion and against the Word of God:

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.." 2 Tim. 2:5.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 10:23AM

Let me guess -- you're Catholic, right? I'm sorry to tell you this, but Jesus did not establish the "Catholic" Church as you know it, Mary didn't stay a virgin her whole life (Jesus had brothers!), we aren't supposed to pray to saints, and Peter was not the first Pope. The reality is that most Christian denominations are pretty much the same when it comes to doctrine. Most of their differences are in tradition, ritual, and worship style (all of which have nothing to do with salvation and are open to personal preference). Yes, homosexuality is a sin and should be condemned by every Christian church. However, that doesn't mean all Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. are apostates or something just because they are different denominations. The "church" that Jesus established is made up of people -- it's the body of all believers all over the world. It has nothing to do with denomination or what kind of building you worship in on Sundays (or Saturdays).

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 10:25AM

By the way, 1 Cor. 1:10-13 is all about following Christ only, rather that following mere men such as Paul and Apollos. It has nothing to do with our modern conception of "denominations."

michigander_sandusky| 6.27.11 @ 11:26AM

Josh2005,

No, I am not a Catholic. I am a Christian. I am not a Baptist-Christian, a Methodist-Christian, a Lutheran-Christian, etc. The New Testament knows nothing but plain old unhyphenated Christians (Acts 11:26). Jesus established His church, He established no denominations. Denominations are purrely the constructs of men. Each came into existence (including the Catholic church) after that first Pentecost following Jesus' death and is sustained by its own peculiar name and peculiar doctrine; otherwise they would not exist. Followers of Jesus Christ follow His doctrine (2 Jn. 9-11), not the doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. 15:9). 1 Cor. 1:10-13 condemns following any "party," be it the "Paul party," "Peter party," "Baptist party," "Methodist party," "Lutheran party," etc.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 11:34AM

Okay, it sounds like we are in agreement for the most part. As for me, I currently attend Kingsland Baptist Church, but I've also attended Cypress Bible Church, Grace Bible Church, Bearcreek United Methodist, and Glasgow Westend Vineyard. I too am simply a "Christian" with no hyphens. Whenever I choose a church to attend, I don't look at the denomination listed on the sign, I read their doctrinal statement to make sure they are Biblically sound. This can even vary within individual denominations. However, I think it's dangerous and wrong to imply that all Christian "denominations" are heretical or apostate or something. As I said, most of them only differ in small things like worship style and traditions, and I'm okay with that. Some people like contemporary praise songs, and some people like the old hymns. No biggy. There's room in God's Kingdom for everyone.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 1:13PM

Well.... everyone except Catholics!!

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:42PM

No, I'm not saying that. While there are plenty of official Catholic doctrines that I believe are unbiblical and incorrect, there are also many Catholics who still understand the simple faith and grace of the Gospel. Just like there are many Methodists who don't approve of gay marriage.

Nick| 6.27.11 @ 7:36PM

Josh2005,

Does this mean that you occasionally attend Mass at different Catholic parishes?

Josh2005| 6.28.11 @ 9:27AM

No, Nick. I disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine and I'm uncomfortable with "high church" style services with scripted prayers and incense and whatnot. Therefore, I don't attend Catholic churches, although I have been to masses before for funerals and weddings. As I said in my previous post, when I choose a church to attend, I read their doctrinal statement. If I disagree with the doctrine, I won't attend. And I disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine.

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 6:02PM

Josh2005,

I was just curious.

If you attend churches of different denominations, don't they, by definition, have different "doctrinal statements"? You can't agree with all of them, can you?

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 12:35PM

I'm with you, michigander...

The denominational folks on this board, especially the Catholics, have a REAL hard time understanding what it means when someone says "I am a Christian". Their first instinct is to ask "What church (meaning denomination) do you belong to?", to which I ALWAYS respond "The CHRISTIAN Church".

This sends the Catholics into a tizzy; they alreay think that if you're not Catholic, you're not Christian, so when you assert that you ARE Christian but NOT Catholic, they get confused.

The best Catholic on this board is "Stuart Koehl". He types reams and reams of verbal diarrhea that he cuts-n-pastes from wikipedia in the vain hope that since no one wants to spend hours reading the pseudo-intellectual drivel of a vain poseur, they'll give up, and he can assume victory. He's an expert on everything, too- just ask him!

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 1:04PM

You are incorrect. The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can be Christian, so long as they were properly Baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula, invoking "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." It's in our Catechism. Perhaps you have some misinformed Catholic raconteurs. Or, perhaps, you didn't bother to look at our Catechism, section #1271.

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:34PM

Oh, I can assure you that I don't waste much time looking for wisdom in the Catholic catechism.

Additionally, I don't buy into the Catholic "trinitarian formula".

That doesn't mean I reject the tripartite nature of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because I don't. What I reject is the arrogant assumption by Catholics that somehow they and their "formula" were needed to understand the tripartite nature of God.

In other words, anyone who reads scripture understands God's tripartite nature. We didn't need Catholics to tell us this.

So let's not play cutesy-pie l'il games, JohnB.

When you say "The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can be Christian, so long as they were properly Baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula, invoking 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit', that's REALLY just a fancy way of saying the following:

"If you reject Catholic Doctrine, you cannot be a Christian."

Which really doesn't bother me at all, since I could not care less what Catholic Doctrine, itself a false doctrine, teaches.

Additionally, WHEN were you Baptized with water?

If you say that it happened as an infant, then I hate to tell you, but you've NEVER been Baptized.

In the first place, Catholics don't "Baptize"...they sprinkle. The word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptismos", which means "immersion", NOT sprinkling. Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; please explain how sprinkling water on one's head accomplishes this.

Secondly, there is NO scriptural justification for infant baptism. Zero. Zilch.

In ALL cases in the N.T., the Baptized individual was an adult, or was old enough to make a conscious choice to do so. There is not ONE SINGLE incidence of a baby being baptized in scripture. None.

Perhaps...you don't bother to read the Bible?

Oh...of course not. You're a Catholic. The Church doesn't really encourage this because if you read the Bible too much, you might realize what a sham Catholicism is. I should know - I was a Catholic for 32 years.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:47PM

Doctor Right, you have lived up to your name.

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism washes away the guilt of original sin. That's why they baptize infants, because they believe unbaptized infants who die will end up in Limbo instead of Heaven.

As you said, salvation doesn't come from baptism -- in fact, it's the other way around! Baptism comes from salvation! It's a public display of personal faith. I myself was baptized when I was 11, and I knew exactly what I was doing and why.

My dad was raised Catholic, and he of course got the sprinkles at birth. But after college, when he learned the truth of the Gospel, he was baptized for real by my grandpa (his father-in-law) in Lake Conroe.

Nick| 6.27.11 @ 8:14PM

Josh2005,

As a Catholic, I can tell you for a fact, we don't believe unbaptized infants go to limbo. This was never a teaching of the Church.

"As you said, salvation doesn't come from baptism -- in fact, it's the other way around!" - Josh2005

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believes not shall he condemned." - Mark 16:16

"Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" - John 3:5

"Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost." - Titus 3:5

"Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. - 1 Peter 3:21

I think that the Scriptures are quite clear about baptism's saving grace.
God Bless!

Josh2005| 6.28.11 @ 9:36AM

Nick,

From Wikipedia: "The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution."

As for baptism, I won't get into your misinterpretation fully. But being "born of water" has more to do with Jesus as "living water" than it does with physical baptism. Also, the second half of Mark 16:16 only says, "he that believes not shall he condemned" without mentioning baptism again. Baptism is a public expression of faith, just like good works are the results of our faith and abiding in Christ. Neither will get us to heaven. Paul is very clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are saved "by grace through faith" and not by our own works.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 5:51PM

John 3:3 explains itself for goodness sakes. Just read it!
The water that Jesus is talking about is physical birth, it used to be referred to as the water birth. He isn't referring to baptism at all.

"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly,
truly, I say to you, If one is not generated
from above, he is not able to see the kingdom
of God.
Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man
able to be generated, being old? He is not
able to enter into his mother’s womb a second
time and be generated.
Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to
you, If one is not generated out of water
and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the
kingdom of God.
The thing having been generated out of
the flesh is flesh, and that having been generated
out of the Spirit is spirit." Jn. 3:3-6.

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 5:56PM

Josh2005,

"From Wikipedia [...]."

Yes, that is a pretty accurate description. But, did you notice the terms hypothesis and theory. I repeat, this has never been a teaching, nor, a dogma of the Catholic Church. It was a theological discussion from the past.

"As for baptism , I won't get into your misinterpretation fully."

It looks like you are getting "into it" by listing your corrections. Also, by who's authority do you accuse me of "misinterpretation"? Your own?
How do you know that you are interpreting these verses correctly?

"Neither will get us to heaven."

The Scriptures that I quoted, nor I, claim that baptism "will get us to heaven." Saints Mark, John, Paul, and Peter are stating the Truth, namely, that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to be saved.

p.s. I wouldn't rely too much on wiki, people go on that site and lie.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:49PM

Doctor Right, here's another story you might like. Just like my dad, my grandmother was Catholic most of her life. One day she was at some kind of women's group meeting at her church, and someone asked the question, "What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible?" The woman sitting next to my grandpa leaned over and whispered, "Catholic Bibles always look new." That one statement hit home for her, and she never went back.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:39PM

Sorry, but the Bible (God's own Words) say that one must REPENT and be baptized.

"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts: 2:38.

Children do not need to repent, nor are they even able to understand sin. So that blows your phony doctrine right out of the water.

Also~ Jesus says that the Kingdom of God belongs to the children.

"But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Lk. 18:16

Your perverted (Catholic doctrine) hinders them, as it teaches that unless they are "baptized" they are going to Hell like the rest of us adults.

2 example of utter perversion. There are hundreds more.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 4:20PM

"Mainline scholars accuse fundamentalists of practicing eisegesis.
While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself."

TrueBlue| 6.28.11 @ 12:13PM

Plus, it's been translated to English, and translations are rarely spot on in catching the meaning of words beyond the literal.

TrueBlue| 6.28.11 @ 12:10PM

That statement struck me pretty hard too when I was younger, until I asked my grandmother about it. She kept several copies on tables around the house that always looked new.

Thing is, she also had several copies that were very used, they just weren't out on display. It's a matter of appearances, just like how most people dress up in good clothes when they go to church.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 5:11PM

Do Your Homework Lapsed Catholic- Anti-Catholic Whacko Fanatic, Dr. Reich

"The Bible is the most preserved work of literature in our history. In fact, there are approximately 5,600 original manuscripts still today. When the Catholic church translated into English in 1966, it used as many of the original texts as there were. What is most interesting is that in 1415 AD, Erasus translated to English using 5 copies of a German translation. Then King James used Erasus translation to come up with the KJV of the bible. Ever wonder why there are differences???? These differences are very minor other than the KJV not including the Apocrypha as God had originally inspired. If we all agree that the Bible is inspired by God, then how can we as man decide later that those books we don't agree with are not?

Roman Catholic Answer
It was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture."

Nick| 6.27.11 @ 8:01PM

Doctor Right,

"Secondly, there is NO scriptural justification for infant baptism. Zero. Zilch."

There is no prohibition against infant baptism, either. The absence of evidence is not proof that it never happened.

"In ALL cases in the N.T., the Baptized individual was an adult, or was old enough to make a conscious choice to do so."

This statement is not supported by the Scriptures. Paul baptized the jailer and his whole household (Acts 16:33). Luke doesn't list the ages of those in his household, or, if they all decided for themselves. It would be an assumption to claim they were all adults.

God Bless!

YeloStalyn| 6.27.11 @ 3:55PM

If this is true, why do so many Catholics attempt to convert protestants? A good friend of mine explained it this way... I am exposed to, and can understand, the "truth" of the Catholic church, I am repsonsible for excepting its supremacy as a Christian. Failure to do so would, in essence, be rejecting God Himself because I have rejected His church once offered to me.
If this is, in fact, the way Cathloic doctrine reads then, according to the Catholic church, I am not a Christian (depsite accepting Jesus' sacrifice and God's grace)... or at least not a very good one and I'll need to spend a long time in purgatory or something... or maybe I'll get a shack instead of a mansion in heaven. :)

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:40PM

Actually, Stuart does do some excellent work on military data, Dr. Right. His "The Dictionary of Modern War" is a very readable classic, written with Ed Luttwak. (Stuart---will there be a new edition soon?)

But as to religious arguments---hey, except for Clint discussing how Israel delenda est nauseating me, I stay out of it. I am not the expert in Christian Doctrine that you are.

In keeping with my simple mind, I focus on a few things---1) keep taxes and regulations low;
2) keep the feds as much as possible out of health care,
3) Sharia delenda est,
4) The US is exceptional, and at its best, better than any country to live in, and
5) We need more kids to maintain 3 and 4.

That's about it. I leave the deep thinking to the pros.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 7:27PM

You're A Slandering Liar Screwball Maniac Israel Firster Tool Job.
Neo-Chickenhawk Super REMF Coward, Tool Job Delenda Est.

TrueBlue| 6.28.11 @ 12:16PM

Stop with the insults already. You'll never get anyone to agree with you that way. Keep it an actual civilized discussion and you just MIGHT convince someone you're right.

