Catholic Church Back To Old Tricks? Evangelicals jailed, fined for faith

[Joshua 0]

The following is from: http://www.compassdirect.org/site.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/en/newsarcen.name=&rowcur=25

May 19 (Compass) -- On May 15, six police officers and a local Catholic catechist appeared at the Fountain of Heaven Church in Cuateceometl, Hidalgo, Mexico, at 10 a.m. and arrested Pastor Francisco Sanchez Gonzalez and church member Raul Bautista. The arrests came after a decision by the town assembly to Âeradicate all non-Catholic Christians from the area. Local officials informed church members that they must renounce their evangelical faith and pay a fine of 1,000 pesos (approximately $110) by the end of May, or else their homes and the churchÂs chapel will be torn down. Legal representatives of the evangelical church have asked state and federal authorities to intervene and see to it that the Cuateceometl Christians be allowed to worship freely -- a right guaranteed by MexicoÂs constitution.

I've noticed the Catholic Church tends to act a bit differently in areas where it doesn't need to worry about restrictions like the US has. And this isn't exactly being opposed by the institution as a whole either, but is permitted. No denunciations yet.

[Joshua 0]

Now if the RCC starts getting publicity about it and getting in trouble for it they'll probably at least pretend to get offended about it.

[wariorpk 0]

I don't see why they are like that. Its all the same religion. In my opinion the Catholic Church is looking to make everyone Catholic so they can get bigger pay checks because of weekly donations. Thats my 2 cents!

[Joshua 0]

I don't see why they are like that. Its all the same religion. In my opinion the Catholic Church is looking to make everyone Catholic so they can get bigger pay checks because of weekly donations. Thats my 2 cents!

154975[/snapback]

Well, I consider the Roman Catholic Church fundamentally opposed to the Bible which is the guide to Christianity, personally. Until recently they proclaimed works or what you did got you to Heaven rather then faith in Jesus Christ for your righteousness and justification... Christ is what Christianity is all about, and if you don't have Him... well, at least now they're admitting they're not Christian and calling themselves just Catholics instead.

 

Despite Christ specifically stating in Luke 11:27-28 that while Mary's body is blessed it isn't as blessed as any who hear the Word of God and keep it, they would worship her instead of Christ. They say to go to Mary often instead of Christ and the rosary mentions Mary 10 times for every time God is mentioned, a stark contrast to the New Testament where just Christ's name alone is mentioned 50 times for every time Mary's name is mentioned.

 

Furthermore, Christ gave the 2 greatest commandments as love for God and love for others.

 

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

If the Catholic Church is missing out on the whole point, love (which they clearly are since they are indeed doing harm to their neighbors, and not just some but the whole institution supports doing so) then do they really have anything to do with Christ at all? Christ said by their fruits you will know them, a good tree can't bring forth evil fruit any more then an evil one can bring forth good fruit.

[serverph 0]

never heard of such "Fountain of Heaven Church". may need to research on that one. for all i know it could be a "cult" (i'm not saying that it is though).

 

as for the bible being the end-all-and-be-all source of all things "christian", i don't subscribe to that wholeheartedly. the bible, others may claim is the Work of God, but still i'm more close to believing it is just "inspired" by God, and is mainly the work of man (who actually wrote the books within, and who is prone to errors). and is everything in the bible to be taken hook-line-and-sinker just because it is written there? looks like an illogical way to justify things, like when people tried to justify slavery on biblical grounds (yes, slavery is sanctioned in the bible! and would you subscribe to it, even if it is immoral? proof? Genesis 9:25-27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:2-6; Exodus 21:7-11; Exodus 21:20-21; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-; etc.). scanning the bible for "slaves" or "slavery" would yield a nominal number of verses pertaining to it. but if you read more, you will find sugar-coated words like "servant", "captives", "prisoners", etc.

 

anyway, i think religion is a personal matter, and self-righteous indignation towards any religion because of the acts of a few is outrageous. it's like the prevalent mindview of close-minded people that think "muslims are terrorists" (which is outright wrong!). condemn those individuals who erred, not the group. we should stay away from branding this and that in generalizations, since it is an argumentative fallacy to generalize things ("adam was a man. adam was naked. therefore, all men should be naked." - ridiculous argument, right?)

