Question for X-SDA or knowledgeable Catholic

[Edson]

I bought this series it explains the book of Revelation and other aspects from a Catholic view. Very good.

catholic-productions.com/store/audio/pitre/jet_DVD.html

 

[Pythons]

I was saved as an adult, college graduate age 23. My parents had practically nothing to do with it, were hands off in religious matters (but Mom did see the church bus in the neighborhood as a convenient little shuttle to take the kids away for a while to give herself a break).

I met SDAs at age 27 when I was living on my own for the second time, that time in Greenbelt MD. Everything they said did make sense with the minor exception of “beasts of the earth” (they said it was mice during the bubonic plagues). They made me read Luke (24?) word by word to prove that the Sabbath was Saturday. Sakes alive! I was wrong! (But some people believe every day is important, why is that verse in there, and does it mean not going to church is OK also?) (I don’t believe Sunday worship is your ticket to hell. They could have said it more plainly than they did if that is what they meant- if they said mark, they must have meant mark, maybe a bar code tattoo or microchip implant. I think John the Apostle was describing what he saw literally.)

I am gravely concerned about the 12 or so prophecies that call the Pope/Vatican antiChrist, they seem to be right on the money too. Theocracy, small country, destroyed three countries, changed times and laws, if the shoe fits, wear it.

(Edited to remove anti-Catholic link as per Forum Rules and Banned Topics.)

The SDA are very literal Bible believing Protestants and have supported the right to read the Bible according to conscience for centuries, when long ago owning and reading a Bible could get you killed. SDA also part company with most fundamentalists, very uncomfortable with seeing religion get cozy with government, that is how the whole persecution mess started, the Catholic church achieved political power about 538 AD. I don’t know how they get off thinking Sunday worship is your ticket to hell (sounds like works to me), but otherwise there is a lot to like, much more than the system of the Catholic Church.

It’s all cheap smoke in mirrors with the SDA’s. I’m willing to bet that you didn’t realize they teach that “Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation”. Their prophecy is the most pathetic example of mis-reading history I’ve ever seen. They throw a bunch of half quotes from historical books you can’t easily confirm they puch up one Scripture on a projector screen the effect of which is like having a wet blanket trown over you while a mob pelts you with clubs.

Pm me or email me and I will get you some factual things to read about them and the way they operate.

 

[turtleoompa]

Of course the pope is not God! He is a vicar ( far far far from being God). And no, the pope is not even on the level of God the father. He is a human being like all of us. He helps keep our religion from being off track. We are consistent with our beliefs. We keep our beliefs true to the commandments and Jesus’s teachings. And sure it is absolutely a wafer to you! Catholics are not people that are saved by that one declaration of " Jesus is my savior". And we don’t “presume we are going to heaven”. That is very arrogant. We love our neighbor and do the best we can to live a holy life. No presumptions! By the way who started your religion? What was their name? Jesus was not on this earth when your religion was formed. I prefer the reaal deal.

 

[turtleoompa]

Looked at the CHICKS website and it wreaks of BLASPHEMY to me! Sounds like CHICK needs to get educated regarding Catholcism 101. I looked at his cartoons posted and could easily see the narrow minded view of someone that is hateful towards a way of life that Jesus started. I could easily knock down any of his statements. Being a true Christian is not CHICKS website. It is a very UNCHRISTIAN website.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

A relationship with Jesus Christ is preferable to a religion. Do you know the Holy Spirit at least? I think I do.

First I met this R.A. in the honors dorm (while I had an attitude problem with a Christian I was sure friendship bombed me, I was 20 in 1991). I was very much impressed with her peace and love but it didn’t dawn on me she was Christian, I was thinking Buddhist. Later I had to have respect for a bunch of middle aged Christians who had better emotional restraint than I did and when I wrote back to said RA she wrote she had tried a few religions, Catholic, Methodist, and had just tried the Worldwide Church of God and had “caught fire”. I take that to mean she was possessed by the Holy Spirit. She was disillusioned when I met her and backsliding and finally made it official later that semester when one of our mutual friends was killed doing a most stupid thing trying to cross a railroad bridge over the Potomac (it was ruled a suicide)- she explained life was too short to live for someone else’s faith.

All right, but what if the Holy Spirit never gave up on her? Galatians 5:22-23. For the fruits of the Spirits are love, peace, joy… against such there is no law.

I realize I am not the same since becoming a Christian.