Ted| 6.27.11 @ 5:25PM

And how do we know that you are invested with any authority to make definitive statements on these matters? What is your authority, and by whom was it given to you? Perhaps you will recall a similar question Jesus directed towards the chief priests and the scribes... (Hint: See Luke 20).

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:29PM

Just a smattering of abominations from the Bible. I'll wager we could all shut up, yest we be judged when that time comes, eh?
A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)
The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9)
The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26)
The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23)
Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10)
Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)
Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)
Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)
Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)
Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12)
Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5)
Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18)
Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)
Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13)
Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)
Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 13)
Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)
Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15)

simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 9:37AM

What is really stunning and disgusting about this story is the fact that we live in a society where there is a great deal of tolerance and liberty and at the same time we have very intolerant activist groups that will stop at nothing to assault and destroy the established institutions, religions, and churches of other Americans. Rather than establishing their own institutions and religions per se they find it critical to force their views, opinions, and agendas on others who hold a different set of beliefs based on their scriptural sources, religious experience, and traditions. There is only one way of describing this as cultural fascism. This is not social change nor progress but simply another form of political fascistic correction and social usurpation.

Kevin in Appalachia| 6.27.11 @ 9:38AM

Amen. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do NOT the things that I say?"

Jim Hlavac | 6.27.11 @ 9:38AM

God did make us gay, this we know. Why He did so we don't know -- perhaps as a test of hetero decency and to follow the words of Jesus: treat others as you wish to be treated, love thy neighbor as thyself. And you folks can argue it until you are blue in the face, and we shall not go anywhere -- we keep begging for inclusion -- and many keep chasing us away. So we set up our own church -- the Metropolitan Community Church, and made some denominations see us as individual people. You all are fighting an abstraction called "homosexuality" and we keep telling you we're gay. The former word is new, from 1900 or so, the word "gai" in English since Eleanor of Aquitaine used it to describe her son Richard the Lionhearted. History folks, gives us the proper word.

But the great gnashing of teeth over gay folks is one day going to stop, just like the great gnashing of teeth over slavery being Bible ordained ended.

Not to mention, we all live in a Free Republic, not a theocracy. Every nation on earth must deal with its gay citizens -- this is not only an American issue. No gay guy in Peru, Indonesia or China or Africa has a blessed clue as the politics on this issue -- but you all are torturing yourselves, waterboarding yourselves in a way, over whether to accept reality. It's rather humorous to observe.

I keep saying it, we are akin to autism -- a tiny percentage is gay, that's it, that's what you get. And if you all can't see this, or deal with this, that's sad. Cheers, happy gay pride weekend -- which came about because we finally would no longer put up with the police state against us -- and we are not proud we're gay -- we're proud we survived the onslaught against us. Nor are there "gay rights" -- there are rights for gays, rights that All men are endowed by their creator with -- to pursue happiness -- let us pursue our happiness -- and you all deal with reality, and welcome even the least of God's people, if that's what you think we are. The sooner you do so, the easier it will be -- and you won't have to spend endless time in pointless debate about the issue.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 10:32AM

"God did make us gay, this we know." Really? We KNOW this? I don't think so. Homosexuality is a sin -- it's a temptation that some struggle with and others don't. Some people are tempted to commit adultery, some are tempted to steal, some are tempted to abuse drugs, and some are tempted to engage in homosexual behavior. It's not different than any other sin.

For instance, sometimes I am tempted with lustful thoughts. It's something I struggle with. So should I just say, "Well, that's just who I am. God made me that way, and everyone needs to accept it." NO! God calls us to fight against temptation and to be holy as He is holy.

Jim, I am sorry that you struggle with this type of temptation. But God did not "make you this way" and it's not an acceptable lifestyle choice. No more than drug addiction or cleptomania. I pray that God would give you the strength and the willpower to fight against your temptation rather than simply giving in to it.

Albert| 6.27.11 @ 10:51AM

I think Mr. Hlavac is getting his sociology from Lady Gaga.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:36PM

If God didn't make gays, they wouldn't be here, right?
And, no one has ever answered for me why, if being gay was a choice, anyone would choose to belong to the group that is the last oppressed group, enough so that there is even this discussion anymore. Any ideas why you would want to be gay if you weren't made that way? Job discrimination, housing discrimination, marriage discrimination, parental discrimination, tax discrimination, hate crimes victimization, unending focus of snide humor and satire - now do you seriously think anyone would choose that? Come on ppl, think and leave ideology behind. Practice the golden rule ... you remember that, right?

simon templar| 6.28.11 @ 9:37AM

LOL. Think. Really. Look at your first sentence. False premise, illogical, sophmoric. If God did not make pedophiles, hand washing obsessives, murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, liberals, and on and on, they wouldn't be here right? People belong to a host of deviant groups from Hell's Angels to the DNC to Terrorist groups by choice and live with the consequences. Your list is a fantasy land of make believe discriminations. Yeah, think and leave the victimology and culural marxism ideology behind. Have you ever met the truth or actually used your brain?

TrueBlue| 6.28.11 @ 12:21PM

That's the bit about Him giving us free will. We all make our own choices, they aren't forced on us by God.

Quartermaster| 6.28.11 @ 6:23PM

WE don't choose the temptations we are presented with, but all of us will give an account before God as to how resisted them, and gained teh upper hand over them.

And the poster is correct. The "gay" obsession will end with the homosexuals themselves landing in a devil's hell where all the sexual immoral will reside for eternity.

God will help those who call to Him for help, and strive to eliminate sin in their lives. God, on the other hand, also resists the proud and the "gay rights" people are certainly in that number.

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 3:26PM

"WE don't choose the temptations we are presented with,"

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire." Jas. 1:13 & 14.

JayDick| 6.27.11 @ 10:34AM

No one is telling you how to behave, but churches certainly have the right to determine how their clergy behave.

Exactly what "police state" are you talking about? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

As to reality, most people understand that there are homosexual people around and are content to leave them alone, let them do whatever they want in private. But when homosexuals start asking the government to do things, like change the definition of marriage, then the public takes notice and gets involved. No matter what the homosexual lobby says or government agrees to, marriage is between men and women, one man and one woman in this country. Unions between people of the same gender are not marriages no matter what anyone decides they should be called.

Seems to me the homosexual lobby wants homosexuality to be regarded by the larger populace as "normal" and having homosexual unions called marriage is part of this effort. Again, no matter what any group says, homosexuality is not normal. Most likely it is caused by a genetic mutation, but it is certainly not normal and will not be regarded as such by the bulk of the populace no matter what anyone says.

If homosexuals want to be left alone, they should live their lives however they choose and leave everyone else alone. That will be best for everyone.

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 10:40AM

Good for you. Unfortunately, your compatriots have succeeded in undermining canon law in a number of once great Christian denominations, including the one in which I grew up.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Lutheran Church; the Lutheran Church left me." Fortunately, as they were leaving, they put us in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, so I still have somewhere to go.

Rest assured, however, that, since I am a guest in their house, I have no desire to change them.

+++

simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 11:12AM

Your gay diatribe is so full of false premises, misinformation, and illogic..I just really do not know where to begin to respond.
The first sentence, "God did make us gay, this we know." How? By what? Do you have special communications with God? Odd, in fact science tells us that there is NO biological basis for this behavior. Religion, if you follow it, tells us otherwise, emphatically. So, we, as you say, are forced to deal with it? Forced to deal with what? What does that mean? I am guessing deal with it means do what we say, think as we tell you, and disscard your own views, beliefs, and values regarding sexuality and its practices. The gays are now arbiters and definers of what behaviors are acceptable, how are they are viewed, and what people are allowed to think about it. Yes, we live in a free democratic REPUBLIC...not a tyranny of a minority, or a mob, or a atheistic secular government where people are not free to practice their religious beliefs. You keep begging for inclusion. Where are you not included, where are you discriminated? Horseshit! Gays hold one of the highest per capita incomes of all socially identified groups. Police state. Really? You live in a constructed fantasy. Look, it really is quite simple. You know deep inside there is something wrong and you are the one who can not accept it. Therefore, you attack the rest of society demanding not only tolerance but unquestioning acceptance and promotion to convince yourself it is OK..you are OK. The sooner you realize this, the better off all of us will be. There is no conflict here per se, no suppression, no DISCRIMINATION. No one cares or knows that you are a homosexual or wants to know what you do. There are no stazi secret police breaking down doors trying to find people masturbating or engaging in homosexual behaivior or anything else.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:41PM

"There is no conflict here per se, no suppression, no DISCRIMINATION. No one cares or knows that you are a homosexual or wants to know what you do." - really? are you kidding? too bad everyone else doesn't think like you do. Good for you if you really don't care. You must be young, the young are much more tolerant of gayness. Job discrimination, housing discrimination, marriage discrimination, parental discrimination, tax discrimination, hate crimes victimization, unending focus of snide humor and satire - have you not heard of these discriminatory practices?

simon templar| 6.28.11 @ 9:54AM

Yeah, I have heard of these discriminations. They apply to the African American experience. This list you ripped off of this group to give gays a victim protective status. Complete fantasy. Gays make the most per capita income of any group in the US and have been found in every occupation at every level. This society is drenched in gay propaganda, gay activism, gay advocacy groups...The group under assault and snide humor and ridicule is traditional Americans, particularly the religious. Turn on your TV. No, I am not young. The so-called young are clueless, brainwashed, and can not think past their next paycheck and weekend party. You really need to talk with the average Christian or someone who does not support gay marriage. You will find that most do not hate Gays nor do they wish to discriminate against anyone whether or not they disagree with their life styles and behavior choices. As far as they are concerned this is a behavior that victimizes the practicioner...they have compassion for them not hatred.

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 12:37PM

"I keep saying it, we are akin to autism -- a tiny percentage is gay."

So "gay" is a disease?

Interesting.

They used to define it as a mental illness, until the APA got politically correct in the early 70's and changed their definition.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:17PM

It is a psycho sexual fixation. Borne out by research homosexuals are obsessed with sex unlike than the rest of us heteros. They engage in sex far more frequently, have more partners and sex becomes the center piece of their thought life. If you can call what they do sex. Ultimately they die younger because the human anus is a bacterial blotter and was obviously not designed to be entered, pummeled and otherwise misused. Isn't it interesting that all homo sex is an vain attempt to mimic the real thing?

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:36PM

ALL good points!

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:37PM

Additionally, I don't believe that there actually IS such a thing as "gay sex".

Gays don't have "sex"; they can't. They fiddle with each other's privates, often in very imaginative ways (ask any ER doctor), but it ain't "sex".

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:49PM

Dear Dr. Right:

One of the more embarrassing moments for my profession---voting on what is a disease. (Sigh)

Look, I don't treat ego-syntonic homosexuality. It's like teaching a pig to sing---it won't work and it annoys the pig. I have successfully treated ego-dystonic homosexual urges---it's just another form of OCD, and, as Wellington said of Napoleon at Waterloo---"they came at us the same old way and were defeated the same old way." (I know you know the precise quote, Stuart---please don't correct me, as, like Bluto Blutarsky, "I'm on a roll.")

I have enough on my plate without going forth to treat that which harms no one else, or truly bothers the patient. I treat things that are Danger to self/others/or cause grave disability. Keeps me plenty hopping.

That being said, heterosexual marriage is under horrific attack. And it is the best way to raise kids. For this reason, I support Civil Unions, which will grant legal abilities such as survivorship to long time companions, but reject gay marriage, which will damage monogamous heterosexual marriage as it has in Scandinavia. These countries, incidentally, are losing to Sharia.

I leave the deep theorizing to others.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 1:15PM

Yes, the gay gene! That's the ticket. I've read that researchers are in agreement with you, and as we speak they are scouring the genome for it. One day they will find it. And when they do, couples can get thier unborn tested! And you know what will happen then, don't you? Abortion is an equal oppurtunity procedure! Is it not?

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:44PM

"God did make us gay, this we know."

You're lying.

"And the Angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by Aim in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the Judgment of the great Day; just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones." Jude 1:6-8.

Tell me, Jim: If God made you "Gay", why is He going to throw you into Hell for practicing it?

Are you going to dare call God "mean" and "nasty"?

Do you read His Holy Word with "Gay" eyes and only read into it what you want to? No, God keeps His promises. And you need to repent.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:42PM

Why do you think you know what God is going to do? You have some special knowledge or link to the Almighty? Maybe you talk to him AND he answers back? Otherwise your opinion isn't any better than anyone else's, even clothed in religious sheep's clothing

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 8:27PM

Purple, she just read you the Riot Act. Did you not hear it?

+++

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 10:21PM

Absolutely not - she is reading what she wants from the Bible, and anyone can do the same. It means nothing when any person says they know how to interpret God's word. How could they do that? God created us and sent his son Jesus to die for our sins. Only through grace can we come to the father. Jesus died for all our sins past, present and future and that was God's way of helping his children to come to him. Anyone that presumes to judge for God is blasphemous, regardless how much they read anyone the riot act. And all should be in fear that indulge in the same judgement of others.

Charles Martel| 6.28.11 @ 2:35PM

Right, but forgiveness necessarily requires repentance. Always. No exceptions.

Are you repenting? If so, we applaud your turning from sin.

+++

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 11:27PM

Dearest Purpleyguy,

My dear, dear person, forgive me for calling you a moron. The Papal Inquisitors have reprimanded me. You are not a moron, you are simply willfully blind.
Please do read the Bible. You asked if I know so that I must be somehow special or privileged and that only I know how God is going to do such and such?
All of us are so special and privileged~ God has given us His Word. Therefore no one has an excuse to disobey Him.
Read the Bible~ it is where He speaks~ to ALL of us.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 4:43PM

"Why do you think you know what God is going to do?"