 

it is also incorrect to say that catholics are not christians (who admitted what?). catholicism is the religion, catholics are the people, christianity is the mode of life. as others would say: "Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." btw, i'm a catholic.

[Joshua 0]

never heard of such "Fountain of Heaven Church". may need to research on that one. for all i know it could be a "cult" (i'm not saying that it is though).

 

as for the bible being the end-all-and-be-all source of all things "christian", i don't subscribe to that wholeheartedly. the bible, others may claim is the Work of God, but still i'm more close to believing it is just "inspired" by God, and is mainly the work of man (who actually wrote the books within, and who is prone to errors). and is everything in the bible to be taken hook-line-and-sinker just because it is written there? looks like an illogical way to justify things, like when people tried to justify slavery on biblical grounds (yes, slavery is sanctioned in the bible! and would you subscribe to it, even if it is immoral? proof? Genesis 9:25-27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:2-6; Exodus 21:7-11; Exodus 21:20-21; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-; etc.). scanning the bible for "slaves" or "slavery" would yield a nominal number of verses pertaining to it. but if you read more, you will find sugar-coated words like "servant", "captives", "prisoners", etc.

 

anyway, i think religion is a personal matter, and self-righteous indignation towards any religion because of the acts of a few is outrageous. it's like the prevalent mindview of close-minded people that think "muslims are terrorists" (which is outright wrong!). condemn those individuals who erred, not the group. we should stay away from branding this and that in generalizations, since it is an argumentative fallacy to generalize things ("adam was a man. adam was naked. therefore, all men should be naked." - ridiculous argument, right?)

 

it is also incorrect to say that catholics are not christians (who admitted what?). catholicism is the religion, catholics are the people, christianity is the mode of life. as others would say: "Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." btw, i'm a catholic.

155075[/snapback]

Server, the Bible did say for servants not to escape from their masters, it also said for us to turn the other cheek and not fight back in any event. It is never right to do evil, and we should live peaceably with all men as much as is in us. Paul, Stephen, Jesus Christ, when dying did not resist their attackers and even forgave them as they perished.

 

Try reading the whole book of Philemon, it's specifically about Paul asking a slave holder to not only release his slave but to treat him as a Christian brother. Paul reminds the owner of how we all have one master and whatever debt the slave owes the master Paul himself will pay out of his own pocket, and speaks of how the master knows Paul is good for it, essentially. Later on we see both master and now-freed slave working side by side with Paul on his missionary journeys to advance the kingdom of Christ. Frequently in the New Testament it is spoken that there is neither male or female, slave or owner, we are all one in Christ Jesus. He does not devalue us because of our appearance or circumstances.

 

As I said, this is not something unrivaled by the Catholic Church. You say of the few, but what of the Crusades, the Inquisition, conquistadors, Hitler, witch trials, and the persecution of true Christians like the Anabaptists? One guess on which institution not only was responsible but still condones them.

 

In Revelation Paul speaks of certain churches as having certain things true of them, as the true Church of Christ, all believers in Him is one body, so other institutions can be one body as well. The Babylon spoken of in Revelation is believed to be a false church even as the woman in revelation is clearly the true Church and universal body of believers.

 

I never said all catholics aren't Christians, I have met some born-again Christians who call themselves catholics but since they don't hold the views of the Catholic Church I don't consider them Catholics. I do not believe someone can get saved holding the views the Catholic Church holds since it means placing your trust elsewhere then Jesus Christ alone which is the whole key to salvation.

[serverph 0]

Server, the Bible did say for servants not to escape from their masters, it also said for us to turn the other cheek and not fight back in any event.  It is never right to do evil, and we should live peaceably with all men as much as is in us.  Paul, Stephen, Jesus Christ, when dying did not resist their attackers and even forgave them as they perished.

oh! okay, no point in arguing the case of the "cuateceometl christians" then? since what they just need to do, as the bible says, is to "turn the other cheek and not fight back in any event"? and they should be ready to die as paul, stephen, and jesus christ did, not resisting their attackers and even forgive them as they perished? case closed then? why vilify the catholic church as a whole then (for the acts of a few individuals in this case) if the "cuateceometl christians" are doomed by the bible to live their destiny?