 

[turtleoompa]

I am happy that you have found the Holy Spirit. The “religion” of Catholicism is to Love God, Love your neighbor. And with that one knows the Holy Spirit. The whole premise with the “religion” of Catholicism with all it’s hierarcy and doctrine’s helps preserve what was started over 2000 years ago. We have many “traditions” that strengthen our love for God and neighbor. It brings us closer in Spirit. The Bible was put together by Catholics ( this act was to preserve our beliefs ). Please don’t knock a “religion” that helps people to know and love God. Just let us enjoy our philosophy of love. I am happy there are other Christians who preach the Gospels (Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. ) and strive to know God. But, please don’t put down something you do not know of intimately( Catholicism). Enjoy your journey wth God. It is a wonder thing.

 

[Farsight001]

I just wrote this essay, which I think might be helpful to the subject. Been meaning to write it for quite some time, and reading this topic lit a fire under my butt to go and get it done.

-Why the Catholic Church cannot possibly be the Whore of Babylon-

To explain why it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon is really quite a simple matter - one in which simple reasoning and a little geography will do.

First, we have to start with explaining a word - the word “criteria”. There are two kinds of criteria. There is what I call “or” criteria and “and” criteria. Its fairly straightforward. “Or” criteria is like the criteria needed to get a handicapped sticker for your car so you can park in the handicapped spots in parking lots. If you are in a wheelchair, or need assistance walking, or are allergic to sunlight, you meet the criteria to park in the handicapped spots. One does not need to be in a wheelchair AND allergic to sunlight to do so. This is “or” criteria - where one only needs to meet one, or a few of, the criteria for something.

“And” criteria is what you think it is - criteria in which all applicable statements must apply. To be president of the United States, one must be at least 35 years old AND born in the United States, AND have lived in the United States for the last decade. If you were born and raised in the United States and have never even left the country, but are only 34 years old, you cannot be president. Likewise, if you were born on the Mexico side of the border while actually at the border, and immediately taken over to the U.S., where you lived for 65 years, you still cannot be president. This is because you must meet ALL of the criteria to be president.

What is the relevance of this to the Whore of Babylon and the Catholic Church? It is the kind of criteria to be the whore that is the relevance. That criteria is “and” criteria. The entity in question must meet ALL of the criteria in question to be the Whore. What does this mean for us? It means something very important - that we need only prove that only one of the criteria does not apply to the Church. Because it is “and” criteria, if the Church is even off by just one criteria, it cannot (I repeat, CANNOT) be the whore. It does not matter how evil the Church may be, or how many people they have killed, or even if it openly claims to actually be the whore - if it does not meet EVERY criteria, it is, by definition, not the Whore of Babylon. This means that we need only show that just one of the criteria for the Whore fails to apply to the Catholic Church to prove conclusively that the Church is not the Whore as described in Revelation.

The one criteria we are going to cover here is that the Whore is supposed to be a city on seven hills. While there are dozens of cities throughout the world that sit on seven hills, one is mentioned more than any other - Rome. Its constant mention is often found in the assertion that the Catholic Church is the Whore and is based in Rome. But there is a serious problem with this, and that is simply that the Catholic Church is not actually based in Rome, nor did it necessarily originate there. The Catholic Church, it could be argued, isn’t actually based anywhere. It’s members live all over the world. The Catholic Church is based on Earth - this is as specific as we can really get without bending truth a bit. Still, no one would doubt that the Catholic Church, if based in any specific place on Earth, is based in Vatican City because that is where the top of the Church hierarchy lives and works. This is where the geography comes into play.

As any topographical map of Rome and the surrounding area will show, the Vatican actually sits on only one hill. Normally I would not recommend wikipedia, but it does currently have a nice, clear, and easy to read map of the area found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seven_Hills_of_Rome.svg Of course, this is not a topographical map, but you would probably find it far easier to make sense of than one. You can see from the map that there are seven hills of Rome way over on the east side, and Vatican hill way over on the left end. Not only is the one hill that the Vatican sits on quite distinct from the seven of Rome, but there is even a fair amount of land and the Tiber river between it and those other hills. So we see clearly that the Vatican does not sit on seven hills, but rather only one, that one of which is not part of the seven that give us Rome.