Hey moron, can you read? His Words, not mine, bud.

Gasman| 6.27.11 @ 9:46AM

If you are not a Catholic, you are a heretic. Protestantism has no historical legitamcy. Look at the mentally ill Martin Luther(chronic depression) and the obese lecher Henry v111.Great founders of the protestant sects.

JayDick| 6.27.11 @ 10:36AM

A similar case could be made regarding the Roman church. It split from the Eastern church and has had some really nasty popes.

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 10:44AM

Oh? Who split from whom?

The pontiff of the Eastern Church was, during the time of Rome's corruption and up until the fall of Constantinople to the God-cursed mohammedans, the emperor.

What was that about some of the leaders being "nasty"?

+++

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 10:47AM

So what? Popes have been sinners? Gasp!! Go read Jimmy Akin's "The Fathers Know Best," and realize that the Catholic Church (which you malignly called the "Roman Church" -- that is NOT its name) is one and the same as THE Church of the Apostles; one in doctrine, one in its Apostolic succession. To argue that Popes have been public sinners is nothing but a rationalization by Protestants to deny the validity of Jesus' promise that He would guard the Church -- that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against HIS Church in matters of doctrine. Just TRY to show that with any of the other branches of Christianity -- it CAN'T be done. That is why there are over 30,000 heretical sects of Protestantism, all of which claim to have THE truth and don't get along with each other well enough to "be one," as Jesus prayed. Again: Popes are sinners? Gasp! Guess what: St. Peter was a traitor the night that Jesus was arrested -- Jesus STILL chose him to be the first Pope. Jesus called sinners. Maybe Protestants don't have any among their members.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 11:27AM

Jesus did not make anyone "Pope." That term is no where in the Bible. Also, since the Pope (by definition) is the Bishop of Rome, it couldn't have been Peter anyway, because there's no Biblical evidence that Peter EVER spent time in Rome. If any of the early church fathers would have been Bishop of Rome, it probably would have been Paul, who spent a lot of time there.

However, it's also notable that until Emperor Constantine passed the Edict of Milan in AD 313, Rome was one of the worst places a Christian could be, because you would likely be imprisoned and executed by the pagan Roman authorities.

Also, the Catholic Church is certainly not "one in doctrine" with the apostles, because it has routinely supported blatantly un-Biblical doctrines such as Purgatory, the sale of indulgences, Mary's supposed perpetual viginity, the forced use of only Latin scriptures, the veneration of relics and images, and scads of other rituals and traditions which have absolutely nothing to do with God's grace or salvation.

Salvation isn't about which "denomination" you join or what kind of songs you sing on Sunday or whether your priest/pastor wears robes or a suit. None of that matters to God. All that matters is that we accept Jesus' sacrifice as payment for our sins, and we realize that we are forgiven by grace through faith, not by works, but solely through the precious gift of Jesus Christ.

"The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." - ! Samuel 16:7

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 12:04PM

You are so ignorant, I hardly know where to begin. You are regurgitating all the old diatribes against Catholicism -- it is obvious you've never even made an effort to understand Church teaching, much less Church history.

Just one example, on purgatory. The Apostle John says, in his first letter, "...there is sin which is not deadly." (1 John 5:17). But Revelation 21:27 says that "nothing unclean" shall enter heaven. How do people who die with "not deadly" sin get to go to heaven, if nothing unclean can enter heaven? Catholics call this "purgatory." Or, in 2 Tim 1:16- 18, Paul prays for his dead friend Onesiphorus -- why should anyone bother to pray for the dead? Or, 1 peter 3:18 - 20 and 4:6 -- Jesus preached to the spirits "in prison" (i.e., purgatory); and "preached even to the dead." Also: 1 Cor 3:15, "saved as through fire." Oh, the word "purgatory" is not in the Bible; but neither is the word "Trinity," but I'll bet that you have used that word to describe the triune God.

By the way, do you think that the Bible just dropped from the sky? Did Jesus leave us a book? Why didn't the Church close the Canon of Scripture until hundreds of years after Jesus died? What about all the so-called "lost Gospels," such as the Gospel of Thomas? Why aren't they in your Bible? Why did Martin Luther throw out 7 books -- because they weren't in Hebrew? Guess what -- fragments of these very books were found, in Hebrew, recently, among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Did Jesus allow the Church to go 1500 years mistakenly believing that the Apocrypha were divinely inspired? How does that square with His promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church? How could he allow such a "mistake" to go on for 1500 years, until Martin Luther somehow figured it all out? Hmm? Why is it that 30,000+ (and counting) Protestant denominations can't agree on the supposedly self-evident, self-interpreting meaning of Scriptures? Maybe they aren't so self-evident after all, and need a living authority -- the Church -- to interpret Scriptures?

So, before you reply again with another diatribe, why don't you actually LEARN something worth regurgitating? Try reading Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: the Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians.'" Try looking for ANY book by Karl Keating at Amazon.com; or anything at the Catholic Answers website www.catholic.com. Try reading John Salza's "The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith." Try reading anything by Mark Shea, or Scott Hahn, or Bruce Sullivan -- all of them CONVERTS who BOTHERED to LEARN about Catholicism; and who soon discovered, to their dismay, that Catholicism is, indeed, the Church established by Jesus. And that it DOES MATTER!

YeloStalyn| 6.27.11 @ 1:00PM

I'm not scholar, nor do I play one on TV. But, there is one unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the spirit... or ignoring it's calling to redemption and salavation. Failure to adhere to it's calling will lead to death. No other sin does that, as they can all be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. As such, this is how you can sin and still go to Heaven... the cleansing of that sin would have occured during life, and at death, your Judgement is clean by Jesus' sacrifice and you enter the Kindom of Heaven. But the blaspheme of the spirit... you don't come back from that one. Granted, if you commit other sins that are not deadly (you're spirit does not die as it does when you reject God's final calling) you still have the chance to listne to the spirit and recieve God's forgivness.

As for the Bible mentioning purgatory... it does mention Abraham's bosom in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. When the rich man dies, he can see, over a great chasm, Lazarus, and is told that he can not relay a message of change to his other brothers. They are both dead, but in the same place awaiting the final judgement when entrance into Heaven is finally granted. And Hell... I would imagine it comes at the end as well. All those who are dead await judgement... at that point they are judged and granted entrance into Heaven or are rejected by God and cast into eternal speration from Him.

As a layman... this is how I've come to understand it. I also understand Jesus' directon to have the faith of a child... that it's the kids story book lesson that matters most, He came, He died, and He will forgive if we accept Him. The rest is up for grabs. We should try to get it right, but failure to do so isn't damnable. And arguing over it rather than working together to find the truth of the matter isn't winning us any points with God, I'm sure. Netiher is damning someone who rejects things of the Catholic doctrine other than "Jesus Saves!" After all, "even the very rocks will cry out!" and lead some to salvation... even without the Pope around to do it. Don't get me wrong, that's not a knock against the Pope. Just saying that the organization of men is a far cry from the body of beilevers that make up the Bride of Christ. After all, the Bible is more about how to live and what to believe with regards to the claim that there is a God, Jesus is His Son, and that He came to save us through our faith in Him, rather than how to "do church."

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 1:27PM

Amen.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:03PM

You really want to call me uneducated and uninformed? I have a master's degree in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, focusing on Renaissance Literature and theological disputes during the English Reformation. I've studied Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the Council of Nicea, the Council of Trent, and loads of other theological debates. I've read non-canonical malarkey like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Apocalypse of Adam. I've held an original 1611 King James Bible in my own hands. I also minored in Religious Studies when I got my BA, taking courses in the Bible as Literature, History of Christianity, History of the Renaissance and Reformation, and Medieval Philosophy. Also, my dad was raised Catholic and went to parochial school for most of his childhood. He's no longer Catholic, but his side of the family is still, and I've discussed these issues with all of them at length.

As for the "Apocrypha," they are generally removed from Protestant Bibles because the books aren't contained in the Jewish canon, and no direct quotations from any Apocryphal books appear in the New Testament. There are allusions to historical events, but the books are never used as authoritative sources. Finally, the Catholic church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500s. Before that, there was always debate.

As for vernacular translations of the Bible, Wycliffe's Bible was banned in 1409 due to its association with the Lollards, a group who believed in an invisible true Church which was the community of the faithful, which overlapped with, but was not the same as, the visible Catholic Church. And as I said, Wycliffe himself was burned as a heretic, not just his Bibles. William Tyndale did another English translation in the 1500s, and when his translations reached England, the bishop of London seized every copy that his agents can lay their hands on and burned them. Tyndale was executed for heresy. But I'm not going to keep arguing with you on historical facts, because it would probably be pointless.

Don't call me ignorant. And if you want to recommend literature, try something outside your little world of one-sided Catholic apologetics. Try some unbiased history, or heck, how about the Bible? This is a pointless debate anyway. As I said before, all that matters is the Gospel: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." In the end, that's the only thing that matters.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:33PM

To wit,
"Superbia, invidia e avarizia sono
le tre faville c'hanno i cuori accesi."

Your boasts give you away.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:39PM

Purple Lips, are you addressing your comment to me or to JohnB?

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 3:34PM

You, of course. And if you had half the education you claimed, it would have been obvious. Everyone I know who studied classical European history recognizes the immortal words of Dante.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 3:42PM

First of all, what makes you think I didn't recognize Dante? I said nothing about the quote itself. However, Dante wrote during the Italian Renaissance, which was around 300 years before the English Renaissance, which is my period of study. Second of all, would you like to see my transcripts and diplomas? Would you like to read my research papers? Give me your e-mail address and I'll gladly send them to you. I got my BA in English, minoring in Religious Studies, from Texas A&M University in 2005. I got my master's in Medieval & Renaissance Studies from the University of Glasgow (Scotland) in 2009. And yes, my dad is a former Catholic.

I am not trying to be arrogant now, nor was I before. I was attacked and called ignorant and uninformed by JohnB, and when that happens, I will always defend myself. If someone calls me ignorant, yes, I will give them my credentials. That's all.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:55PM

Wow, Dante:

Pride, Envy, and Avarice are
the three sparks that have set these hearts on fire.
Canto VI, lines 74-75

Love this blog. Thank you, Purple Lips.

I am not taking a side in this (Catholic V Protestant). I would be blasted out of the water by either side, and I have no bowzer in this fight. But wow! Dante in the Italian!

W| 6.28.11 @ 10:11AM

OT, there really isn't a side to take. The mere mention of the word Catholic provokes the anti-Catholic cyberspace KuKlxKlan group to post their usual drivel. At this point, it is best to ignore the bigots, there is nothing to gain because it is not a rational civil discussion. It is name calling, ad hominem attacks. But don't believe that the bigots hate only Catholics, if they hate Catholics they probably hate Jews also because they believe their literal reading of the Bible is 1000% accurate, and they have a direct line to God and cannot therefore respect other religions. They are similar to the Muslims in their reading of the Koran.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 4:48PM

The real bigots are the ones who reject the Word of God as it is written in the Bible.

The ad hominems come from people like you who cannot stand the Truth, but instead attack, insult and demean Bible believing Christians for so doing.

Just like the good old Papal Inquisitors did for centuries, because my brethren stood on the Word of God.

You're a lying, slandering bigot yourself, W. And against His Holy Word.

W| 6.28.11 @ 6:44PM

Thanks, Margie, you are a real christian.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 7:26PM

What, it's OK for you to launch into your diatribe, above~ but for me to speak the truth to your lies, is somehow un-Christian?
Hypocrite.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 6:36PM

Sorry, but your credentials only testify to the inadequacy of your instructors -- degrees don't matter, so I think that you "protest too much." I have heard many, many formerly Protestant pastors on Marcus Grodi's "Journey Home" television show on EWTN testify as to how their formation at Protestant seminaries ultimately proved totally incomplete and therefore inadequate, with huge lacunae left where the Catholic faith might have contradicted their Protestant beliefs. Maybe my posting "stung" a bit?

The "world of Catholic apologetics" isn't so little. You couldn't possibly make such a statement and have any real first-hand knowledge of the (large) world of Catholic apologetics. By simply making such an egregious statement, you betray at least some degree of ignorance -- sorry, but it's true.

Try reading these authors, all of them Catholic apologists: Scott Hahn; Mark Shea; Jimmy Akin; Bruce Sullivan; Karl Keating; G. K. Chesterton; Hilaire Belloc; & John Salza. I have read ALL of them -- keep in mind that most of these authors were Protestants first (Hahn and Sullivan were Protestant pastors -- seminary trained). These authors are steeped in history and -- yes -- in the Bible!! If anything, they are extremely careful to address Protestant concerns that Catholicism is somehow "un-Biblical." Read them, if you dare!!

Try reading any one of the "Surprised by Truth" books, in which former Protestants detail their journeys "home" to Catholicism. They are edited by Patrick Madrid: www.patrickmadrid.com.

I also suggest, for further instruction, reading: Pope John Paul II's numerous encyclicals; Pope Benedict XVI, especially his recent "Jesus of Nazareth," which is deeply Biblical; as well as his published works as Joseph Ratzinger. The Catechism is also deeply Biblical, with countless footnotes directly from the Bible -- try picking up a copy and reading it for a change.

