It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vatican and Evil

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I actually thought this chick tract was pretty funny.

www.chick.com...

Its a good laugh. They could try facts, but that might blow their whole purpose.

I think the Vatican is a joke really nowadays. Its too stuck in the past and is becoming irelevant.




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
www.remnantofgod.org...

I read this article a while back and found it very interesting..Makes the vatican look devilish....this is only someone bias so take it as you wish.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Why on a lot of the threads do people suggest that the vatican is something to do with the NWO, or the anti christ or something like that?


Because if they are not "having to do something with the anti-christ", then they are not doing their job, as they are the ones who are here to prepare us for the anti-christ's arrival. I for one hope they are armed to the teeth with their faith and are doing what they are supposed to be doing.


I dont understand why it is suggested that it is, in a way, evil.


Because good must comprehend evil in order to destroy evil. Lack of faith is what provides people the fear they have that once evil is understood that good will somehow become evil. This simply cannot be the truth, although peoples' fears tell them it is. Unfortunate.



Could someone please explain this to me.


Sounds redundant, but:
Keep the Faith.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I actually thought this chick tract was pretty funny.

www.chick.com...

Its a good laugh. They could try facts, but that might blow their whole purpose.

I think the Vatican is a joke really nowadays. Its too stuck in the past and is becoming irelevant.


I think there are about 1 billion Roman Catholics -give or take a handful - who would disagree with you. John Paul II was respected by pretty much the world - religious and secular leaders listened when he spoke. The Church still exerts tremendous influence and authority. YOu can say what you will about it, but to discount it's power is foolish.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Try to look at David Yallop " In Gods Name"
I am catholic but I DO NOT believe in the supremacy off the church or the Vatican.
WIS



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Text


I was raised Catholic, and while I have respect for the faith (philosophically)
I think the problems with the Vatican stem from the political hierarcy...
in short- power grabs and the corruption of wealth (Church world's largest landowner)...

The best example of Vatican evil (which is a PART of the Church's identity, not ALL of it-
there is a truly holy side) can be seen with the MURDER of Pope John Paul I about 25 years
ago... someone mentioned Calvi in this thread... the murder of JP I is so signifigant not just because a Pope was murdered 33 days after taking office- it is because of WHY he was murdered... he was about to REVOLUTIONIZE the Church by SELLING OFF its' wealth and returning it to a poor economic state (to reverse the corruption of said wealth) and he also sought to eject Masons from the Church leadership...

He was killed for it. That was an example of the evil of humans- humans who run the Church- thus, the evil of the Church, quad erat demonstratum.

But, as I said- there is an equally holy side to the Church- all Churches and Faiths have this duality to some extent (Islam)... therefore, they are impossible to judge entirely...

T.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The Vatican is heretical. Extremely heretical. That's why it is so associated with evil and conspiratorial thinking. I'm sure if the Pope(s) would refute Vatican 2 and other blatantly heretical rulings of the Council of Trent throughout history, there would be no division in Christianity. However this was prophecised by Christ....


ps: No fan of Jack Chick myself but Transubstantion is a horrid doctrine if you ponder upon it.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Nakash]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The G-d I know does not recognize the human invention of the concept of "heresy".

I believe that each person finds G-d in their own way and any human declaration to the contrary is exactly that - a human declaration. My earnest and sincere recommendation is that you ask G-d whether G-d is bound by any rules declared by any human. There is a great deal of joy in the answer that I've found!



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
The G-d I know does not recognize the human invention of the concept of "heresy".

I believe that each person finds G-d in their own way and any human declaration to the contrary is exactly that - a human declaration. My earnest and sincere recommendation is that you ask G-d whether G-d is bound by any rules declared by any human. There is a great deal of joy in the answer that I've found!