Now the red line bordering Rome on that map is ancient Rome. The city has grown quite a bit since then - so much so that Vatican city is now encompassed on all sides by Rome. Still, it is not Rome itself, nor even part of Rome, but it’s own very distinct city. And even so, that does not matter. If one wanted to include the Vatican as part of Rome because one wants it to fit the criteria for the Whore, one actually runs into a bit of a problem - that in the desire to include the Vatican in Rome, one must also include the hill on which the Vatican sits, along with any other hills that fall in the current confines of Rome, totaling the hills that make up Rome eight at the very least.

So one can see with a little reasoning and a good map that no matter how you might try to spin it, the Vatican, and thus the Catholic Church, does not in any way sit on seven hills. And since this is one of the “and” criteria for the Whore of Babylon, then this also means that it is quite literally impossible for the Church to be said Whore.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

I am happy that you have found the Holy Spirit. The “religion” of Catholicism is to Love God, Love your neighbor. And with that one knows the Holy Spirit.

I am afraid you don’t understand the Holy Spirit. Is it that simple? We are talking about the same Galatians 5:22-23 aren’t we?

I know that the Spirit represents power (more love, more patience, more joy than before) and guidance (seeing life differently than before).

---

Just for the sake of argument, knowing that Mr. Chick is potentially in error, how would a Chick Tract against the Baptist Church look? At least the wording? The fact that Chick is using the Scripture and Pope’s quotations is very effective. It is more persuasive than National Sunday Law, finding Sunday legislation hard to believe.

It is always possible to be over the top. Chick is human.

 

[losh14]

Welcome to the boards, Chris.

Everything they said did make sense with the minor exception of “beasts of the earth” (they said it was mice during the bubonic plagues).

Depending on translation, ‘beast’ can be rendered to mean any animal. Mice would’ve been recognized as a vector and indication of squalor from even Biblical times.

They made me read Luke (24?) word by word to prove that the Sabbath was Saturday.

Many who also call themselves Bible-believing Christians would disagree with this, or would argue that the Sabbath for Jews is Saturday and for Christians it is Sunday.

(But some people believe every day is important, why is that verse in there, and does it mean not going to church is OK also?) (I don’t believe Sunday worship is your ticket to hell. They could have said it more plainly than they did if that is what they meant

Bear in mind the original audience in Paul’s statement was converts from Judaism who still faced pressure from Judaizers - those in the community who wanted to remain under the Mosaic Law - to conform to the Old Covenant. This included celebrating all the Feasts and Festivals as well as keeping the dietary laws and Jewish Sabbath. Paul’s argument was more that it doesn’t matter which day is celebrated so long as it is celebrated for Christ, that it didn’t matter what you eat (provided it wasn’t sacrificed to idols), etc. He wanted to head off contention over something that was no longer binding to a believer. The reason why this was no longer binding is that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant, supplanting it with the New Covenant.

And as has been mentioned here, Fridays and Sundays were both especially important to the early Church going forward - the days of Crucifixion and Resurrection, respectively. The move from Sabbath to Sunday worship probably also signaled an identity for Christians that was distinct from the Jews in whose communities Christians often lived.

Also, bear in mind, as has been said here, that if the Jewish sabbath begins Saturday at sundown and ends Sunday at sundown, it overlaps to Sunday morning.

• if they said mark, they must have meant mark, maybe a bar code tattoo or microchip implant. I think John the Apostle was describing what he saw literally.

I’d argue that’s anachronistic and centered on the 21st century. It’s the most recent attempt from many centuries of guessing what the mark meant.

I am gravely concerned about the 12 or so prophecies that call the Pope/Vatican antiChrist, they seem to be right on the money too. Theocracy, small country, destroyed three countries, changed times and laws, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I’m not concerned about any of them. If we take them to be relevant to our time - ie that John’s prophecy was meant to take relevance in the last 100 years - it takes a lot of contrivance to get there.

Which passage do you take to mean a small country? Rev 17 talks of a wealthy nation, which the Vatican certainly is not.

If we take the primary audience of this prophecy to be 1st century Christians living under the oppression of Pagan Rome, these prophecies more strongly correlate to Israel as the Harlot, the office of the Roman Emperor as Beast and the Roman Empire itself as Antichrist. This was all written and discussed above - we can rehash with specifics if you’d like.

I find it interesting that the SDA movement came about during a time when the Vatican had no army and it had been hundreds of years since the Catholic Church had participated in recognized military actions. I could understand when the Reformers - Zwingli, for example - decried the Catholic Church as Antichrist, during a time when armed conflict was waged across religious and political lines. I could also understand when Catholic leadership accused the Reformers of the same. It’s hard to see the humanity in the one firing canon at your village.