 

Try reading the whole book of Philemon, it's specifically about Paul asking a slave holder to not only release his slave but to treat him as a Christian brother.  Paul reminds the owner of how we all have one master and whatever debt the slave owes the master Paul himself will pay out of his own pocket, and speaks of how the master knows Paul is good for it, essentially.  Later on we see both master and now-freed slave working side by side with Paul on his missionary journeys to advance the kingdom of Christ.

neither paul, nor jesus, nor any other biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of human slavery, nor any word of criticism against it. read it again. jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. did he condemn it? for the answer, Luke 12:45-48. and paul? Deuteronomy 23:15-16. paul "hints" that he would like master to give slave his freedom, but does not actually request it. apparently, paul saw no evil in the concept of a person owning another as a piece of property. Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1 and 1 Timothy 6:1-3 further instructs slaves and slave owners in proper behavior.

 

in defense of paul, he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance, that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal. but still, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, and he didn't.

 

Frequently in the New Testament it is spoken that there is neither male or female, slave or owner, we are all one in Christ Jesus.  He does not devalue us because of our appearance or circumstances.

yes... but why do some so-called christians "crucify" gays and lesbians then? christian or unchristian behavior?

 

As I said, this is not something unrivaled by the Catholic Church.  You say of the few, but what of the Crusades, the Inquisition, conquistadors, Hitler, witch trials, and the persecution of true Christians like the Anabaptists?  One guess on which institution not only was responsible but still condones them.

every institution has its share of such dark history which smears them. any dark acts of the past have been condemned, and atonement has been initiated. the catholic church history is an "open book", so you can see both the good and the bad side in its history. i can't say that for other "christian" denominations though (maybe they just hide their dark secrets well).

 

fast forward to the present: did you get any updates on what happened next after the incident with the "cuateceometl christians"? that particular article is barely "hot news" since it was reported may15 and posted may19 in the source page. since it is of particular interest to you, you would have followed it up. it's been over a month since that incident, and news would have filtered to that source about it. or did they just conveniently forget to follow it up as well? oh well, if it's "good" news for the catholic church, why would they post it, right? it's better to highlight the bad acts of the few individuals, tie it up as acts of a group, and forget anything done to condone, condemn and rectify it after, right?

 

"true Christians like the anabaptists"? every christian denomination claims they are the "true christians", don't they? is it also pre-ordained in the bible that they are? i think it's too presumptious of a group or an individual to be claiming that. the height of hypocrisy, if i may say so.

 

In Revelation Paul speaks of certain churches as having certain things true of them, as the true Church of Christ, all believers in Him is one body, so other institutions can be one body as well.  The Babylon spoken of in Revelation is believed to be a false church even as the woman in revelation is clearly the true Church and universal body of believers.

"true church of christ"? read previous comment.

 

I never said all catholics aren't Christians, I have met some born-again Christians who call themselves catholics but since they don't hold the views of the Catholic Church I don't consider them Catholics.  I do not believe someone can get saved holding the views the Catholic Church holds since it means placing your trust elsewhere then Jesus Christ alone which is the whole key to salvation.

where are you getting your ideas about the views the catholic church holds? that's a myopic view you are getting, and it's definitely laden with bias, twisting facts and doctrines just to smother the catholic church, in obvious attempt at discrediting the institution. for what reason? your guess is as good as mine. such is some so-called "christian's" love for their neighbor.

[Joshua 0]

oh! okay, no point in arguing the case of the "cuateceometl christians" then? since what they just need to do, as the bible says, is to "turn the other cheek and not fight back in any event"? and they should be ready to die as paul, stephen, and jesus christ did, not resisting their attackers and even forgive them as they perished? case closed then? why vilify the catholic church as a whole then (for the acts of a few individuals in this case) if the "cuateceometl christians" are doomed by the bible to live their destiny?

neither paul, nor jesus, nor any other biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of human slavery, nor any word of criticism against it. read it again. jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. did he condemn it? for the answer, Luke 12:45-48. and paul? Deuteronomy 23:15-16. paul "hints" that he would like master to give slave his freedom, but does not actually request it. apparently, paul saw no evil in the concept of a person owning another as a piece of property. Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1 and 1 Timothy 6:1-3 further instructs slaves and slave owners in proper behavior.