Not much reason, tho. Unless this god of yours is merely a figment of your imagination, who exists merely to approve what you approve, there must be things that are right or wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The people that run the Catholic religion are men. It is a religion. It is no different than when Cain first offered up his own works before God and God took no pleasure in them because they were the works of his own hands, while Able, his brother offered up a lamb, symbolic of the blood that needed to be shed in order to make coverings for Adam and Eve once they had sinned and rebelled against God. Religion cannot and will not ever save a single person as it is the efforts of man to be "good". To boast that he has done some good thing so God should accept him. Jesus however, is the doorway for man to reach God. What He did on the cross was what Able was showing when he offered up the lamb before God. Man needed to be rescued from the mess he put himself in. In the law of God, the soul that sins shall die. Shall be separated from God forever. So only a substitute without blemish could pardon the sins of any man/woman. Jesus, the Son of God offered to go and take our place of death for us so that if we would accept that sacrifice we could be pardoned from the penalty of death upon us. If we reject this sacrifice, we are left to religion and "good works", and the penalty of death remains in affect at the Judgment seat of God when you stand before him. He will not see the blood and forgive, He will see the sin and send you away forever.

If any person who is religious and can say that he accepts the offering Christ made for them and can believe that He is the Son of God, I can call him brother or sister. Why should it be so hard for anyone to accept the one and only pardon God is ever going to offer man?

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by Al Davison
The G-d I know does not recognize the human invention of the concept of "heresy".

I believe that each person finds G-d in their own way and any human declaration to the contrary is exactly that - a human declaration. My earnest and sincere recommendation is that you ask G-d whether G-d is bound by any rules declared by any human. There is a great deal of joy in the answer that I've found!


Not much reason, tho. Unless this god of yours is merely a figment of your imagination, who exists merely to approve what you approve, there must be things that are right or wrong.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Wow! That's the single most directed and personally insulting thing that I've ever seen you write, Mr. Pearse. You are generally not known for such vitriol - maybe you're having a bad day. Doesn't bother me but it did surprise me.

Should I interpret your comments to say that you actually believe that G-d should be bound by rules made by humans? I doubt that is what you meant to say but it could easily be interpreted that way.

Of course, I believe that there are "rights and wrongs" - I just don't respect the authority of humans, within this particular context, to make these declarations on the part of G-d. G-d has no need of "middle men" as "enforcers".

Do others find it ironic that someone would refer to Catholicism as heresy - who do they think invented the term and made it popular as a punsihable (by man, again) offense? I mean, this is really pretty funny if you think about it!




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You should read some of the threads in here, & you'd see why. The Pope, just suggested that WE welcome in a New World Order.

Here's one of the threads :


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-12-2005 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
That's my point exactly - do you really think G-d cares what the Pope says? or Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham, or any Rabbi or any Imam? G-d doesn't take his cues from humans. Sadly, many people do. I think it's better to "dial direct".

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
God is probably enraged that a man such as the pope tried to usurp his authority on Earth right now



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
God is probably enraged that a man such as yourself would claim
to speak for him and/or claim to understand the mind of God.


Attn anti-Catholic bigots and Jack Chick junkies -
www.catholic.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I don't speak for God, but the bible does, and it's message is clear and accepted. I'm not the Pope, I don't claim to speak for Christ. That's the difference man, all I can do is point you to a credible accepted canon of texts for you to read and make up your own opinion (which if you have an open mind you will decipher with relative ease). I don't claim to speak for God, I don't claim to proclaim doctrine for him, I am not an apostle nor Saint Peter, I donot have such an authority (nor does the Pope- be honest).

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Nakash]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
I donot have such an authority (nor does the Pope- be honest).


Matthew 16:18-19

(Christ speaking to Peter) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven. An whatsoever thous shalt bind upon
earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
That's my point exactly - do you really think G-d cares what the Pope says?


[edit on 26-12-2005 by Al Davison]


Actually, He does. Christ told Peter that as Peter would do on earth, so would it be in Heaven. Since this time, the Bisops of Rome as the successors of Peter, have bore this responsibility.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
A common Catholic fallacy. Jesus told Peter he would be a pebble (Greek "Petra") in the sea of the church. A stone in the church's foundation. Who is the rock? God, and only God (that would be Jesus Christ). Such an old heresy, Catholics should know better....



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I was under the impression that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In his native tongue Jeusus would have nicknamed Simon bar Jonah "Kephas" or "Cephas" - meaning rock and not a pebble.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join