For further edification, I recommend Dietrich von Hildebrand's "Transformation in Christ" -- yet another convert!

Why did Francis Beckwith, 57th President of the Evangelical Theological Society, "re-vert" to Catholicism in 2007? Courtesy of Baylor University (not exactly a Catholic university), he remains on the faculty there in good standing.

Try, also, viewing Marcus Grodi's (another Protestant pastor convert to Catholicism) Coming Home Network International's website -- his mission is to assist Protestant pastors who have decided to "come home" to Catholicism.

You, too, should give some serious thought to this matter. Many Protestants aren't as well versed as you are. At least you care. Now, try caring enough to take to heart my suggested reading matter.

Yes, I read the Bible, dear sir. But I ask you: why are you so confident of your own personal interpretation of it? Why do you think that there is such disagreement among Christian denominations about such a fundamental issue as so-called "gay marriage"? All these denominations claim to be Christian. How is it that the Methodist Church is pro-choice on abortion? You fail to address THE fundamental fallacy of Protestantism: private interpretation of Scripture; and the lack of a living, breathing teaching authority.

We Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in matters of Faith and Morals. We do not claim sinlessness for our popes, for our priests, or for ourselves -- not one bit. If it weren't for the Divine guarantee of the teaching authority of a visible Church, with a visible "vicar" of Christ, there would be only 10's of thousands MORE so-called Christian denominations; and we would be even more splintered than we Christians are already.

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:39PM

"Old diatribes"?

Just because they're "old" doesn't make them false.

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:41PM

No, the Bible did NOT "drop from the sky"...It was written by dedicated and faithful Christian men (Paul, Timothy, Luke, etc) LONG before the Catholic Church ever existed.

Only Catholic arrogance is bold enough to assume that NO ONE would have ever heard of these books without the influence of Catholicism.

WHAT a joke!

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 7:07PM

The Catholic Church existed beginning on the very first Pentecost Sunday. Jesus breathed on the first priests, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, are forgiven; whose sins you hold bound, are held bound!" Ever heard of Linus, Cletus, Clement, and Sixtus? These Popes were the immediate successors of St. Peter. The Church as we know it existed right from the start! St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Smyrneans, in 110 A.D. "The Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

The Church -- the Catholic Church -- under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, "canonized" the Bible as we know it. You say that the Catholic Church is "arrogant" because it "assumes" that "no one would have ever heard of" the Bible without the Catholic Church -- this is a "straw man" argument, because that isn't what I contend. But, there has to have been a visible, earthly authority (the Church) to have even pointed out to early Christians what is or is not worthy of being regarded as divinely inspired. There were so many writings rejected for this claim. Were Christians then -- and now -- to have decided, individually, what writings of the early years of the Church were to be accepted, and which rejected, as divinely inspired? Is that what YOU do? Do you contend that the Holy Spirit would guide each and every individual Christian to an understanding of what is or is not divinely inspired literature?

There were numerous writings of the early Church that were rejected for inclusion in what we call the Bible. Indeed, nowhere in the Bible is there a "table of contents" that simply appeared on its own in history. The Church, in Council, over the course of centuries, developed an understanding of which works to include, and which to exclude. Remember: Jesus did NOT leave us with a "Bible." So far as we know, Jesus didn't leave ANYTHING in WRITING!!

What I really don't get is this: if Protestants trust the early Church to have canonized Scripture, why should they not trust the Church to teach authoritatively in matters of faith and morals? It is one and the same Church. Oh, of course, Protestants somehow trust Martin Luther to have discerned what 15 centuries of Christians before him didn't discern -- that SOME books were to be thrown out. Why trust Martin Luther? Why is HIS argument about the so-called deuterocanonical books not appearing in the early JEWISH canon being dispositive against including these books in the holy writ of Christianity? Did you know that fragments of these deuterocanonical books have been found among the first-century Dead Sea Scrolls? Anyway, why should Christians accept or reject books based upon what the JEWS thought was divinely inspired, hmm? Maybe Luther was just jettisoning "inconvenient" books, such as James.

Seems to me that Protestantism is a self-defeating proposition, in that there is no central teaching office. Scripture is not self-evident, nor self-interpreting. If Protestant denominations believe that Christianity has any relevance to some of the modern moral issues such as embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, homosexual behavior &/or "marriage," then why is it that Protestants are now "all over the map" in regards to teaching about these matters? Do Protestants contend that it doesn't really matter what one believes about these issues, so long as one has "prayerfully considered Scripture"? If so, then Protestantism really has devolved into relativism, and -- ultimately, therefore -- into irrelevance. Because these are the issues that MATTER to modern life.

Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:55AM

"The Catholic Church existed beginning on the very first Pentecost Sunday."

Just because you say something with conviction, and just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

Use historical precedence to back up your claim, NOT Catholic drivel...

I await your response.

Joe| 6.28.11 @ 10:58AM

"Just because you say something with conviction, and just because you believe it doesn't make it so."

Your question back to you.... You make many claims that no serious religious scholar of any persuasion accepts. Reference above the dispute on infant baptism, for example.

Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:42AM

"You make many claims that no serious religious scholar of any persuasion accepts."

Ummmmm....That's about as wrong as wrong could be.

You arrogantly assume that any "serious" Biblical scholar would default to your stated position, the Catholic position.

I would posit the exact opposite; any SERIOUS Biblical scholar must REFUTE the Catholic position...and there are score who do.

If you want confirmation of the infant Baptism position I stated above, then:

1) Read your Bible
2) Understand the context
3) Understand the translation

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 10:50AM

"Why is it that 30,000+ (and counting) Protestant denominations ..."

A mythical number that you can't support. Try.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 1:30PM

Keep it up! Jack Chick would be proud!!!

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:14PM

From www.catholic.com, you can see for yourself some good reasons for rejecting Chick's crazy ideas -- and yours. I can't believe that there are people like you who believe Chick's crazy ideas. To "Purple Lips": you need to go back to school, and stop believing these crazy ideas. I don't think that you give any credit to yourself, or to your interlocutors here on this website, by espousing Jack Chick nonsense.

Here are just a few things you will "learn" if you start reading Chick tracts and comic books:

The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]

But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]

The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

"Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin" to create Communism, and it was "believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican."[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist "liberation theology" movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]

The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, "Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII."[9]

The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]

The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]

"Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years"[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]
Tracts are only one of the ways Chick spreads his messages of hate and paranoia. His website (www.chick.com) lists large-size comic books, posters, booklets, books, videos, and DVDs for sale. Still, it is the tracts for which he is most famous. According to Chick Publications, more than 500 million of them have been distributed.

Footnotes:
My Name . . . In the Vatican? Note: The small Chick tracts do not carry page numbers. Page numbers are given for large-format Chick comic books.
The Deceived; The Story Teller.
The Poor Pope?; The Big Betrayal, 53–59.
The Godfathers, 31.
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 13.
Fat Cats.
Holocaust.
Ibid.
Four Horsemen, 30.
The Force, 25.
The Prophet, 30.
The Story Teller.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:33PM

Christianity was absorbed into the already existing Holy Roman Universal (catholic) Church. The term Pope derives from a greek word pappas for father. There were Popes in Persia long before they were in Rome. The Romans simply adopted the phrase. The reason RCs give for calling Peter The first Pope is that they misread the text where Christ declares Peters CONFESSION that Jesus is The Christ with Peter. The object of Christ's confirmation was not for Peter but the confession he made. The invisible Church of Christ began in tandem with the HRCC but became absorbed by it and did not emerge from it until Huss, Wycliff, Luther and others pointed out the mixing of pagan romanism with Christ and the Bible. They wished to reform the church from its errors and return it to its Biblical foundation.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 4:48PM

"If the books of the New Testament are inspired, "god-breathed" scripture, then the men who wrote them must have gotten their material from God himself.

To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God. After all, Jesus promised that he would be with us till the end of time and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.

Therefore, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church can be prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by simply sticking to what is revealed to them by God as truth already "loosed" or "bound" in heaven.

For us, this happens in the course of time, but God is outside of time, so what we learn (and here I would say "learn" means to declare formally since all revelation has been given already) in 1854 or 1950 or at some point in the future is already known by God."

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:57PM

Try Vatican II, Clint. Read it some time, and see how little you follow th teachings of John XXIII.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 7:48PM

Uh Oh, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Whacko, Tool Job, I Read Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II,
“No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world. And it has gone on too long.
“The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquility with the other people of this area.
I have repeatedly proclaimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations... Only with a just and lasting peace — not imposed but secured through negotiation — will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled.”

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 4:59PM

"To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God."

Oh yes it is, it is a huge deal to God.

As it is written:

"So, then, brothers, stand firm and
strongly hold the teachings you were
taught, whether by word or by our letter." 2 Thess. 2:15. LKJV.

We are to only abide by the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and nothing that teaches doctrines that do not agree with His Holy Word.

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 1:37PM

Au contraire! How many people are in the Eastern Church today? Byzantium was nothing but a place where effette theological intellectuals met to crack jokes about the hillbillies on the Tiber. They were so proud of thier theological prowess that every Friday they'd meet to beat the breast and yodel. Alas, thier former glory is all but gone. First, they got whipped big time by the Muslims. And today, thier pews are filled with former Catholics who've tired of the guitar masses, and would still like to worship where the "smells and bells" are taken seriously.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 6:59PM

Byzantium held off the Muslims for about 400 years (Manzikert, 1071, was the end). Would that we do so well. I don't see it, not with the likes of Clint and Ron Paul representing the West.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 8:01PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Neo-Chickenhawk Eight Ball, Tool Job.

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 10:45AM

That's very closed-minded of you, Gasman. Luther fought against the blatant corruption of the Catholic Church during the 1500s, including their support for selling indulgences, veneration of relics, the flase doctrine of Purgatory, and other non-biblical doctrines. He was certainly not perfect, but he pointed out something that Paul made clear hundreds of years earlier: "For it is by GRACE you have been saved, through FAITH, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast."

As for Henry VIII, he was a slimeball. His break from the church was purely for selfish and political reasons. It had nothing to do with theology. But you know what? The English Reformation did lead to some really positive things. For instance, the Bible was published in English instead of Latin, and common people could read it for themselves for the first time ever. Aren't you glad you can read the Bible in your own language?

FYI, John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English in the 1300s and he was burned as a heretic by the Catholic Church.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 12:16PM

Most Protestant Churches would not touch a Wycliffe translated Bible because it is so full of inaccuracies. These bibles were burned, BUT (the part all anti-Catholics like to leave out) the Church gave Bibles to replace the badly translated "bibles".

Why would the Catholic Church provide the world with the Bible to begin with, only to ban them? Why don't you try to read actual history....not just your anti-Catholic rhetoric?

Doctor Right| 6.27.11 @ 2:44PM

The Catholic Church DID NOT provide the world with the Bible!

What a twisted and distorted view of history you have!

The books of the Bible (Old and New Testament) were written LONG BEFORE the Catholic Church ever existed.

Why don't you try to read your Bible, and NOT your false, Catholic-influenced history??

How soon 'till you guys claim to have invented Jesus?

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 5:15PM

Duuuhhhh ! Asked & Answered
Lapsed Catholic-Anti-Catholic Ax Grinder Head Case, Dr.Reich.

St Reformed| 6.27.11 @ 4:11PM

John Wycliffe was martyred in 1384 by the Bishop of London for daring to translate the Latin Bible into English. So you're not going to successfully slander one of my personal saints!
BTW--You need to calm down and stop staying up late with Michael Voris over @ www.realcatholictv.com---Do you two want another Thirty Years War on you consciences?

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 7:01PM

St Reformed---I make this mistake all the time---it is a mistake to answer Clint. He is actually a sharia apologist, not a Catholic protagonist. He certainly is ignorant of Benedict's views.

He is loathsome and ignorant.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 7:02PM

By the way, Clint, we Jews will piss on your grave, boy.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 8:04PM

What "We" Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job?

You Want A Piece Of Me, Bring It Yourself, Chienhawk Pussy REMF Coward Tool Job.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 8:07PM

Gee, Israel Firster Nut Bag Tool Job, You Seem So Grumpy & Out Of Sorts This Fine Summer Evening.

Whaa Da Matta ?

Your Mancrush, Bibi Hasn't Returned Your Calls ?

Pope Testiculus II| 6.27.11 @ 12:40PM

BWAH-HAH-HAH!!!!

Catholicism is the BIGGEST Christian heresy to ever exist!

Let's look at the UTTERLY unscriptural doctrines.

Let's look at the 11 year old Pope.

Let's look at how medieval organized-crime families (the Borgias and the Medicis) pulled the Popes strings for centuries...and even WERE Popes themselves.

Let's look at the greed-driven land-grabs led by Popes and Catholic Kings in Europe, Africa, and Asia throughout the 1st and 2nd millennia.

Catholics make me laugh...especially the clueless ones.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 12:54PM

Read my other postings, as I have addressed your ridiculous ravings elsewhere on this site. Did I mention... Popes have been known to sin? How about the first one, Peter? Oh, but Jesus came to call sinners -- maybe there aren't any of those in the Protestant sects.......Or, if they do, you get yourselves another pastor, or open a new 'church,' where the pastor is an "unblemished lamb," right?