 

[losh14]

I am also very much concerned about Jack Chick’s comics on the Catholic Church: Why Is Mary Crying? The Death Cookie, Last Rites, Murph, Alberto, the Godfathers. Jack Chick needs a tastefully done comic on God Gave Birth Control to Married Couples.

For an informed and educated view of the Catholic Church, I suggest works by Hahn, Aquilina, Currie, Keating and Akin. Actually for an informed view of anything I’d take Wikipedia over Chick. Test the tracts - take one to a professor of history and ask him or her about Chick’s understanding of the middle ages, or of Egyptian mythology, for example.

The only concerns I have of Chick’s tracts is the amount of ignorance they spread, and the paper they waste.

The SDA are very literal Bible believing Protestants and have supported the right to read the Bible according to conscience for centuries,

Since the 1840s anyway - closer to 170 years.
Around the same time, Philadelphia’s schools refused to allow Catholics to read their Dhouay-Rheims bibles, and instead were taught Protestant theology out of KJVs. When Catholic parents insisted on their children being able to read their own bibles, riots followed in which Catholic churches were burned and Catholics were shot at. As a result, Philadelphia Bishop Kenrick started the first Catholic schools - a movement that was soundly decried by Protestants in the media as an attempt to subvert the public school system.

Meanwhile those who would become SDAs were gathering in a field waiting for the imminent Second Coming. Don’t fool yourself - no Catholic has ever told an SDA not to read the Bible.

SDA also part company with most fundamentalists, very uncomfortable with seeing religion get cozy with government, that is how the whole persecution mess started,

Does the SDA really teach this? Persecution of Christians began in the mid 1st century. Martyrdom is described in Scripture and it had nothing to do with “religion get cozy with government.” It was the Roman Empire’s way, convert and conform or die. Martyrs chose the latter, rather than forsake the Lord.

the Catholic church achieved political power about 538 AD.

Pulling the baloney card here. What event in or around 538 AD brought the Catholic Church to political power where before it either had no power or did not exist?

I don’t know how they get off thinking Sunday worship is your ticket to hell (sounds like works to me),

The SDA considers it the Mark of the Beast. That makes them pretty exclusive - only they and a small group of independent and Baptist-affiliated churches don’t fall under this umbrella.

Interesting that you call it “works” - usually when I hear the objection of works-based salvation, it’s that someone is trying to ‘earn’ their way into Heaven (which is an impossibility), not that someone is trying to do something out of obedience.

but otherwise there is a lot to like, much more than the system of the Catholic Church.

Every hero has his own way of eating yogurt.

And by the way individual Catholics may love Jesus and read and follow their Bibles, and may tell His Holiness when to take a step back. Many American Catholics do not believe birth control is a sin for married people, for example.

Not sure why we need to tell His Holiness - I assume you mean the Pope - to take a step back.

Birth control is another issue altogether. I personally do believe it is a sin, as a married father, for my wife and I to close off that part of our life to the creative aspect of the Lord.

 

[losh14]

Haven’t your own writings (Pope Innocent for example) made the pope sound like he is exalted as God?

Hasn’t Jack Chick attempted to discredit Catholics any chance he gets? I wouldn’t trust his cites. What is the context of your quotes? I mean original context, not “Why is Mary Crying?”

And Vicar of the Son of God is an appropriate term.
A vicar is one who rules temporarily as a representative of the King while the King is absent. In other words, the Office of the Pope goes away at the Second Coming because it’s no longer needed. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church (Catechism paragraph 807) but someone needs to administer to the day to day needs of the Church, and that person is the Pope. He is a moral leader as well as an administrator and he is subject to the Lord as are all of us.

You all need some tracts of your own.

Why? We don’t read pornography.

 

[losh14]

AntiChrist would be a man who exalts himself to be God.

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. (1 Jn 2:22)

Scripture tells us the Antichrist denies the Father and the Son. This can mean those who deny the divinity of the Lord, or those who deny that Jesus really died and really was resurrected. I would say that many of teachings of the Episcopalian Bishop Spong deny the Father and the Son. The Catholic Church would not fit under this definition.

And if we rejected Scripture and instead accepted your definition, that the antichrist is the one who exalts himself to be God, can you point to anything Benedict, the present Pope, has said in such a capacity? Or even John Paul II? Even if some long ago Pope held aspirations to divinity, he is long dead and presumably condemned for his arrogance. Where is his stain? Where is the impact of that selfish pride evident today?

