Zone1 interesting how liberals and other malcontents can only see BAD in the Catholic Church, dismiss any good

Well educated, in fact. Enough to know that slinging aspersions means the participant resorting to that behavior has lost the argument and has no where else to turn...

And, by all means, the pulling out of the Trump excuse is the proof.
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! has nothing to do with the OP and off topic...
:heehee:
 
I've noticed this... These evil so and sos just WILL NOT acknowledge there is good in the Catholic Church

Of course you see them on Politics forums talking about bad things found elsewhere... but there are good things in those elsewhere places, and they acknowledge it (sometimes)

But the Church Christ founded?

The only ones who say good things about that Church are its members and even they do not ... defend the Church often

Of course, we haven't had a truly Catholic Church for a LONG time in theVatican. So there's that... But most people don't have a clue what is REALLY going on at theVatican...

OUtside the Vatican, however, we find the true Catholic Church, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) which kept the traditions observed and practiced since Day One of Christianity, traditions taught by all the popes until you get to Paul VI/JP II/Francis
You're asking paid Marxists to be reasonable. They're not going to point out the good in the Catholic Church. The RCC is and has always been the biggest obstacle and enemy to atheists who want to take over the world for their own personal ends.
 
Christ did not found the Catholic Church. In fact, he's revolted over the Catholic Church destroying the Gospel, Ordinances and pretty much everything.
Jesus conducted the first Mass. Jesus founded the One True Church, the Catholic Church.
 
Jesus did not found the church - because of him was founded the church.



We wrote the gospels and we made the bible. And the bible is by the way only a very important holy book wherin are written many words of god - but it is on its own not a god. It's a summary of books - also called "the book of the books".


Yep, it's not all the Lord's works, teachings, doctrines, laws and commandments for us in our latter days. The Bible is really the Book that describes the blueprint for the Church of Jesus Christ. While the RCC has similarities, they have no prophets, apostles in which the Church must be built on. They have a priesthood but the orders of the priesthood are not something existing in the Bible. What happened to the Order of Melchizedek and Aaron? Now they have Franciscans and Jesuits and all sorts of non-biblical Orders. They lost how to perform many of the ordinances as well.
 
You're asking paid Marxists to be reasonable. They're not going to point out the good in the Catholic Church. The RCC is and has always been the biggest obstacle and enemy to atheists who want to take over the world for their own personal ends.
I have had this same htought... that the Catholic Church (even now, as messed up as it is..) is the biggest obstacle to those who... are up to no good, wnat to rule the whole damn world.

Ever noticed how those who want to rule the world are usually those who cannot even rule themselves? They seem the most amoral and unethical .. sociopaths

scum rises to the top
 
Yep, it's not all the Lord's works, teachings, doctrines, laws and commandments for us in our latter days. The Bible is really the Book that describes the blueprint for the Church of Jesus Christ. While the RCC has similarities, they have no prophets, apostles in which the Church must be built on. They have a priesthood but the orders of the priesthood are not something existing in the Bible. What happened to the Order of Melchizedek and Aaron? Now they have Franciscans and Jesuits and all sorts of non-biblical Orders. They lost how to perform many of the ordinances as well.

What you say here is only an ideological nonsense. But the Christian religion is not an ideology.



And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper.
 
Last edited:
What you say here is only an ideological nonsense. But the Christian religion is not an ideology.



And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper.

It's not an ideology? How so? It's a belief on an ideal that God created the heavens and the earth. Man fell that mankind might be. A Savior would be provided to remove our sins since Adam and Eve. And, we will all be resurrected following the Savior. It's too bad you do not believe anything in the Bible.
 
It's not an ideology? How so?

This I do not tell you although the answer is simple.

It's a belief on an ideal that God created the heavens and the earth.

Why is the idea and/or belief in the truth of a creator god who is the cause and/or reason for the existence of everything an "ideal"? Why do you think exists something and it is not only nothing at all? The belief in a creator god = father god (or in something what is the first uncaused cause or transzends this first cause) is by the way a belief which share many people of many religions.

Man fell that mankind might be.

I'm not able to translate this. What means this? What do you like to say say with this sentence? Science for examnple follows the paradigma "there is only one god" - ah sorry: "there is onyl one truth". And as far as I can see this paradigma is true because science makes only sense when science does not be in contradiction with herself. When a pysicist finds out something and a chemist finds out something - both are not able to understand and control the methods which the other one used - and this what they found out is in contradiciton with each other then something is wrong. But in other ways of our life we are much more free. What tastes better ¿a Walnut or a Hazelnut? is for example as well between persons and during time (yesterday the walnut, today the hazelnut) a totally free "decision".

A Savior would be provided to remove our sins since Adam and Eve.

I belief god made it that we left the paradise - he - perhaps better to say "they" in this context - knew what will happen when they planted the tree of knowledge (recognition, realization) of good and evil into the paradise. And exactly to know sin - to know what's good and evil - is our unparadisic problem which we are not able to solve but also are not able to ignore. If we do so we become monsters who don't care about anything.

And, we will all be resurrected following the Savior.

I never liked the word "savior" because it lets people wait to save themselves. Redeemer or healer are perhaps better words.

It's too bad you do not believe anything in the Bible.

Eh? ... Okay - you started relativelly rational and ended now in an absurde form of intrigant hate. Why do you do so? Are you not able to live without enmity? We made the bible. The intenton to make the book of the books was it to avoid confusion.

By the way: Did you take about 3 hours of your life to watch the film "Into Great Silence"?
 
Last edited:
Of course Jesus founded the Catholic Church.
Jesus died well before there was anything like the Catholic Church. Anywhere. Look at the various sect of Christianity that existed in the decades after His death. Look at the churches that Paul founded, there was no church hierarchy in his churches. It was the good fortune of the church in Rome to be at the center of the empire and have access to the vast wealth there. They slowly built the Catholic Church.
 
Jesus died well before there was anything like the Catholic Church. Anywhere. Look at the various sect of Christianity that existed in the decades after His death. Look at the churches that Paul founded, there was no church hierarchy in his churches. It was the good fortune of the church in Rome to be at the center of the empire and have access to the vast wealth there. They slowly built the Catholic Church.
Lot of truth here. Except that church was developing at that time as well
 
Lot of truth here. Except that church was developing at that time as well
Lots of very different churches were developing. Today we'd call them heretics but at that time there was no orthodoxy and then, as now, every Christian had a different idea of what it meant to be a Christian.

Jesus wrote nothing or his writings have not survived. The amount of writing we do have that may actually be attributed to him is tiny. That left a lot of questions unanswered probably because those early Christians, like Jesus and Paul, believed they were living at the end of time so long term planning was futile. It was only as the decades became centuries that the need for a formal church structure became apparent.
 
That's right. You're a Mormon. They reinvented Christianity about 1850.
The word is Restored Christ's Church and restored all that was lost by the Catholics and many others. The Church was restored in 1830. What is 1850?
 

Forum List

Back
Top