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:45PM

THE core doctrine that separates we Protestants from the RC is the HOW of salvation. The bible says we are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift, faith (trust in Christ's finished work for us) is counted to us as righteousness, it is IMPUTED to us by God. Romans call this a damnable doctrine and instead teach INFUSED grace that takes place over time thereby never giving the believer the assurance of Christ's salvation. From this stream all other Roman errors, pergatory (need more infusing time), intercessors other than Christ (can't pray directly we are not sinless enough yet), Mariology ( another intercessor so close to Jesus that maybe she can get to him more effectively) etc. Luther once said he would carry the Pope around on his own shoulders if only he would declare the clear simply Gospel of Christ. The Pope responded with a lifelong bull for Luther's death.

Anthony M| 6.27.11 @ 8:32PM

As the various protestant sects begin to embrace homosexuality the Roman Catholic church remains steadfast in its opposition. This does not mean that non-Catholics can't be good Christians, I've met some great ones, but the Catholic church, for all its faults, strives to stay true to Christ. Meanwhile the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and soon the Methodists embrace sodomy and celebrate it. Can't any of these people read the bible? Saint Paul had a few things to say about this abberant behavior.

Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:52AM

"As the various protestant sects begin to embrace homosexuality the Roman Catholic church remains steadfast in its opposition."

Excuse me, but...BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!!

Yeah, in their official position, perhaps...but unofficially, the Catholic Church is steeped in gayness, and administered by many, many gays.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:43PM

Try reading Michael Coren's "Why Catholics are Right," just published. The very first chapter addresses your ignorant remark. There is no excuse for sin; but the Catholic Church has done quite a lot to address the priestly sex-abuse scandal. There have been prominent, and egregious, sinners throughout Church history -- just read some of St. Paul's letters, and understand that the Devil has been roaming about like a lion since the very beginning of the Church (see St. Peter's letters for this). Furthermore, it is not a sin to "be gay," or to "be homosexual." The Church teaches that some people have this particular "cross" (or temptation) to bear; just as others among us have other particular "crosses" or temptations that we are prone to. It is a matter of whether we succumb to temptation, or confess and receive absolution. Jesus said: "Whose sins you hold bound, are held bound; whose sins you forgive are forgiven."

In any event, try reading even the first chapter of Coren's great book. Try educating yourself a bit before parading your bigotry before this forum.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 7:29PM

That statement actually made me feel like I was going to throw up.

Pope Testiculus II| 6.27.11 @ 2:53PM

I've been reading your drivel, and you're obfuscating.

I did NOT comment of the sinful nature of man, or of an individual Pope's personal shortcomings.

Nice try.

I commented on a systematic pattern of abuse of Christian principles and doctrine by a heretical organization that wants to claim for itself primacy as THE Christian Church.

I made mention of the 11-year old Pope; how does he fit in with the Catholic doctrine of "Papal Infallibility"? Oh, I know...it's really about "Ex Cathedra", right? OK...then WHY was he Pope in the first place? Who was puling his strings? Gee...How very Christ-like!

I mentioned the Borgias and the Medicis...both families would be considered as criminal enterprises today, yet they exercised tremendous control and influence over the Papacy for centuries.

So, if a Pope was acting in the best interests of the Borgias, was that infallible, too?

And Peter was NEVER a Pope...EVER. That fallacy stems from the Catholic misunderstanding (or distortion) of Jesus referring to Peter as "the rock". The word he used, "petras", in Greek means stone. Jesus didn't make Peter an earthly religious potentate; he told him he was small and tough and that these characteristics would help him spread the Good News.

You're steeped in Catholic drivel...You don't even know what you don't know.

And BTW...the Church I attend doesn't have a "Pastor", and it's not a "new" Church.

In fact, it's the oldest Church that's ever existed.

It's called Christianity. You can read about it, you know. All you have to do is crack-open a Bible.

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 5:04PM

The Usual Anti-Catholic Asshats Are In The Building.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 7:04PM

Master of canned quotes, huh, Clint. Where in Catholic doctrine does it say to call Jews "Sandmonkeys?" Or is it simply in the Canon of the Terrorist Catamite?

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 8:12PM

You Gotta A Problem With Catholic Church Biblical Exegesis. Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Super REMF, Tool Job ?

Hmmmmm, Toughie Girl ?

Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:50AM

Clint CAN'T insult people, usually men, without making a pseudo-sexual reference to our posteriors.

What's wrong, Clint? Were you kicked out of Seminary for "unnatural attractions"??

Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:50AM

Clint CAN'T insult people, usually men, without making a pseudo-sexual reference to our posteriors.

What's wrong, Clint? Were you kicked out of Seminary for "unnatural attractions"??

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 5:01PM

Those "Catholic" books were eliminated because they did not agree with the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles.

skip| 7.8.11 @ 3:02AM

4th festivities prevented keeping up with the riveting threads like this one.

I'd have to verify, but my long held understanding as a Calvinist Protestant is that the only Old Testament books in the Protestant Bible are those mentioned by either Christ or His apostles. Those additional books in the Catholic Bible were not mentioned by either Christ or His apostles and were excluded.

Margie| 6.27.11 @ 3:49PM

Yes, I am called a heretic by the "best" of you Catholic Papal Inquisitors who still practice the same type of persecuting your "forefathers" did.

Have you ever actually read what the Bible says?
Do you not know that the doctrines of Catholicism are NOT the doctrines of Christ?

Find out now, before it's too late the path yopu are on.

"Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in My Word, you are truly my disciples.." Jn. 8:31.

HIS Word, and none other.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 5:43PM

You are your own "pope," aren't you?

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 6:10PM

Nope. I am under the Lord Jesus Christ and once I was a slave to Sin because I tried to save myself, and "be good" like most Catholics do.
But by His Grace I was saved~ rescued from Sin and freed from false Religion that only holds the form of Religion, but denies its Power. 2 Tim. 3:5.

Catholicism teaches that you have to be good, and if you aren't, you get to say some prayers by rote, do "pennance" (completely unscriptual), and go on your way, continuing trying to be good.

This is a deceitful teaching~ and its also why they teach that Grace comes through "the church".. so that you are supposed to rely on the church and not Jesus.

The Bible actually teaches that no one is "good". That we have all sinned and fall short of His Glory. It teaches us that we are to pray to God through Jesus directly, and no one else, for the forgiveness of our sins. It also teaches that we we humbly ask, God will give us His Holy spirit to live in our hearts, and He changes our hardened by Sin hearts into hearts of flesh again. Ezek. 36:26.

God hates Religion, He hates solemn assembly. Read Isaiah ch. one.

What He wants is a relationship with you, through His Spirit, and the only Mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ. 1 Tim. 2:5.

There are no Popes in the Bible. You see, you have been taught that, "oh my, she must be her own Pope!" because that's what you're used to thinking~ that some other sinner who makes himself like God over the people in the place of Christ Himself~ is supposed to be listened to.

This is completely unscriptual.
Jesus is Lord, and Him only will I serve.

C Smith| 6.27.11 @ 10:25AM

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, not just in regard to this particular sin preference.

It started with vanity, choosing God over Darwin. Then vile passion that which is against nature, at which point God gave them up.

But on the Day of Judgment, some will be held more accountable:

"For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God" (1Peter 4:17).

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 10:46AM

I think you reversed that: you meant, the vanity of choosing Darwin over God, no?

+++

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:47PM

The Good News is that God stands ready to forgive all in Christ, even these more open, obvious sins every one of which emanate form the sinful core of man.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 5:10PM

Michael Hauschild has asked American Spectator to put a "Scripture blocker" here, as he despises hearing it.
Ken/Old Tex has asked me by email to quit posting here.
Don't you know that it makes you a "Pharisee" to quote His Holy Word as he has now accused me of being?

Christians take your stand. Are you befriending those who say they are Christians and are not really? If you stand on God's Word and they reject you, are they truly your friend?

We shall see what AmSpec does. Will they become just another of the many who disallow the quoting of Scripture?

Since it is the Catholics who cannot stand it the most, will they run Bible believing Christians out of here at the request of the so-called Christian Catholics?

Ke,
Have you written to them yet demanding that I be banned? The modern day Papal Inquisition continues, but praise God for His Holy Word.

His Truth endures forever.

"The sum of Thy Word is Truth; and every one of Thy righteous ordinances endures for ever.

Princes persecute me without cause, but my heart stands in awe of Thy Words.

I rejoice at Thy Word like one who finds great spoil.

I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love Thy law. Ps. 119:160-163,

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 5:44PM

Margie, you are your own "pope." Do you ever dissent from yourself? Or do you accept all that you teach yourself as infallible?

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 6:13PM

Read my answer to you, above. I NEVER dissent form the Bible. As a so called Christian~ you are called to do the same.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 10:36AM

The United Methodist Church does not condemn abortion. Go to their website: http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732
So: why all the fuss anyway? Protestantism long ago abandoned prohibitions against contraception that as recently as 1905 incited public condemnation by no less a personage than President Theodore Roosevelt. In general, Protestant denominations have proven, by their track records, that they no longer believe in the very idea of "normativity": that some moral teachings are valid at all times, for all people. No, they believe in whatever the majority votes for at their assemblies. If they lose a vote, they go off and form their own religions -- so much for Jesus' prayer that "all might be one."

Tom| 6.27.11 @ 11:32AM

The UMC statement on abortion is wishy-washy at best. And its' continued support of the RCRC shows the church's true colors.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 12:51PM

"Wishy washy?" No, go back and read it again -- they are not ADVOCATING abortion; but they do NOT call it a sin: http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732. Wherein: "....we support the legal option of abortion." What is this? Isn't it a sin to kill an unborn baby?

This whole controversy over "life issues" has "shown up" the whole Protestant movement for what it is: "...teachers to suit their own likings." (2 Tim 4:3). The whole of Protestantism has devolved into 30,000 sects. Protestants complain that Catholics follow the teaching of the Popes? How about this: among Protestants, it is "every man (and woman) his/her own 'Pope.'" Ultimately, this is what it means when people claim that the Scriptures are "self-evident." They most certainly are not. We are left with "my truth is my truth; your truth is yours." This is the "dictatorship of relativism" that Pope Benedict warned about.

Go to 2 Thess. 2:15: "...stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Or, 2 Peter 1:20: "...no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation..." Or, 2 Peter 3:15-16: in reference to Paul's letters, says, "...some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Jesus said (John's Gospel, 16: 12-13): "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth..." What would the Apostles have thought, for example, if Jesus had decided to tell them to write down something like, "Embryonic stem cell research will be developed in the 20th century; but it is evil, so do not do this!" Or, as asserted on the Methodist website, that good Christians can support the "legal option of abortion"? His Apostles would have been unable to "bear" these teachings in the year 33 A.D. And, therefore,.... (see next paragraph)....

The living Holy Spirit is the guarantor of the Catholic Church's infallible teaching office, precisely because Jesus knew that there would be innumerable instances of moral issues arising that the Apostles would have made no sense of whatever. Always remember: Jesus COULD have given us a BOOK, right? Why is it that Protestants have trusted the Holy Spirit, through the Church, to have codified the canon of Scripture, but can't trust that the very same Holy Spirit would guide the Church to INTERPRET that very same Scripture? Protestants interpret Scripture every single day on issues such as abortion and homosexual "marriage." Or, at the least, Protestants are left to conclude that these are "issues" of no moral significance whatsoever, or else Jesus would have said something about them in Scripture. Protestants are eager to say something like, "Where the Bible speaks, I speak; where the Bible is silent, I am silent." And, so we are left with NO sure guide to Truth in the modern era on many "issues" that would have never occurred to Bible-era Christians. For some people, this is apparently okay -- to have NO Scriptural guidance on these issues -- or, at least, to interpret Scripture for themselves ("every man a pope, every man a pope, but no one wears a crown!!")...

Jesus left us the Church, which codified Scripture. But Scripture is not self-evident, or self-interpreting.

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:49PM

anti abortion advocacy is not the domain of the RC only many orthodox protestants also contend for it in the open arena.

Josh2005| 6.27.11 @ 2:59PM

...as well as non-mainline protestants such as Bible Churches, Community Churches, and independent Baptist Churches.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 6:23PM

"Jesus left us the Church, which codified Scripture. But Scripture is not self-evident, or self-interpreting."

More Catholic gobilty-gook.

Catholicism tells you that Scripture is not self interpreting so that you won't read it and learn for yourself, but only listen to their "authority". THEY want to be the interpreters.

Catholicism~ the biggest cult on earth.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21.

Have you ever read this? Do you have any idea of what this means? It means that it isn't a matter of anyone's interpretation~ and certainly not the Pope's. It is saying, point blank that it IS self evident.

Albert| 6.27.11 @ 10:47AM

"Mr. Applegate" once remarked that wives cause him "more trouble than the Methodist Church." It seems that the Methodist Church doesn't cause "Mr. Applegate" much trouble anymore.

C Smith| 6.27.11 @ 11:04AM

God hates all sin, but one sin He hates most; the one that hurts us most.

Seek| 6.27.11 @ 12:15PM

Which is what?

Joe D.| 6.27.11 @ 11:45AM

The more the US Methodist embrace the secular world in America the more they will lose the people. The people want truth and separation, not lies and conformity. The pastor and others in Cal., Illinois, NY, etc. should be suspend for a year without pay at least.

We are here to be representing God/Jesus not the world. The Devil needs no help.

All American American| 6.27.11 @ 11:54AM

I'm confused. If this story is about a lesbian pastor named Amy something or other, why is there a photo of a man on the Amspec home page accompanying the story headline?