 

in defense of paul, he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance, that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal. but still, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, and he didn't.

yes... but why do some so-called christians "crucify" gays and lesbians then? christian or unchristian behavior?

every institution has its share of such dark history which smears them. any dark acts of the past have been condemned, and atonement has been initiated. the catholic church history is an "open book", so you can see both the good and the bad side in its history. i can't say that for other "christian" denominations though (maybe they just hide their dark secrets well).

 

fast forward to the present: did you get any updates on what happened next after the incident with the "cuateceometl christians"? that particular article is barely "hot news" since it was reported may15 and posted may19 in the source page. since it is of particular interest to you, you would have followed it up. it's been over a month since that incident, and news would have filtered to that source about it. or did they just conveniently forget to follow it up as well? oh well, if it's "good" news for the catholic church, why would they post it, right? it's better to highlight the bad acts of the few individuals, tie it up as acts of a group, and forget anything done to condone, condemn and rectify it after, right?

 

"true Christians like the anabaptists"? every christian denomination claims they are the "true christians", don't they? is it also pre-ordained in the bible that they are? i think it's too presumptious of a group or an individual to be claiming that. the height of hypocrisy, if i may say so.

"true church of christ"? read previous comment.

where are you getting your ideas about the views the catholic church holds? that's a myopic view you are getting, and it's definitely laden with bias, twisting facts and doctrines just to smother the catholic church, in obvious attempt at discrediting the institution. for what reason? your guess is as good as mine. such is some so-called "christian's" love for their neighbor.

155264[/snapback]

As for the Christians, the Bible says not to return railing for railing or use violence, it also spends much time explaining precisely how evil the Pharisees and their modern-day counterpart, the Catholic Church, are.

 

Also, the word used in Luke 12:45-48 is "servant" meaning simply one of a household who serves, an employee for example, and not necessarily a slave.

 

Also, with Deuteronomy and the Old Testament you became a slave or indentured servant by agreeing to it, not because you were forced into it if I remember correctly. You served for 6 years as payment for a debt or whatever and then had to be let free unless you chose otherwise the 7th year. See Exodus chapter 21. Stealing someone to be a slave was a criminal offense worthy of death, Exodus 21:16. In other words, you couldn't be made a slave without your permission.

 

Also, Paul used the word servants and not slaves, which would seem to apply to the modern day employee/employer relationships.

 

You say Paul didn't speak about slavery being immoral, but what of this?

 

Philemon 1:15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;

16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

 

Frankly, Paul spoke of being a servant as being free of the Lord and if we are not slaves to anyone else then we are servants to Jesus Christ. We are called to all serve as serving Christ and not men.

 

1 Corinthians 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

 

Many, many times Paul uses the word servant to describe the Christian, we are called to be servants, to serve others above ourselves as though serving Christ and to serve Christ above all.

 

Paul speaks of himself as a servant (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, Titus 1:1), James speaks of himself as one (James 1:1), Peter speaks of himself as one (2 Peter 1:1), Jude speaks of himself as one (Jude 1:1), and John speaks of himself as one (Revelation 1:1).

 

The Bible says all sin is worthy of death, the person who seems to live uprightly and morally but without Christ is as Hell-bound as the homosexuals. However, the Christian who participates in such things should know that they sin against their own body the temple of the Holy Ghost as do all adulterers and if they persist in it God will destroy them (take them out of this life then let them dirty up what He's cleansed).

 

I say that of the anabaptists because as Christ said by their fruits you will know them. The anabaptists lived in love, did not return evil for evil, dwelt more like the early church in communal living then perhaps any other group in history, was known for their good deeds and kindness towards others... The Catholic Church on the other hand is known for their persecution of such groups. Now you tell me which is bringing forth good fruit and which is bringing forth bad? It says you will KNOW them by their fruits. It is not hypocrisy to know.

