I might be accused of saying "thanks" again...
I really hate to say this but... if this is your basis for your damning of the Catholic Church, then there's a deeper problem here than I thought.
Your "little web page" isn't exactly definitive commentary on Catholic theology or doctrine. It is an interesting display of Revelation...and someone's interpretation of it in regard to the Catholic Church.
With some willpower and Google, you can find the same diatribe directed at (1) The United Nations (2) The Southern Baptist Convention (3) The Arab States (4) OPEC (5) The Red Cross in Geneva and (6) insert your favorite hated organization here. Just type in "Whore of Revelation" and see what I mean.
Again...it's an opinion and a rather far fetched one at that. I'm a personal fan of the UN as the whore, but to each his own.
If you scroll down to the Roman Catholic Church section, you will see a few different heathenistic practices.
I see Catholics being described as the whores of Revelation Incidentally, email the author and let him know that The Vatican is a soverign country, not a part of Italy or Rome. I'd do it...but he hates Catholics worse than you.
Cathlics often use Bible verses to claim that "holy tradition" is as important as holy scripture, but they often leave out one important fact.
You've amazed me again. I am not personally aware of any doctrine or dogma that supercedes Scripture. In fact, Pope John Paul went to great lengths to insure that the Papacy made it clear to the body of the church
that this was contradictory to Christs teachings.
As such, your claim has no basis in fact, nor validity.
None of the RCC traditions were practiced by the early Christian church when the epistle claiming that church traditions were good was penned.
Given that the previous statement is blatantly false, this one is irrelevant.
An important question to ask is "What traditions is this talking about?" Since the RCC didn't even exist until the early 300s, it's safe to say the answer is "None of the traditions established by the RCC." They are, therefore, heretical.
I'm still waiting for you to present a tradition that's heretical. What your saying defies all teaching of the church.
The test of truth, is evidence. Is this a listing of your unsubstantiated greivances...or is there some substance here?
We're talking about how people were reacting to an <B>idol,</B>
YOU are talking about an idol. What "we" are talking about is viewed as the spontanrous miraculous appearance of "allegedly" the spirit of a biblical person. Not an idol. While I don't personally buy in to that...there are cultural differences that preclude me from saying it's hogwash. i.e. it doesn't happen in America to speak of...usually in Spain, Italy etc.
Indicentally, were you listening to these people as they prayed? It would seem that you have some privvy knowledge that the rest of us poor sinners don't.
which can hardly be compared to how people react around <B>Christ Himself.</B>
Not having personally been in the presence of Christ, I can't speak to that.You however may expound on it at will.
Christ is not an idol -- He is God Himself; ergo dancing, weeping, and falling prostrate before him would not be idolatry.
Agreed.
An image on the side of a building(or other such place) of Mary, on the other hand, is not God, and falling prostrate before it and crying and the such is idolatry.
No, that would be an overflowing of emotion. Praying TO the image or WORSHIPPING the image...that's idolatry. It's important to keep these facts straight, you seem to blur the line in your perception and description.
Listen, when the Red Sox won, lots of people cried, laughed danced and prayed. They weren't praying TO the Red Sox...but a Miracle is a Miracle.
I'm saying that Catholicism appears idolatrous to many people not familiar with its teachings.
I don't hold ignorance against people. I try to teach them. Further you seem to make the assumption that "straight line" Christianity isn't viewed that way. The news here is that 1 Nillion muslims and 900,000,000 Hindus disagree with you.
As do I.
Many people associate Catholicism with Christianity -- ergo it is often deceitful and misleading.
Probably because Catholicism IS Christianity. (look this one up..."Followers of Christ")
And you're making a logical fallacy here... "ergo is is deceitful..." Christianity is? Catholicism is? Or just your personal view of it?
I hate to drag the big guns into this, but you'll find that the overwhelming
majority of Christianic Threlogians disagree with your view on Catholicism.
It is, in fact, the foundation of modern Christianity. Your personal views and these as yet unpresented heretical practices not withstanding.
Even knowing the explanations behind their teachings, however, I must state that it still looks borderline idolatrous to me.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion.
Code: Select all
I've yet to see an explanation that does not contradict the Bible, ergo failing to convince me otherwise.
That might be difficult...in that you have yet to prove your assertion. One cannot prove or disprove a thing that has not been revealed.
No. By God's standard as set forth in the second commandment(the last half of the first in Catholicism, I believe). They were bowing down before a graven image -- their intent means nothing at this point. The best intention(to praise God) cannot make a wrong action(outright disobedience) okay. It doesn't work like that.
I think you lost the context here. But you are correct, ignorance of the truth does not forgive the transgression.
You mentioned the Bible in your list of items of things that Muslims might consider "idols" in Christianity. Therein lies the relevance.
As such, you must recognize that The Bible is a symbol of Christianity, as such it is viewed as an idol because it is revered...by your own logis, if the face of the virgin in a Dunkin Donut can be an idol...there's no question the Bible can be. The Cross is included as well. That should be blatantly obvious.
And here you contradict yourself. You say they view the cross itself as an idol, which they very well may -- that doesn't change the fact that their Quran makes it clear that Christians believe Jesus died on a cross, therefore making it possible for them to see its significance to us.