Purple Lips| 6.27.11 @ 2:06PM

He's a She, just like what the Kinks warned us about so many years ago.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 7:05PM

"But I know I'm a man, and so is Lola." (But not Clint the Terrorist catamite.)

Jenny| 6.27.11 @ 12:08PM

I wonder why so many people in the UMC are fighting over this issue when they can go right down the street and join the ELCA or the Episcopalian church. Its a matter of shoving their opinions and way of life down our throats, I guess, and forcing us to be tolerant and accept their sins.

Seek| 6.27.11 @ 12:19PM

I don't like the Methodists' embrace of homosexual marriages, but this should not occasion an even more dangerous embrace of mass immigration from African nations. America is not some sort of Christian monster magnet to attract populations, without numerical limits, from all over the world. This idea certainly hasn't worked with immigrants from nominally "Catholic" Mexico. Opposition to gay marriage is not sufficient, in and of itself, to become an American.

Beer Goggles| 6.27.11 @ 12:44PM

Everyone seems to be overlooking the most important aspect of this article:

Is that "Rev" Amy's picture on the home page??

Good grief! What a bowser! She got beat with the ugly stick!

I'll never understand Lesbos...they claim to love women, but half of them look like men!

Maddox| 6.27.11 @ 2:03PM

I often have wondered the same thing. Women who say they are lesbians often are with women who look like men and gay men often choose effeminate men. If you are attracted to the same sex, why choose one who strives to look and act as the opposite sex?

Beer Goggles| 6.27.11 @ 2:21PM

Maybe that's why it used to be a mental disorder?

Maybe their psychological pathology is so screwed-up that they need to be in therapy?

These folks, especially the lesbians, like to tell you that they're "breaking free of patriarchy and sex roles", and other such mumbo-jumbo.

So I always reply "Well if that's the case, then why do SO MANY lesbian relationships mirror traditional, 'patriarchical' relationships, with a butch-lesbian assuming the dominant male role, and her partner assuming the submissive female role??"

This usually pisses them off, and they walk away calling me a fascist, chauvinist bastard...

mames| 6.27.11 @ 2:59PM

Homosexuality is in search of something normal so their actions are all an attempt to mimic the real thing hence dildos, gender roles you speak of, strap ons etc. It is very sick and very mentally and physically unhealthy. But rather than trying to point out the mess they are in we call it "ok" "normal for them". It is the equivalent of an MD telling a cancer patient that they are "ok" "normal for them" just because we have not yet found a way to cure them. The APAs caved to political pressure instead of providing support and help as they found ways to cure these folks. Calling them normal isn't help it is giving up on them.

hardcard| 6.27.11 @ 3:37PM

A house divided can not stand. soros is smiling !!!

St Reformed| 6.27.11 @ 3:46PM

I must empathize with Charles (the Hammer) Martel, but it provides me with little consolation. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), the church body in which I was baptized & confirmed under dedicated Christians, has for the past generation acted as a mirror for the political and social views of the Liberal Establishment. They parrot all the secular clichés, assumptions and PC vocabulary to which our culture is continually and toxically exposed. Sometimes, I could not distinguish their views from the Democratic National Committee’s handbook.
When the ELCA formed in 1988 from the merger of three smaller Lutheran church bodies, ELCA committees were selected according to (surprise!) mandated ethic and gender quotas.
When the 2009 General Convention of the ELCA admitted gay & lesbian clergy in “committed relationships”, church membership entered freefall, continuing to this day. Was it necessary to decimate a denomination to advance the agenda? (see Episcopal Church) Under the First Amendment, we are free to assemble (or disassemble) in religious groups at will. But activists prefer to commandeer a church community rather than to plant their own. The tail wags the dog.

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 8:21PM

My mother, active all her life in the church I grew up in (first ALC, later ELCA), lived a good long life, but I'm almost grateful she didn't see her church fall to the rising tide of sewage that is this modern culture. "Homosexual clergy" is a phrase best suited to pagans and wiccans.

I remember visiting back in 2002 and attending a service with her. The building was familiar, the liturgy was followed, but I could not avoid disappointment. After the service, during which a young assistant pastor had prayed for peace, I turned to my mother and said, given the unassailable morality of our cause, why did the pastor not also pray for victory? Would that have been rude? Was there some doubt on which side God could be counted?

+++

Anthony M| 6.27.11 @ 8:38PM

If Luther had only followed the advice of his fellow reformer Erasmus think of all the bloodshed that might have been avoided.

Bill S| 6.27.11 @ 6:14PM

It's obvious that the United Methodist Church in the US no longer deserves to be considered a Christian church. Those people will answer to God someday.

Charles Martel| 6.27.11 @ 8:24PM

My old professor ruffled some feathers in the geography of world religions class when he said that the Methodists could be better described by what they no longer believed than by what they still believed. Twenty years later, and it's only gotten worse.

+++

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.27.11 @ 9:22PM

As a Methodist I can attest to the turmoil in our church. Trials, coups, heirarchy turmoil. the shifting memebership majority from out of country is a constant power struggle.

Naturalborn Texican| 6.27.11 @ 7:53PM

Any preacher, pastor, clergyman, priest, church leader who proclaims themselves as a servants and witnesses for God, and chooses voluntarily to perform a union ceremony of any kind for those of the same sex in their church..............are enablers of sin.

There is a reckoning coming,without a doubt.

I wouldn't want to be in their shoes!

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.27.11 @ 8:16PM

So Margie hates Catholics, Clint hates Jews, Tool hates whatever Clint is; I am a Methodist and I love everybody. I love everybody because you will all become my useful idiots and help me elect Palin.
How rude of me to pause for a moment to inject some sanity to get the subject back on saving the country.
OK, enough of that, as you were. Commence hating.

JohnB| 6.27.11 @ 9:38PM

Please consider becoming Catholic! Our "track record" shows disputes going all the way back to St. Paul's letters. But no other church offers our continuity of teaching on important moral questions, as well as an unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Jesus told the Apostles to "teach all nations." He didn't say for everyone to read a Bible and figure it out for themselves. If the teacher doesn't know more than the pupils, what's to teach? The Catholic Church's teachings won't be pleasing to "itchy ears" -- at least, not all of them to everyone -- but where else do you get the authority of the Holy Spirit in such visible, continuous form from the time of the first Apostles? We love everybody, too; but we also "condemn the sin, not the sinner." See Matthew chapter 18, in which a known sinner is called out to reform. Seems to me that the Protestant denominations these days just give in to the sinners, who demand that sin be declared virtue!! How else to explain Protestants going off the deep end on so many moral questions?

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:04PM

Lying creep. The hater is you, and you are a hater of Bible believing Christians. You hate the Scriptures and anyone who stands on them. Its no wonder you hide out in "Methodism".

Only perverts like you can twist the facts with your fantasy in order to justify themselves in their rebellion against God.

Liar! I hate no one, not even YOU~ what I hate is the twisting of God's Word that is used. It is used by Homosexuals, it is used by Catholicism, and it is sadly used by some so-called Christians against their own brethren.

Do not lie about me again. You are driving another nail in your own coffin each time you do so.

CalMark| 6.28.11 @ 12:27AM

TO THE MODERATOR:

Please start deleting the ugly, anti-Catholic screeds here and banning the bigots.

The Catholics here are trying to find common ground with other Christian denominations in the name of sociopolitical unity. The Biblical Christian types respond by condemning Catholicism and damning Catholics to hell.

And AmSpec tolerates it. Wrong!

CalMark| 6.28.11 @ 1:12AM

P.S. My request also applies to self-described Catholics condemning others. It's only fair.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:05PM

Freedom of speech for anti-Christian Catholics, but not for me, eh?

All American American| 6.28.11 @ 7:53AM

I'm Catholic, and practicing too. I am by no means a Theologian. I went to a Jesuit HS years ago, and we learned of other religions, but not enough for me to speak intelligently one them, especially all these years later.

That being said, when my kids ask me about other denominations of Christianity, I simply say that salvation is accepting Jesus as your Savior. Its simple, if you believe, truly believe in your heart that Jesus was God as man, He came to earth and died for our sins, you will be saved and have eternal life. How we get there is open for men to debate.

Its just sad to see the hate from alleged "Christians" directed at Catholics on this thread. I love Jesus. I have accepted him as my Savior, and isn't that what really matters? Somehow I don't think He hates me because I celebrate that love for Him a little differently than you do.

Maybe folks of all Christian persuasions would be better served to remember Jesus' teaching that "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdon of heaven."

Josh2005| 6.28.11 @ 9:52AM

AMEN, All American American! As I've said several times on this thread, no matter what denomination you are, the only thing that truly matters is belief in the simple truth of the gospel. Well said.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 11:02AM

Then I suppose you wouldn't think it's wrong for the Methodists to accept homosexual "marriage," hmmm? Why don't we all just gather 'round for a beer and sing "Kumbaya, My Lord, Kumbaya!!!" And, to quote the infamous Rodney King, "Why CAN'T we all just 'get along'?" Glad to see you have NO problem with our Methodist brothers and sisters accepting gay "marriage." (NOT!!)

DaveS| 6.28.11 @ 11:58AM

What a sorry lot with which you and I have to contend.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:20PM

Thanks. I think I can understand better here why our Founding Fathers gave us the "Establishment Clause." I would argue, of course, that the so-called "separation of Church and State" (which is not in the Constitution) has gone way too far in the direction of silencing religious voices in the "public square." We are now at the point of the legal sanctioning of homosexual "marriage." This isn't just a matter of who gets what insurance &/or health benefits, etc. The Left in this country is trying to use this as a further wedge to silence the Church. Witness in Canada how a Catholic priest was hauled before the Human Rights Tribunal for daring to preach against homosexual behavior -- in his own pulpit, in his own church! He is alleged to have violated Canada's "hate crimes" laws. George Orwell's dystopic vision of the future is now upon us! May God have mercy on us all, and rescue us from this madness.

All American American| 6.28.11 @ 12:31PM

JohnB, I'm not quite sure if this question was directed to me, so if it was not I apologize in advance.

No, personally I don't agree. However the folks who call themselves "Christian" but seem to accept what you or I might consider un-Christian beliefs or values will have to answer to a higher power for those beliefs one day. The best we can do, is like you have eloquently said, try to teach. However if or when it falls on deaf ears there's not much left to do, except pray that eyes, ears, and hearts will be opened to God's Word.

That being said I recently read "Heaven is for real." There was a part in the book where the boy who claimed to have visited heaven was attending a funeral at his dad's (a Protestant pastor) church. When the boy asked about the dead man in the casket, he only asked "Did he have Jesus in his heart?" He didn't ask about gay marriage or the Biblical evidence for confessing sins to a priest or praying to saints or Mary or any of that other stuff that gets some so riled up. He simply asked if the man had jesus in his heart so he could get into heaven. I'd like to think, in my own way of trying to heed Jesus' word to become more "childlike," that everyone who accepts Jesus will get into heaven. Then, He'll sit us down and patiently and lovingly explain all the smaller points of difference where we infallable, prideful, sinful men interpreted His word incorrectly.

Now it does sadden me to see all the anti-Catholic hatred on this thread, but I have no animosity toward those folks. I just pray they remember that when Jesus explained to His disciples that they would be persecuted for their belief in Him, He didn't mean by fellow Christians.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:52PM

The Catechism by no means excludes the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, even for non-Christians who have not heard of Jesus, or who have heard only false rumors, or outright lies, about Him. Nonetheless, don't sell Catholicism short -- it is truly the chosen instrument in history. We are the "body of Christ" according to St. Paul. The fullest, best manifestation of God's revelation is to be found only in Catholicism. All other faiths are mere shadows by comparison. How else to explain their rudderless wandering when it comes to moral issues? They don't have the 7 sacraments, either -- especially the Eucharist, which is Jesus' own body, blood, soul, and divinity. Jesus is truly "with us 'til the end of time," as He promised -- in the Eucharist.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:52PM

Margie| 6.30.11 @ 7:29PM

Christians don't lie about other Christians, Crusader~ as you did in your post about me, below.
I am waiting for you to post your phony accusation here.
If you do not, you will have been found to be nothing but a liar and an utter fraud.

Josh2005| 6.28.11 @ 4:51PM

I'm not talking about gay marriage, I'm talking about salvation, JohnB. If you actually read my other posts, you'd know that I specifically said that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn't be accepted. I'm talking about salvation issues. YOU are the one who turned this thread into a Catholic vs. Protestant debate, claiming that only Catholics are saved and everyone else is a heretic.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 12:26PM

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does speak to the issue of salvation for non-Catholics and for non-Christians. Nonetheless, the fullest measure of revelation of God's will and the fullest measure of His graces, in the Church's seven sacraments, is to be found only in the Catholic Church. It DOES matter. How else to explain that the Catholic Church remains like a "rock" set against the tides of modernity? So many other Christian denominations are adrift in the sea of the "dictatorship of relativism." You may be Catholic, but you don't know your own faith well enough.

All American American| 6.28.11 @ 12:43PM

I know JohnB, all I know is I love Christ, and have accepted Him as my savior. I humbly pray every day to be a better person than I was the day before. I also try and teach my children to love their fellow man while remaining true to the values and beliefs I try and raise them with. While I haven't always lived my life according to God's will, when I needed Him in the most violent, stormy parts of my life He was there. I also pray to God that I can hear His call to me, and when that time comes answer it with all of my being.

