Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Catholic religion blatantly defies God and his teachings. leads its members to perdition...why?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The Catholic religion knowingly contradicts the teachings of the Bible. Here I have listed a few examples:

1. They ask their members to call the priest "Father"
2. Praying with repetetive words (rosary beads)
3. They teach that Mary had no other kids besides Jesus.
4.They tell you to pray to the Virgin Mary and through her you will reach God's ear.
5. Only the priest drinks from communion cup, everyone is supposed to.

there is many more examples here;
www.bible.ca...

are they the church of satan in disguise? mocking God by blatantly disobeying his words and teachings?
are they the "whore of babylon"?




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Though this may be truth, I implore you to follow the teaching of Ephesians 4:15 and "speak the truth in love", and not be so abrasive.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mentalempire
 

i apologize if i offend. it was not my intention. sometimes i speak with emotion and i should wait before i type.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by icybreeze
 


I appreciate your humility and ability to admit your mistakes. ATS needs more individuals like you.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Hi,

I'm sort of wondering where the conspiracy is here, but I guess everything in your post boils down to the key word 'knowingly'.

I think that you are just plain wrong in your implications that the actions you site are not Biblical, but I'm not sure if you want to delve into apologetics.

I guess I'm wondering if you meant to include the qualifier 'knowingly' and if you did, what your evidence for that claim is.

Eric



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Good post icybreeze.


1- I don't know why they do this.

2- Have you ever prayed the rosary? I have. What some consider repetitive others would call remembrance. I stopped smoking marijuana and cigarettes because Mary helped me. Think of it this way, When you were growing up, you mother knew where you were right? Mary knows where Her Son is. Mary will take you to Him, if you want Her to. The rosary will put you "in touch" with Mary. Try it.

3- I have no answer to this. I know that man is fallible. Anything given could be twisted by the hand of men.

4- I found that to be true 100%

5- Some churches allow you to drink from the cup and some do not. I believe the franciscan order does not offer the communion cup but the church here where I go to does. I agree with you 100% that ALL RC churches must offer the cup.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by icybreeze
 


see, this is why religion is ridiculous. "god's teachings" are open to interpretation so that they cannot be truly defied from anything but a subjective view.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by icybreeze
 


Wow are you a tool or something there are two other threads that cover this particular topic.Why are so many people against catholics???
Your Beef with Catholicism

1.) This is just ignorance you call someone father everyday wether you admit it or not, when you call your father dad it is the same exact thing just because you use a different word means absolutly nothing it conveys the exact same meaning get off your high horse.

2.) And just how many times do you say the same prayer? I bet you have said the our father more than once. It is the same thing. Or how many times have you prayed asking for the same thing? probably quite a few again get off your high horse.

3.) How do you know she did, can you prove it? Where in the bible does it say Mary ever had Relations with Joseph, no where that I can see.

4.) This is discussed in a great many other threads, you do not have to ask Mary for anything, you simply may if you choose to. Even the people at the wedding asked for her help talking to him when they ran out of wine, who are you to judge?

5.) False on all counts The body and blood ae both offered at communion. And that includes the franciscans. Also we use actual wine. Where do these people come up with stuff instead of looking at all the I hate Catholicism sites and posting your misconception in here why don't you actually try going to a Catholic site and find out what it is we believe for yourself.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by _Mr.X_
 


I was raised Catholic and went to a private Catholic school until the 6th grade. the teachers were nuns. and the whole time i wondered why we did things that the bible said were wrong. eventually I left the religion because everyone I asked couldn't answer these questions, I would just get angry responses like the one above. To this day those questions haven't been answered convincingly.
take care.
IB



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

no...not all religions.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 

Yes they knowingly disobey God's commands. My question is "why?" is to purposely mislead? "why?"



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The early church would not allow the common man to read the scriptures. It was only in Latin and only the priests were allowed to read it. Most people at that time could not read but as time went on the literacy rate climbed and so did the need to read what the priests were reading. They still refused the common man the right to read the scriptures. The early Church was turned into a place of power for the few elites. Is this what Jesus wanted? Is the Church today being used by individuals to seek money and power?



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cloakndagger
 


could this be one of the "why?" answers?



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by icybreeze
reply to post by EricD
 

Yes they knowingly disobey God's commands. My question is "why?" is to purposely mislead? "why?"



At this point it seems clear that you don't think that there is a legitimate question of exegesis, but instead there is a deliberate choosing of false doctrine.

Can you please provide some proof to back up your claims? That seems to be quite the audacious claim and easily made without any supporting evidence.

Eric



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The early church would not allow the common man to read the scriptures. It was only in Latin and only the priests were allowed to read it. Most people at that time could not read but as time went on the literacy rate climbed and so did the need to read what the priests were reading. They still refused the common man the right to read the scriptures. The early Church was turned into a place of power for the few elites. Is this what Jesus wanted? Is the Church today being used by individuals to seek money and power?


The early Church did not hinder the reading of Scripture by Christians and Latin was not the most popular language for the Scriptures. There was a concentration of power in a limited amount of people as soon as Christ chose the Apostles and continued as they chose their successors.

Eric



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 

they provide adequate evidence at this website.
www.bible.ca...