 

Love does not put on blinders, Christ healed the sick, He also was quick to rebuke the Pharisees.

 

Read Ephesians 5. We are called both to "walk in love" and to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them."

 

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

 

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

 

 

There is a difference between putting people down for their sins and proclaiming that which departs from the Gospel, like those who Paul pointed out say the Resurrection is past or even the well-known "doctrines of demons" Paul spoke of which would be preached in the last times which involve others "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" as they are "speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." Furthermore, in verse 6 he goes on to say that others should be put in remembrance of these things.

 

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

[Joshua 0]

You seem to want to notice only the preaching and exhorting Paul speaks of here, but he speaks also of rebuking and reproving. There's a difference between pointing the finger at "the unfruitful works of darkness" and pointing the finger at people specifically for their sins when we are all ourselves sinners. 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

[serverph 0]

did paul wrote in english? i don't think so. "servants/etc." is all sugar-coating for me. if the bible translations have been truthful to the word as written in paul's language, then you would know the difference. thus, the bible is "contaminated" by the works of man, to fit his purpose. how many bible translations and interpretations are there anyway? as many as there can be sands in the ocean. so spouting words coming from it won't sway me a bit from their opinion of hate towards the catholic church sowed by so-called christians who dwell in a myopic world constrained by biblical interpretations. and lumping individual deeds to constitute as deeds of a group, as you are doing for acts of a few catholic individuals, is unequivocally as sinful as any other. it's like a kettle calling another kettle black, unmindful of itself being black as well. that's the rub. and that's plain hypocrisy. :(anyway, this has been a nice discussion, although i'm still waiting for an update on the article if you care to deliver.

[Joshua 0]

did paul wrote in english? i don't think so. "servants/etc." is all sugar-coating for me. if the bible translations have been truthful to the word as written in paul's language, then you would know the difference. thus, the bible is "contaminated" by the works of man, to fit his purpose. how many bible translations and interpretations are there anyway? as many as there can be sands in the ocean. so spouting words coming from it won't sway me a bit from their opinion of hate towards the catholic church sowed by so-called christians who dwell in a myopic world constrained by biblical interpretations. and lumping individual deeds to constitute as deeds of a group, as you are doing for acts of a few catholic individuals, is unequivocally as sinful as any other. it's like a kettle calling another kettle black, unmindful of itself being black as well. that's the rub. and that's plain hypocrisy.

 

anyway, this has been a nice discussion, although i'm still waiting for an update on the article if you care to deliver.

155318[/snapback]

Alright, here's your more recent news, although I wanted to see what you thought of the other first. It's not really an update on the situation, just a matter of it worsening, but...

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Since you wish to get into the translations let's see what the original Greek texts use, the word in Luke 12:45 is doulos, the Strong's Greek Dictionary which is widely considered the best has the definition:

 

1401.  doulov  doulos,  doo'-los

Search for 1401 in KJV

 

from 1210; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):--bond(-man), servant.

Since this is the word Paul also used of himself as well as the other apostles the parable can mean any Christian in the sense of a slave to Jesus Christ. Not necessarily what we think of with the term in bondage to another human being, but since it is a parable of a servant and Master is it not clear it speaks of Christ and His servants and the coming His coming in the final day?

 

I do not hate Catholics themselves but rather have love and sympathy for them as for any of the lost, I am in contact with several right now, and one of the men in the men's group at my Church was once a Catholic before he got saved. I do however despise the institution that so deceives and captures the souls of those who enter in, and serves to capture more souls for Hell.

 

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[Joshua 0]

And the verse is used of the Catholic Church itself, which not only will not enter in to the kingdom but refuses entrance to others as well, and making them two times the children of Hell as those existing. I talked to a Catholic in a group at my college a while back and was surprised to learn that they actually think the Pharisees taught rightly according to their doctrine because of this verse:Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.But what of this verse?Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

[serverph 0]

Alright, here's your more recent news, although I wanted to see what you thought of the other first.  It's not really an update on the situation, just a matter of it worsening, but... 