I guess if that makes me a "bad" Catholic or whatever, I can live with it. If it makes me an un-Christian pagan to others, I can live with it. Like I said, I am truly trying to become more childlike in my faith as Jesus taught, and to accept my fellow man without prejudice, while praying for those who need it.

Its been a very humbling experience, but also a fulfilling one.

Jenny| 6.28.11 @ 10:57AM

Amen! It never ceases to amaze me how quickly "Bible Believing Christians" are so quick to condemn others that don't share their views on salvation. Who were the ones that Jesus most strongly condemned? Why the Pharisees, of course. Let's stop the infighting and love God and our neighbor with all our hearts and minds. This is Jesus' new commandment. Read it, love it, live it.

CalMark| 6.28.11 @ 1:29PM

Dirty little secret: literal interpreters of the Bible are not one, unified group of "real Christians." They belong to many different religions and offshoots, all of which parse the Bible differently. Disagreement on literal meaning can lead to splits and vitriol against their former brethren comparable to the stuff they're posting about Catholics here.

Case in point: Bible-only religions are variously OK with drinking-and-dancing, or drinking only, or dancing only, or neither. All quote the Bible as authority. And that's the relatively simple stuff: disagreements about central, but opaque, Bible passages often get monumentally ugly.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 6:29PM

Bible believing Christians proclaim what is actually written in the Bible.

All the condemning that you speak of is by the Catholics here against us. Because it flies in the face of your fantasy.

DaveS| 6.28.11 @ 11:55AM

God does treat unattractive women quite poorly, and men are to blame for that judgment's execution. But so what? God and man are supposed to orbit self-absorbed women? Emphatically, no.

Josh2005| 6.28.11 @ 5:25PM

This thread has gotten WAY off topic, so I'm going to write one more post and then be done with it. Here we go...

1) The Bible clearly states (in both the Old and New Testaments) that homosexuality is a sin. It's not even a question. The fact that the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and others officially accept gay pastors and gay marriage is abominable and wrong. The end. However, just because those are the official positions of those churches, that doesn't mean all Methodists agree with a bunch of bureaucrats they have never met. My wife, for instance, grew up in a Methodist church, and she was never taught that homosexuality is okay, nor does she believe it's okay. Similarly, the Catholic Church (officially) teaches salvation by works and the veneration of Mary. However, I know many Catholics who believe neither of these things and instead trust in the Gospel: "For by grace we have been saved through faith..."

2) No one "denomination" (including Catholicism) has a monopoly on truth or salvation. As I've said previously, most Christian denominations share the same basic doctrine and only differ on cermonial matters or worship style. Personally, I have never wanted to join a big, overarching church organization (i.e. United Methodist, Catholic, Southern Baptist) that hands out official statements from some massive bureaucracy. Most churches I have attended are self-contained, are not subject to any governing authority (other than God), and teach from the scriptures alone, not from traditions, rituals, or political fads.

3) Most big, overarching church organizations issue proclaimations and official statements with which many members disagree. For instance, I disagree with Southern Baptists for several of their official stances, such as the teaching that drinking alcohol (even in moderation) and dancing are sins. Nevermind the fact that Jesus drank with his disciples and King David danced all the time. I also disagree with the United Methodist Church for accepting homosexuality and basically being super-liberal. My disagreements with the Catholic Church are numerous and have been mentioned in previous posts. The point is that we, as Christians, need to stop worrying about what the various church bureaucrats say, and instead just worry about what the Bible says.

4) For those of you who keep calling people like me "bigots" or whatever, please stop. While I have numerous disagreements with the current and historical doctrines of the Catholic Church, I do not "hate" Catholics. There are many Catholics in my extended family (who I love dearly), and many in my wife's family as well. In fact, her great-aunt is a nun. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible think someone is wrong theologically without hating them. I don't hate Jews or Mormons or Buddhists either. I just believe they're wrong. Let's all grow up, shall we?

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 6:00PM

That you fail to see the flaw inherent in your train of thought is astonishing.

If, as you say, "most Christian denominations share the same basic doctrine," why does it matter at all to you that some of the Protestants now accept "gay marriage"? Does it not occur to you that the Methodists and others now accepting gay "marriage" actually consider themselves Christian every bit as much as you do, and that they espouse a "better" Christianity than the benighted ages past, who condemned this activity?

Could it be that you believe that homosexual "marriage" is NOT a "basic doctrine," and that therefore it really is okay, so long as you are a Methodist, but that -- because you choose not to be a Methodist -- it is okay for YOU not to accept this doctrine because it isn't "basic," and therefore "no big deal"?

On the other hand, if it IS a "basic doctrine" that men can't marry men, and women marry women -- as you say in point #1 -- then you are saying that Methodists do not espouse a "basic doctrine" -- i.e., something that is required for them to be Christian at all. Therefore, you are saying that Methodists who remain Methodist after gay "marriage" is allowed are, in fact, no longer "Christian," precisely because this IS a "basic doctrine" (i.e., something which must be believed in order to call oneself Christian).

Therefore, does it, then, matter after all, which denomination you belong to?

It sounds to me like YOU belong to a denomination of one -- yourself, with yourself as "pope." How do you KNOW that YOU have got things "right" about gay "marriage," and millions of Methodists have got it wrong? Do you ever doubt yourself on these things? If not, then "Congratulations! YOU, sir, are your own pope!"

Nick| 6.28.11 @ 6:43PM

JohnB,

As one Catholic to another, I would like to offer some unsolicited advice.

Don't assume the worst of fellow Christians who do not agree with the Catholic Church. We are not trying to win arguments. We just want to share the Good News of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit will do the rest.

Also, here is a great quote that was highlighted in a Bible study, to which I'm currently listening, on the Gospel according to Saint Luke:

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Saint Luke 6:45; emphasis mine.)

This is the perfect quote for ALL Christians to remember when discussing the Word of God.
Especially, since it comes at the end of Christ's discourse about however we measure others, this is how we will be measured by God; and to take the beam out of own eye, before noticing the speck in our brother's eye.

God Bless!

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 11:14PM

I appreciate the solicitude, but I cannot agree with your analysis of my own attitude, nor with the advice not to have a heart-felt exchange with a fellow Christian. Ideas have consequences, or else we wouldn't be in the midst a civilization-wide melt-down. These ideas do matter, and should matter. There is quite a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry expressed among the comments of this article. I care enough about my Faith to defend it. Wish you felt the same.

victor| 6.28.11 @ 11:16PM

Actually what you express is anti-Bible bigotry. I hope you wake up.

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 11:28PM

There "you" go again. There is no religion that is more grounded in and concordant with the Bible than the Catholic Faith. It is shocking and very distressing -- upon exchanging postings with so many of you -- how little so many of you know of Catholicism. If you would just read our Catechism, you would see myriad footnotes to the Bible. Our Catholic Mass is soaked through with the Bible from beginning to end. Instead, it seems as though you Bible-based religionists have it set in your hearts somehow that Catholicism is non-Scriptural, or worse. (See the posting about Jack Chick.) I have had many friends over the years who, as Bible-Church Christians, are living morally upright lives, and "love the Lord." Too bad that so many of you believe that Catholics are on the road to perdition. Too bad that what you believe to be Catholicism is quite often not our actual beliefs. I would hope that these misconceptions arise from inattention and lack of true knowledge of what Catholicism teaches, rather than from malice. I'm not so sure any more.

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 3:36PM

"There is no religion that is more grounded in and concordant with the Bible than the Catholic Faith."

Actually, that is the EXACT opposite of the truth.

"The format of this essay will be simple. I will list the Roman Catholic practice, the year it was instituted and then give a verse of Scripture to see if the practice will stand under the eye of Scripture.

310
Prayers for the dead and the sign of the cross. It is believed the practice of prayers for the dead may date back to 200 AD.
(Heb 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

375
Veneration of angels and deceased saints began.
(Psa 29:2 KJV) Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

394
The daily mass was instituted.
(Heb 10:11-12 KJV) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: {12} But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

432
The worship of Mary is instituted. The term "Mother of God" originated at the council of Ephesus and was bestowed upon Mary.
(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

(Isa 45:5 KJV) I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

500
Priests began to dress differently from the laity thus putting on a religious exterior.
(Rev 2:6 KJV) But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

The word "Nicolaitans" comes from two Greek words "nikao" which means "conqueror" and "laos" which means "people." When the two words are combined, it means "conqueror of the people." God hates this error because the clergy have built themselves into a self-appointed elitist class with the belief that the people in the pews are dumb and that they must do all their thinking for them. In this way the clergy conquer the people by conquering their mind. The Catholic Priests have absolute mind domination over the naive Catholics in the pews. How else could they instill belief in the people that they can forgive sins and cause the eucharistic elements to turn into the actual blood and body of Christ?

593
The doctrine of Purgatory was adopted.
(Heb 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(2 Cor 5:8 KJV) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

600
The Latin language was imposed upon the mass by Gregory I.
(2 Cor 3:12 KJV) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

606
Boniface III receives the title of "Universal Bishop" and thus became the first Pope.
(1 Pet 2:25 KJV) For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (Speaking of Christ)

650
Feasts commemorating the Virgin Mary began.
See Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19,25 at the beginning of this study.

709
The kissing of the Pope’s foot began.
(Psa 2:12 KJV) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

754
The temporal power of the Popes began. This was the belief that the Popes were allowed to own vast areas of land which were untouchable by anyone else. This practice was never refuted because it is based upon the document known as the "Donation of Constantine." He believed that he was healed by the miraculous powers emanating from the Bishop of Rome. He then rewarded the Pope with gifts of land. This practice was continued without hesitation.
(Psa 24:1 KJV) A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

788
The worship of relics and images established.
(Exo 20:4-5 KJV) 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: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

847
The Decretals of Isidore were used by the Pope to claim supremacy within the church. These decretals are closely associated with the Donation of Constantine in matter of principle. They both increased the power and wealth of the Popes.
(Luke 22:24-26 KJV) And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. {25} And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. {26} But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

854
Holy water introduced which was a mixture of water and a small amount of salt. It was blessed by the priest.
(Jer 2:13 KJV) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

890
The veneration of St. Joseph began.
(Rev 19:10 KJV) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

965
The baptism of the bells was introduced. The baptism of bells was accomplished in the following manner. The bells were first washed with holy water and then they were anointed on both the inside and the outside with holy oil. Then prayer is said over the bells, the essence of the prayer is this, every time the bells ring the evil spirits would be driven away and God’s people will come to prayer.
(Mark 1:27 KJV) And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. - The evil spirits fear Christ not washed bells.

993
Canonization of dead saints introduced.
(Psa 30:4 KJV) Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.

This psalm was written about 1300 years before the Roman Catholic system came into being. God calls His true believers saints and does not recognize human canonization of anyone."

http://www.scionofzion.com/rc.htm

Nick| 7.1.11 @ 1:11AM

Margie,

I think Dr. Matto's arguments are as flawed as Mr. Job's.

He asserts that in A.D. 606 the first Pope was Boniface III. Then he asserts that in A.D. 754 the "temporal power of Popes began." He cites the "Donation of Constantine" as proof, because Constantine "rewarded the Pope with gifts of land."

But, wait a minute. Didn't Dr. Matto just claim that the first Pope was Boniface III? So, how could Constantine, back in the 4th century A.D., "reward a Pope" if there weren't any popes until A.D. 606?

By the way, the "Donation of Constantine" was proved a forgery, centuries ago.

Also, all the Scriptures that Dr. Matto cites do not contradict, nor prohibit, the Catholic teaching or tradition they purport to refute.

God Bless!

Nick| 6.29.11 @ 1:37AM

JohnB,

I was sure that you had been posting here for awhile. Am I thinking of someone else? No regular commenter here, at AmSpec, would accuse me of not caring enough about my Faith to defend it.

I was not trying to cast aspersions on your attitude, honest. Again, please don't assume the worst possible motive. I wrote my comment as someone who has repeatedly been guilty of what I was warning against. A quick scroll down the comments of this thread, and I saw what I've seen (and participated in) here dozens of times.

Although, this is the first time that I've ever seen an article about a lesbian Methodist minister turn into a Catholic/non-Catholic shout-fest!

There is nothing wrong with defending the Catholic Church. In fact, we are called to do this by Saint Peter, in his first epistle: "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1 Peter 3:15)

So, by all means, defend the Faith. But, as the Holy Spirit recently showed me, don't become a member of the Church Belligerent, as I had done:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705fea2.asp

God Bless!
Yours in Christ,
Nick

Nick| 6.29.11 @ 1:52AM

JohnB,

p.s. I should add that I am friends with Margie and Victor, believe it or not!

I jumped down Margie's throat when she first posted here, and called her an anti-Catholic bigot. A fellow Catholic, John II, intervened, and showed us that it was more important to focus our energies on the bleeding heart liberals who post their drivel here. Not to beat each other's brains out.

It was great advice. We apologized to each other, and I have treated Margie and Victor with respect, and they likewise, ever since. That was over two years ago! We agree to disagree about the Catholic Church, but, we still discuss the Word of God, and share each other's thoughts.
Hope you can do the same, JohnB.

Josh2005| 6.29.11 @ 1:04PM

First of all, chill out, JohnB. Sit back and have a drink maybe. Not everything has to devolve into a shouting contest.