 

[losh14]

Hi Chris,

Are you here to have a sincere conversation, or to throw cheap barbs. If it’s the latter, please just be upfront and we’ll have your trial membership revoked. If you want serious conversation, please let’s cut to details and knock off the sarcastic comments.

A wafer doesn’t save me. It probably adds some calories to my fat body though.

We take Christ’s promises literally, among them that He’ll return to judge the living and the dead, that He’ll be with us until the end of the world, that’ll He’ll lead His Church, and that He left as visible sign of His Covenant the Eucharist. Had you known this, you wouldn’t say something as flippant as “A wafer doesn’t save me” when the Eucharist is how we understand Christ’s command in John 6 that we must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood to have eternal life.

I’m not going to purgatory.
I am absolutely assured of going straight to Heaven (gasp).

False bifurcation: Catholics believe that Purgatory is the antechamber to Heaven, much like the shower before the swimming pool. It’s a logical conclusion from the contradiction that no one dies in a sanctified (perfect) state yet Jesus declares that we must be perfect, as the Heavenly Father is perfect. We must either conclude that no one actually makes it (an argument atheists make) or we resolve this by holding that the Lord created a mechanism for finishing the work that was begun in us. That mechanism is Purgatory.

So Purgatory is not a separate destination, but rather a means to an end. It’s a how of salvation, not a question of whether salvation exists.

My God is not in Rome He’s in Heaven.

Are you implying that we Catholics consider the Pope to be God? We do not. The only people I’ve ever met who suffer from this confusion are non-Catholics. This confusion is especially prevalent among those who read Chick tracts.

It is very simple and liberating. I asked Jesus to save me and help me live His way. Finito.

Sounds like works to me

It is finished. I need not fear the domination of anyone. What I do for Jesus is gratitude (a nice big tip) and helps save others who watch me.

“Fear the domination”? Is that what you think we Catholics do, we fear the domination of someone? Have you ever been inside a Catholic Church? Have you ever watched a Mass?

Why, then, does Jesus declare that those who do not do good works in His Name shall be condemned in Mt 25? Why does His Apostle, James, write that faith without works is dead (2:26)? Why does the same exhort that God wants us to help orphans and widows and remain undefiled by the world (1:27)?

It’s not just gratitude, it’s obedience. The calling of a Christian takes more than a few seconds and a ‘finito’. The life of a Christian, as taught by Scripture, is not easy. It is a relationship, Covenantal like a marriage, and as in a marriage you may have one glorious happy moment of being wed but you are married for life and must remain faithful and obedient in that marriage to your spouse.

 

[losh14]

A relationship with Jesus Christ is preferable to a religion.

As if the two were opposed. Seeking relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is central to the Catholic faith. The Eucharist, the Mass, the prayers, and the disciplined life of a Catholic are all centered around building that relationship. It is not just a feel-good “Yay! I’m saved!” relationship but one of created to Creator, of servant to Master, of follower to Lord. It is a relationship of joy and also of obedience.

Joseph Ratzinger’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth” is aimed at building this relationship. The now-Pope Benedict writes:

“And we may be sure that each of us, along with our totally personal relationship with God, is received into, and sheltered within, this prayer. Again and again each one of us, with his mens, his own spirit, must go out to meet, open himself to, and submit to the guidance of the vox, the Word that comes to us from the Son.” (p 133).

Do you know the Holy Spirit at least? I think I do.

I’m glad to hear it. I have felt His inspiration and His movement in my life.

First I met this R.A. in the honors dorm (while I had an attitude problem with a Christian I was sure friendship bombed me, I was 20 in 1991).

The ICC and their group, Disciples Today, tried this hard-core at our school. Had a very big public discussion about it given how disruptive their tactics were.

she explained life was too short to live for someone else’s faith.

While I’m very sorry to hear about the suicide, I’m not sure what your friend means by that.

All right, but what if the Holy Spirit never gave up on her? Galatians 5:22-23. For the fruits of the Spirits are love, peace, joy… against such there is no law.

The one who died or the one who didn’t? Where are you going with this?

I realize I am not the same since becoming a Christian.

The Lord moves us throughout our lives as Christians, and desires our conforming to His Son. As Paul puts it, ‘imitators of Christ’.

 

[losh14]

I am afraid you don’t understand the Holy Spirit. Is it that simple? We are talking about the same Galatians 5:22-23 aren’t we?