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by icybreeze
 


really? because it seems that every religious text is 100% open to interpretation as none of them state that they are to be taken completely literally



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

if you were expecting to find a disclaimer in the footnotes of the Bible explaining to you to take them literally you are sadly mistaken.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
My take on this is that The Roman Empire, The Station of the Pontifex Maximus (later the Pope), and the Roman Catholic Church are all pretty well spelled out in both Daniel and Revelations. Beasts, are described to Daniel, by the angel, as countries which follow a specific order. Naturally the Roman Catholic Church attempts to change that order so its harder for folks to figure this out. The proper order is:
1) The First Beast: Babylon
2) The Second Beast: Media/Persia
3) The Third Beast: Greece
4) The Fourth Beast: Rome

Out of Rome comes this very specific character, who shall “speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”: Dan 7:25.
So this persons actions would mean that he is to:
1) Assume the position of God.
2) Torment many Christians.
3) Change the times.
4) Change religious laws.
5) Have this power for 1260 days/years.

So now if we look at some of the powers granted to the Pontifex Maximus and Popes, we see that they were to:
1) Speak as the advocate of God on Earth.
2) Persecute any Christian they considered to be Heretical.
3) Set both the Religious days and the official calendar.
4) Set the Dogma of the Church.
5) This power was theirs without restriction from the time of the Codex Justinianus (Corpus juris civilis) of Emperor Justinian I in 534, until Napoleon invaded and gave those powers back to the people of Italy in 1796, a period 1262 years later.

The variance of the two years can be argued because the exact date of the release of the Codex varies somewhat, and the exact time of year is not known. The Italian campaign of Napoleon took place in March of 1796, in the first two months of the year, so its really not off by a year at that end, but rather a couple of months. Either way though, it can be seen that this prophecy meets up very precisely with the events which unfolded.

Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all realized what was meant by this prophecy, and spoke out about it quite publicly. As a matter of note, Wesley wrote this in his commentary of Revelations in relation to the First beast (a culmination of the four beasts of Daniel ending in Rome), and the end of the 1260 days:


The beast has a strict connexion with the city of Rome. This clearly appears from the seventeenth chapter. The beast is now existing. He is not past. for Rome is now existing; and it is not till after the destruction of Rome that the beast is thrown into the lake.

Therefore, whatever he is, he is now existing. The beast is the Romish Papacy. This manifestly follows from the third and fourth propositions; the beast has a strict connexion with the city of Rome; and the beast is now existing: therefore, either there is some other power more strictly connected with that city, or the Pope is the beast. The Papacy, or papal kingdom, began long ago.

11. And I saw another wild beast - So he is once termed to show his fierceness and strength, but in all other places, "the false prophet." He comes to confirm the kingdom of the first beast. Coming up - After the other had long exercised his authority. Out of the earth - Out of Asia. But he is not yet come, though he cannot be far off for he is to appear at the end of the forty-two months of the first beast. And he had two horns like a lamb - A mild, innocent appearance. But he spake like a dragon - Venomous, fiery, dreadful. So do those who are zealous for the beast.


So during Wesley’s lifetime he knew that the 42 months/1260 years were going to end, and a new world superpower was going to come into existence at roughly the same time. This new “World Superpower” would be based on the same system as beast’s before it, and would be the final beast leading into the “mark”. The only thing that Wesley got incorrect was the location from which this beast was going to arise. However we are not talking about that beast, so I’ll get back on topic.

Rome, of course did not handle these interpretations of prophecy well, and decided to find alternative versions of them to throw the public off the trail of seeing Rome as either a Beast or an Antichrist. At this point the Pope got the Jesuit Order involved with the translation of Daniel and Revelations, thus two new schools of Eschatology were founded: Futurism and Preterism.


In 1545, the Catholic Church convened one of its most famous councils in history—the Council of Trent. It continued for three sessions, ending in 1563. One of the main purposes of this Council was for Catholics to plan a counterattack against Protestantism, also known as the Counter-Reformation. Up to this point, Rome's main method of attack had been blatant—burning Bibles and heretics. Yet this warfare only convinced Protestants that Papal Rome was indeed the Beast that would "make war with the saints." Revelation 13:7. Therefore a new tactic was needed—something less obvious. This is where the Jesuits come in.

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible's antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, took on the challenge. Like Martin Luther, Ribera read the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast. But he came to different conclusions than Luther did. He decided that the prophecies applied, not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to one diabolical figure at the end of time. This viewpoint quickly became the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist.


You are correct in your ascertation that the “Whore of Babylon” is also about the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Empire. Revelations is a cyclic book which revolves in three itinerations, it is not intended to be read in a linear manner. The church knew of all of this as well, and fought to keep it quiet from its parishioners. So none of this is intended to be an attack on those who follow Catholicism, it is simply an explanation of how Rome and the Roman Catholic Church are spelled out very succinctly in Biblical Prophecy, And how the Roman Catholic Church knew about these things, yet lied to keep its members from finding out the truth.


[edit on 11/8/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The early church would not allow the common man to read the scriptures. It was only in Latin and only the priests were allowed to read it. Most people at that time could not read but as time went on the literacy rate climbed and so did the need to read what the priests were reading. They still refused the common man the right to read the scriptures. The early Church was turned into a place of power for the few elites. Is this what Jesus wanted? Is the Church today being used by individuals to seek money and power?


This is somewhat correct, but it is also factually incorrect. It is true that Rome intentionally wrote its copies of the Bible in Latin, a language of the educated, so that besides the very few copies that existed, those copies where not readable by the common man. What happened next was that the Printing Press was developed, and this just happened to coincide with the time of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Luther was thus able to print the first widely distributed version of the Bible in German, and this copy of the Bible was used as a primer for children learning to read German. Prior to his doing this there was no real formulated common German Language. So the distribution of the Bible itself was a major factor in the increase in Literacy among the common man.






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join