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

i agree, hardly an update... it does not concern the same group as earlier. just because you read there is a passing remark of a "catholic priest" and "previous control by the catholic church", you can pass it on as a "matter of worsening..." perpetrated by the catholic institution already. if i were dumb, yes, i would swallow it hook-line-and-sinker. others less rational would anyway. it's a legal matter, and it's a matter that can be resolved legally.

 

Since you wish to get into the translations let's see what the original Greek texts use, the word in Luke 12:45 is doulos, the Strong's Greek Dictionary which is widely considered the best has the definition:

Since this is the word Paul also used of himself as well as the other apostles the parable can mean any Christian in the sense of a slave to Jesus Christ.  Not necessarily what we think of with the term in bondage to another human being, but since it is a parable of a servant and Master is it not clear it speaks of Christ and His servants and the coming His coming in the final day?

that's your interpretation, as there will be as many interpretations that can be inferred as there are sands in the ocean.

 

I do not hate Catholics themselves but rather have love and sympathy for them as for any of the lost, I am in contact with several right now, and one of the men in the men's group at my Church was once a Catholic before he got saved.  I do however despise the institution that so deceives and captures the souls of those who enter in, and serves to capture more souls for Hell.

ahh... the "christian way".... why can't you extend the same love and sympathy for the institition as well, if you think that the institition is "lost"? is it a matter of biblical exhortation, or just a touch of "arrogance"?

 

"before he got saved"? another presumptious statement as before. if the premise of salvation is "knowing christ" (and basically living up to his standards of goodness), it's like saying that people who lived BEFORE christ (B.C. as opposed to A.D. - after death) are doomed for eternal hell, since jesus came after them. we're luckier aren't we, we have a choice, since we were born A.D...

 

anyway, i hold the same sentiments in despising those who "deceive and capture souls... and serves to capture more souls for hell" -- more so by capitalizing on religion as a tool for divisiveness.

 

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

 

they (scribes and pharisees) have since dead. but hypocrites live on in our midsts.

[Joshua 0]

i agree, hardly an update... it does not concern the same group as earlier. just because you read there is a passing remark of a "catholic priest" and "previous control by the catholic church", you can pass it on as a "matter of worsening..." perpetrated by the catholic institution already. if i were dumb, yes, i would swallow it hook-line-and-sinker. others less rational would anyway. it's a legal matter, and it's a matter that can be resolved legally.

that's your interpretation, as there will be as many interpretations that can be inferred as there are sands in the ocean.

ahh... the "christian way".... why can't you extend the same love and sympathy for the institition as well, if you think that the institition is "lost"? is it a matter of biblical exhortation, or just a touch of "arrogance"?

 

"before he got saved"? another presumptious statement as before. if the premise of salvation is "knowing christ" (and basically living up to his standards of goodness), it's like saying that people who lived BEFORE christ (B.C. as opposed to A.D. - after death) are doomed for eternal hell, since jesus came after them. we're luckier aren't we, we have a choice, since we were born A.D...

 

anyway, i hold the same sentiments in despising those who "deceive and capture souls... and serves to capture more souls for hell" -- more so by capitalizing on religion as a tool for divisiveness.

they (scribes and pharisees) have since dead. but hypocrites live on in our midsts.

155328[/snapback]

Well, the situation is in a foreign country and the article is less then 3 months old... Christ said to love others as yourself, He said to beware the leaven and doctrines of the Pharisees, not "love" them.

 

In Romans it says that we are the children of Abraham through faith, those who came before are justified as we solely through faith in God, but if Christ had not come then there would have been no payment for their sins and they would not have been able to enter the kingdom.

 

As for divisiveness, Paul spoke of those who would depart from the faith:

 

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

He also said to mark those which cause offences contrary to the Gospel and to avoid them. He didn't say ignore them and proclaim a doctrine of unity. The Bible speaks of opposing the world, and to come out from among them and be ye separate, not to join them or to suck up every pagan doctrine and belief system you can to enlarge your borders.

[serverph 0]

some interesting things to read online:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/