I know that the Spirit represents power (more love, more patience, more joy than before) and guidance (seeing life differently than before).

It might help to explain your understanding of how the Spirit, as described in Gal 5, refers to the situation above with your friend who died.

Bear in mind that the Christian community in the 1st century suffered a great deal (alluded to in 1 Th 2, 2 Th 1, He 10, Ja 5, among others), despite the Spirit’s fruits of joy and love. Perhaps these fruits were to assist in enduring that suffering and persevering.

Just for the sake of argument, knowing that Mr. Chick is potentially in error, how would a Chick Tract against the Baptist Church look?

To apply Chick’s formula:

1. Misrepresent the Baptist Church (or at least that specific one)
2. Decry the misrepresentation
3. Cite Scripture to back it up
4. Close with the Sinner’s Prayer and an order form to mail in for more tracts

I imagine he’d take much of the script from “Death Cookie” if that particular branch of Baptism practiced Lord’s Supper. Arguments from this tract - such as that the wafer represents Isis Horus and Set, or that they resemble sun cookies used in pagan worship, or that the devil came to some ignorant pauper to tell of this plan - are non-specific and could be applied to any church that practices this Sacrament or Ordinance.

If that branch uses a translation other than KJV, he could accuse them of being in league with demons (a favorite tactic of Chick’s) and show an illustration of some winged monstrosity appearing to a man in medieval garb penning Scripture and encourage him to change the wording.

If that branch allows Baptism by anything but full immersion, he’d show a demon telling the person “You don’t need to be fully immersed, the water makes you clean! What if you drown?” Note that this is something not taught by any church I’m aware of, but Chick’s tactic is to misrepresent intentionally anything he disagrees with.

Another one might look like this: an immoral person is sitting in a cramped basement of a school where the independent church meets. He gripes about the leader’s teaching, gripes about the cramped basement. Suddenly a shadowy figure sits next to him.
Shadow: “You know more than that fool!”
Man: “Yeah, I do!”
Shadow: “You should just get up and lead next week.”
Man: “But how?”
Shadow: “Simple, Call yourself ‘Pastor Dave’ and take to the pulpit.”
Man: “But I’m not ordained.”
Shadow: “Go to this online website”
Man: “But the internet has only evil things!”
Shadow: “It has good things, too! This place ordains people. You’re a good person, why shouldn’t people listen to you.”

And then Pastor Dave leads the congregation into drinking and adultery and they all end in Hell.

The fact that Chick is using the Scripture and Pope’s quotations is very effective. It is more persuasive than National Sunday Law, finding Sunday legislation hard to believe.

I agree NSL is utterly unconvincing, even comical in sections (such as the constant “But wait, there’s more!” as if it were an infomercial).

I’m wary of folks who use Scripture and I check them on it. Even the demons know of Scripture (says James) and fear it. Scripture has been and will continue to be contorted to justify terrible things - slavery, discrimination by race or gender, wholesale genocide. It’s not enough to cite Scripture, but rather to explain and understand it. That doesn’t cast aspersions on Scripture, but it does require one who cites it to defend one’s citation.

For example, if I cited Mt 5:29 could I condemn you for not mutilating your body to remove sin? No, we must understand this verse as a metaphor but that metaphor can only be properly understood within the context of the rest of Matthew.

Likewise, I don’t trust Chick’s use of the quotes of the Popes. His intent has never been an accurate reflection of history. He promotes his own understanding of Christianity, to the detriment of all others. I looked up that reference that Chick had to Innocent III - the Pope was sending a letter to the Holy Roman Emperor, asserting the authority of the Church over the authority of the Empire, reminding the Emperor that he was not free to do as he pleased. This is a far cry from declaring himself God - he answered the Emperor’s high and mighty language with language of his own.

It is always possible to be over the top. Chick is human.

Chick’s also wrong. Practicing Catholics see right through Chick’s attempts to portray the Church in an unsavory light and dismiss him as a troublemaker, a lunatic, or a fool.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

I want to buy that book for $25 about why the Bible apparently tells Catholics to call the Pope father when Isaiah said don’t call any person father, etc.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

The major difference between say one Protestant church (Baptist) and the Catholic church is the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous. We can’t really stop Fred Phelps from using the Baptist label (Westboro Baptist Church, maybe a lawsuit?) to promote what seems to be open hatred of homosexuals. Despite I John 3:15, “Any one who hates his neighbor is a murderer and no murderer has eternal life.” If I was stuck with a pastor like Phelps, I could cite said Scripture, and in many churches, there is a procedure to discipline or remove an unrepentant embezzling or womanizing pastor. If nothing else, a mature Christian who is discerning can leave. We lost Christians because we had a female (and otherwise disciplined) pastor for some time, and they could not abide by Scriptural requirements for a woman not to lead a man.