Second of all, did you not read my very first point in which I clearly condemned homosexuality and gay marriage? I specifically said it was "abominable and wrong."

However, when I use the term "basic doctrine," I am referring to the simple truth of the Gospel. You know, the foundation of Christianity. God created the world as a perfect place, but due to the Fall, mankind became inherently sinful and separated from God. So He sent his son Jesus to earth to sacrifice himself on a cross on our behalf, breaking the power of sin and death. On the third day, Jesus rose from the grave, and those who trust in His saving grace will one day walk beside Him in Heaven.

That's what I mean by "basic doctrine." Homosexuality is certainly a sin, but then so are lust and hatred and greed and gluttony. We are all sinners and need to strive for holiness. But salvation (i.e. the Gospel) isn't about being sinless. If it was, we would ALL be royally screwed.

Josh2005| 6.29.11 @ 1:08PM

Also, JohnB, I don't need a "Pope." No one does. I have the Bible and I have the Holy Spirit, which is the only guide, helper, and intercessor anyone needs. My pastor is a wise man and a good teacher, but he is still just a man. I bow to no man. The only spiritual authority I will bow to is God himself. Thanks.

Josh2005| 6.29.11 @ 2:01PM

Speaking of not needing a Pope...

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." - Matt 23:9

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people." - 1 Tim 2:5

Nick| 6.29.11 @ 11:28PM

Josh2005,

So, you don't call your dad father?

What did you do on Father's Day?

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 6:30PM

"How do you KNOW that YOU have got things "right"

Do you have a Bible?

JohnB| 6.28.11 @ 11:32PM

Yes, I do -- actually, I have multiple translations of it -- usually using the RSV-CE. And I read it almost every day. And it is thanks to the Catholic Church that I know what is supposed to be in my Bible, and what is not; and how to interpret Scripture in light of Tradition, so that throughout the world we Catholics are one in doctrine.

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 3:43PM

John B.,

I posted a lot of examples of the false teachings of Catholicism, above.

Scripture is not to be "interpreted in light of Tradition". That is what the Pope tells you, but it's a blatant lie.

The Apostles warned us to only accept what was taught by God, Jesus and the Apostles, and NOT the traditions of those who came after. Especially if it doesn't agree with the Bible.

"I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them." Rom. 16:17.

The doctrine is the doctrine THEY have taught, not the Catholic church. Their doctrine does not line up with what they taught.

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 4:13PM

"So, then, brothers, stand firm and
strongly hold the teachings you were
taught, whether by word or by our letter." 2 Thess. 2:15.

Hold fast to THEIR teachings. Whatever it is you are told, if it doesn't match up to THEIR teachings.. we are to reject them.

Jenny| 6.29.11 @ 12:26AM

Margie, how do you KNOW that YOU have got things right?

I also am a Catholic who reads my Bible everday in my devotional time. The first hour of my day is spent in prayer and Bible time. I also have numerous translations of Scripture so I can better understand what my Lord is teaching me. I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church as taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'm certainly not the greatest or most devout Catholic in the world. God's still working on me. But it is not my job to go around condemning and judging people for not sharing my beliefs. I'll leave that up to God. Some people - ever since the time of Jesus - make it their special mission to judge others. Pharisees anyone? Why do you think that Jesus spent so much time condemning the Pharisees, Margie? Think about it.

On a personal note, I am currently fighting terminal cancer. What I believe and do has eternal consequences not just here but in eternity to come. Real soon. So the most important advice that I can give you is Jesus command to "Love God and love your neighbor". It's not optional, folks. Hate has no place in Christianity.

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 3:48PM

Sorry, Jenn. But it isn't hate to expose false doctrine.
I'm sorry for your illness, and will pray for you. My sister just found out she has Cancer, too.
I do not hate Catholics. What I do hate is that the Devil gets to deceive so many people through Catholicism.
If I keep silent concerning the truth, I will be counted as one who supresses it.
Catholicsim teaches Salvation by works, and that Grace comes through "the Church". This is not Jesus' gospel.
We are saved by Grace, through faith, and into a relationship with God through Christ.
See my post above for just some of the false doctrines.
God bless.

All American American| 6.29.11 @ 10:42PM

Uhhh, no it doesn't. You can't believe everything you read on your anti-Catholic websites, Margie.

Margie| 6.30.11 @ 7:26PM

Apparently, you don't know what your own Religion teaches.

Crusader| 6.29.11 @ 4:13PM

First jenny God bless you and keep you in your fight. Miracles do happen!

Careful with Margie. She is kinda like the crazy old ladies Stossel sometimes profiles who sue kids for riding their bikes too loud.

This is the truth---one time a while back I posted that America needs more candidates who are strict Constitutionalists. Margie DEMANDED to know what I mean by that. Anyway long story short, after a few back and forths, me trying to assure her I just wanted candidates who would follow the Constitution, she called me--I kid you not cuz you couldn't MAKE this stuff up--a Satanist! I actually went from evil Libertarian to Socialist to Communist to Satanist, all because I said I wanted candidates who followed the Constitution.

She's nuttier than squirrel poop.

Margie| 6.30.11 @ 7:25PM

If what you say is the truth~ go and find it and post it here. There is a search bar here.
Otherwise you take the place of the hateful ones who do nothing but bear false witness against me here.
We'll wait.

weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:28AM

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 12:36PM

**Clint, your very first response to Margie started with:

The Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil Didn't Get The Memo.

**Your second to Occam’s Tool:

You Seem So Upset & PMS'y Neo-Nuker Chickenhawk Israel Firster Screwball, Tool Job.

**There followed these:

Do Your Homework Lapsed Catholic- Anti-Catholic Whacko Fanatic, Dr. Reich

You're A Slandering Liar Screwball Maniac Israel Firster Tool Job. Neo-Chickenhawk Super REMF Coward, Tool Job Delenda Est.

Uh Oh, Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Whacko, Tool Job, I Read Pope John Paul II.

You're A Slandering Liar, Neo-Chickenhawk Eight Ball, Tool Job.

Lapsed Catholic-Anti-Catholic Ax Grinder Head Case, Dr.Reich.

What "We" Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job?

Gee, Israel Firster Nut Bag Tool Job, You Seem So Grumpy & Out Of Sorts This Fine Summer Evening.

The Usual Anti-Catholic Asshats Are In The Building.

You Gotta A Problem With Catholic Church Biblical Exegesis. Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Super REMF, Tool Job ? Hmmmmm, Toughie Girl ?

**Clint, what debating schools have you attended? I really don’t see how you expect anyone to be persuaded by your acrimonious posts, nor do I see how your priest and bishop would commend you for your “defenses”. Have you shown them your works?

Josh2005| 6.29.11 @ 1:13PM

Rich D, do Clint's "acrimonious posts" become less offensive when we note that they are also nearly incomprehensible? All commentary about "debating school" aside, it seems that he was taught English grammar by a pack of wolves.

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 1:25PM

Yes, less offensive, but just as useless. I don't have the energy right now to debate his theological errors

Margie| 6.29.11 @ 4:07PM

Heh, I've been doing that here for a couple of years. Exposing the theological errors. But it does not matter to him, or most here.
What you will get is pure hatred spewed at you for trying.
But I do hope you will still try. I will not feel alone!
God bless.

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 6:03PM

Well, I started with JohnB below.

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 6:41PM

See the response to Clint. Now you see why it takes so much time.

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 2:05PM

JohnB asks, "What I really don't get is this: if Protestants trust the early Church to have canonized Scripture, why should they not trust the Church to teach authoritatively in matters of faith and morals? It is one and the same Church."

The question begs the answer. It is circular reasoning that includes a non sequitur. The "church" that accepted what is now the canon of Scripture was the various assembles of followers of the Way who circulated the writings, and had no hierarchy. That crept in to the Roman church as the Hegelian result of the influence of the Jewish insistence on Law and the freedom of the early Christian. It is not synonymous with the RCC. The RCC merely ratified what had been long-standing in those communities. Read F. F. Bruce on same.

The "Church" was never chartered institutionally (as a corporation with earthly CEO) to do what you claim. The church (little "c") is the sum of those who are the true followers of Jesus as the Christ.

Here is a question for you: On what date was the canon closed, or is it still open?

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 6:40PM

Clint| 6.27.11 @ 5:11PM leads with a pleasantry: “Do Your Homework Lapsed Catholic- Anti-Catholic Whacko Fanatic, Dr. Reich”

Let’s see which of us has done his homework, shall we?

"The Bible is the most preserved work of literature in our history. In fact, there are approximately 5,600 original manuscripts still today.”

Reply: Well, there are NO original manuscripts. ALL are copies of the autographs. Strike one.

“When the Catholic church translated (sic) into English in 1966, it used as many of the original texts as there were.”

Reply: False again. There are NO original texts. You swung and missed at the same pitch. Strike two.
Reply: For some of the books, they made an English translation of the French Jerusalem Bible of 1956! Strike three. First out.

Oh are you batting again?
Reply: The translation uses the incorrect and totally anachronistic term “Yahweh”. The Tetragrammaton YHWH was NEVER vocalized, and the Masoretes (q.v.) pointed it to be read Adonah or in some instances, Elohim. Sometime they didn’t even write it out, but used yod-yod. Strike one.
Reply: the previous translation was from the 17th century, and it was translated from the Latin Vulgate. I wouldn’t brag that they finally got around to going back MOSTLY to the original languages. Strike two.

“What is most interesting is that in 1415 AD, Erasus (sic) (sic) translated to English using 5 copies of a German translation.”

Reply: Who?! OH, you mean Erasmus? I thought that you were trying to erase us – whew! Well, he wasn’t born until 1466! Strike three. Second out.
Reply: He completed a GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ONLY in 1514. Strike one and two for two errors.
Reply: He edited the Greek to conform to the earlier Latin, a really dumb idea. Strike three. Side out. You really need some quality players on your team. Cheer up - the last place team gets to choose first in the draft.

(to be continued)

Rich D| 6.29.11 @ 8:07PM

For Clint (continued)

“Then King James used Erasus (sic) translation to come up with the KJV of the bible.”
Reply: Erasmus ignored the best Greek manuscripts at his disposal, instead using the later versions of the worst manuscripts. (No more strikes – I’m not letting you play without a functioning team.)
Reply: Erasmus didn’t trust the earliest manuscripts because he thought the text “erratic”. Well, One of the principles of Textual Criticism (q.v.) is that the most difficult manuscript is to be preferred.
Reply: Luther used the Greek NT of 1519 to make his German translation. You have it backwards.
Reply: King James did no translating.
Reply: The first AV (KJV) did contain the so-called Apocrypha.
Reply: For the NT, the translators used mainly the Greek editions of Beza. In about 100 instances, they copied the English from the Bishop’s Bible or other English translations. Perhaps another 60 came from the editions of Erasmus or the Complutensian Polyglot (q.v.) and the rest were taken from the Vulgate.
Reply: 80% is from Tyndale’s translation. Remember him? The Franciscan priest strangled and then burned at the stake when already dead? He was the first to go directly to the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Roman church did not support any English translation, and Tyndale wrote against Henry VIII’s divorce, thus ticking off the world of power. Read some history, sir – read.

“Ever wonder why there are differences????”
Reply: I just explained why many translations are faulty.
Reply: What differences are you talking about?

“These differences are very minor other than the KJV not including the Apocrypha as God had originally inspired. If we all agree that the Bible is inspired by God, then how can we as man decide later that those books we don't agree with are not?
Reply: Only the original autographs are inspired. They are lost.

“Roman Catholic Answer It was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture."
Reply: Your wording is sloppy. Do you mean inspired? Useful for doctrine? Do you know that they weren’t part of the Jewish canon so Jesus would never have quoted them? It was Trent that elevated most of them to a status they didn’t have before. The canon of Melito of Sardis (ca. 180 AD) and the much later letters of Jerome considered them non-canonical.

Back to the books, Clint…

Margie| 6.30.11 @ 7:22PM

Wonderful, Rich D! Well done! But you will not hear from the "man" Clint/Tim*, he knows nothing. He only cuts and pastes from Catholic websites and cares nothing for the Truth.

We shall see.. he usually replies to God's Truth with blasphemies and hatred~ accusing anyone who stands on God's Truth as a HATER.. etc., etc.

Anybody who quotes Scripture here is looked upon as a Catholic basher and is summarily DESTROYED.
It's called the modern day Papal Inquisition!

Rich D| 6.30.11 @ 11:24PM

Actually, he could have read most of this material at Catholic websites, including the Catholic Encyclopedia. My favorite sport is using Catholic sites to enlighten Catholics who aren't really familiar with their own doctrine and history. Many Protestants aren't so knowledgable at their faith, either. I suspect that Clint read this stuff from polemic sites, and not official ones, or else picked it up from ignorant Catholic "friends" who prefer to bash rather than enlighten.

Notice my post above pointing out the error of JohnB above regarding the canon.

POST American| 6.29.11 @ 11:00PM

AGAIN, for it bears repeating and spotlighting

----EST. over 90% of our Lutheran, Methodist
and even Baptist leadership are now FREEMASON
(ie Luciferian Social Darwinist).

The SILENCE of the American religious establishment
on such matters as not only
the mainstreaming and promotion of divorce,
adultery, fornication, sodomy and, 'A-bore-shun'
----but the VAST program of capstone instigated
contamination of food, water, air and meds
for 'social engineering' (ie extermination)
----speaks volumes.

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|83 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online