The difference between many systems and one system give an honest Protestant options to leave, for example, when conscience dictates that the pastor is out of line with Scripture (Phelps is a hatemonger, my retired pastor is female). Where does a Catholic go if there is but one Catholic church? The Pope serves for life regardless, I don’t suppose any human or humans oversee him.

Fred Phelps should no more wear the Baptist/Christian label than the Episcopal church should apply the Christian label to gay marriage.

 

[Cristian_B]

[deleted the rest because of space issues]

So one can see with a little reasoning and a good map that no matter how you might try to spin it, the Vatican, and thus the Catholic Church, does not in any way sit on seven hills. And since this is one of the “and” criteria for the Whore of Babylon, then this also means that it is quite literally impossible for the Church to be said Whore.

Actually, you should study your own church a little more. It does sit on one of the seven hills. Look what I found: Basilica of St. John Lateran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~Source

The Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran (Italian: Arcibasilica Papale di San Giovanni in Laterano) is the cathedral of the Church of Rome, Italy, and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope. Officially named Archibasilica Sanctissimi Salvatoris et Sancti Iohannes Baptista et Evangelista in Laterano (English: Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour and Sts. John the Baptist and the Evangelist at the Lateran", Italian: Arcibasilica del Santissimo Salvatore e Santi Giovanni Battista ed Evangelista in Laterano),[1] it is the oldest and ranks first (being the cathedral of Rome) among the four Papal Basilicas or major basilicas of Rome,[2] and holds the title of ecumenical mother church (mother church of the whole inhabited world) among Catholics.

[underlining mine]
Look what it says: The Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran … is the cathedral of the Catholic Church of Rome, Italy, and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope. And where is this ‘Archbasilica’ located? It is written in the same article above:The cathedral itself is located outside of the Vatican City boundaries, territorially located within the city of Rome in the Italian Republic. However it has been granted a special extraterritorial status as a property of the Holy See.

~Source

[underlining mine and you can find all this right in the beginning of the article]
By the way, I will also give you the coordinated in case you don’t believe me: 41°53′9.26″N 12°30′22.16″E

To see it better, look at this image:

img88.imageshack.us/img88/2007/mapofrome.gif

The following image is too big to post it, so I’ll put a link.

img266.imageshack.us/img266/5731/johnlaterancathedralmon.jpg

As far as I can see (I’m not blind), right below the John Lateran Cathedral it says: ‘Monte Celio’. It is the Caelian Mountain in English, but it is called Monte Celio in Italian. Proof here.

So the official seat of the Roman Catholic Church is on Monte Celio in Rome … interesting, isn’t it?

Also, it is a little ironic for a Roman Catholic apologist to try to prove that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t in Rome.

So the Catholic Church is seated on one of the seven hills because it’s throne, official seat of authority, or whatever you want to call it, is located on one of the seven ancient hills of Rome. Interesting.

 

[Farsight001]

Cristian B, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that you didn’t quote most of my post not because you wanted to save space, but because you didn’t actually read it. I explained pretty much everything you said in my essay. So please double check it. Also, never cite wikipedia. The only reason I referenced it is because it had a nice easy to read map.

Also, I am not a “Roman” Catholic. Technically, there is no such thing as a Roman Catholic. There is Catholicism. Some members of the Church are of the Latin Rite, which is sometimes incorrectly called “Roman”, but the word itself was originally a Protestant insult.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

While I’m very sorry to hear about the suicide, I’m not sure what your friend means by that [life is too short to live for somebody else].

[The Holy Spirit did not give up on the RA]
The one who died or the one who didn’t [RA]? Where are you going with this?

The resident advisor I mistook for Buddhist was actually Christian (indwelt at least) and neither of us seemed to know it. I had actually met the Holy Spirit as a passenger in her mind, if not a driver. Perhaps if I had known earlier I might have been saved earlier. I wasn’t trusting the fellowship except for a handful of people. I was saved after college after meeting the Spirit again in a bunch of thirtysomethings.