I most certainly did not. You are making a long assumption that muslims say "oh...well this is a very very important piece of christianic belief". For me to believe that you would think that, would be an insult to you. The Quran states specifically that "the people of the book" (christians/jews) believe that Christ died on the cross.. .yet he was replaced and they believe not the truth".
There is no exposition on it's religious relevance to Christians. While muslims will appreciate your attempt to read far more into this than is there, it does not impose on them any belief structure other than to reinforce their belief that christians corrupted the bible and worship a false god. Nothing more. To believe they islamists have some tender understanding of this is beyond laughable, it's patently absurd.
You next statement makes you contradiction quite clear -- "worship of <B>a dead man</B> on a stick." Note the wording -- worship of the <B>man,</B> not the stick itself.
Again there's no contradiction here in the context of what I said.
Were you to read the entire text of Al Sistani's tirade against christians, he in no less than 7 instances speaks to "the cross worshipers" "the wood worshipers" and finally to the worship of "the dead man on a stick"
Speaking to Christ and to "the stick". I am of the growing opinion that you may well be muslim by your thought process and presentation of ideas.
That would certainly explain your hatred of Catholicism...and your inability to present substantive evidence to support your claims. Not withstanding the opinion expressed on "your little website". Come now...I'm no 12 years old, you'd do well to keep that in mind.
And again, this very statement, while it contradicts Christianity, makes it clear to the Muslims that Christians believe otherwise. Ergo, it actually <B>helps</B> them to understand what the cross means to us, rather than hinders.
I must say, what you lack in perception you make up for in tenacity. Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt either. You make the presumption that muslims have some "innate" knowledge of Christianity to be supplanted by their Quran...which according to you is a veritable HANDBOOK on Christian beliefs. Your logic...defies logic.
They know what it means to us; they just believe otherwise.
Let me correct this statement for you ."Muslims know they are right and that Christians are wrong, because the bible is corrupt and full of lies...as the Quran tells them. Muslims know that one day Islam will rule, by the sword and all the infidels will submit...or pay the tax (your head).
Sorry, I hate correcting people, but that was seriously needed.
Oh, wow. Now I'm the one having trouble laughing. If you thought for even an instant that I thought Islam was some "religion of peace," or that they were worshipping the same God...yeah, right. You totally misread that one.
Based on what I've read in this one...I had that post nailed right to the wall.
Not as a rule, no. But the number of Muslim-to-Christian converts tell a different story. Most of them enter a church at one time or another, and doubtless there are others who enter the church seeking, but don't end up converting. I know it's not common, but it does happen.
I'm with you 100% on that.
And here is the comment made to the second half of the sentence in question. I in no way said that Muslims did not practice idolatry, and I also in no way said that they held to the belief in one god without idolatry. What I said, if you put both parts of the sentence together, is that Muslims are much like Catholics in this one respect -- they both have practices that can easily be seen as idolatry, yet both will deny that it is so and that they are only serving one god and that what they are doing is merely ritual that's not <I>really</I> idolatry.
Nope, I got that meaning the first time. My response is the same, the exact same statement applies to the 57 Flavors of Christianity, in fact the only place it couldn't be appropriately applied would be to the Amish or the Quakers in that there are no symbols, crosses, adornments of any kind. Point is, YOU don't see a cross as an idol any more than I do...but THEY do.
Issues, yes. Unresolved, no. God saw to reveal the truth to me, I've compared my findings to the Bible itself and saw that they fit, and my course is clear.
Charles Manson said he had a revelation from God, so did Jim Jones...
That revelation doesn't represent any validity for speaking untruths or bearing false witness.
To refer to a previous statement...not knowing it's wrong, doesn't forgive the fact that it IS wrong.
Completely, no. In part, yes. Muslims already have wrong beliefs about Christianity from what's mentioned in their Qu'ran. Catholicism just further complicates things. Adds yet more hurdles to overcome.
Catholicism complicates things...but the 178 Denominations and 39 branches of Christianity, with 28 different bibles doesn't?
ooooooooook.
I'll take issue with this only to the point that I'll say you obviously have found your scape goat. I might suggest building a few bridges rather than killing the messengers.
One of the HUGE issues with islamists is "all the bible versions and all the sects of christianity" and the FOOD that FEEDS THEIR DEMON is strife within Christianity.
So it would seem that you're serving 2 masters here...your personal demon of hate for Catholics...and the false pagan god of islam that knows the only way to beat christians is to divide and devour them. I find it very difficult to belive that your distaste for The Church is predicated on embracing your islamic brothers with "true" christianity.
You might try explaining it to them rather than slitting the throats of...yes I'm gonna say it...FELLOW CHRISTIANS. Call me fickle. but personal pomposity has put many of the mighty in the grave.
The churches have to be there first before they can be burned down, right? So my point that there are indeed many churches in Egypt holds true.
Not exactly, the churches are individual homes.
But hey, never let a few dead bodies get in the way of the truth, right?
For every church that's treated in such a way, how many are left alone for the most part? If 6 churches are burned down, that's still a pretty small percentage of the total number of churches in Egypt. It's still tragic, yes, but it's still a much better treatment overall than the churches get in most other Islamic countries.
Hmm. I wish I could take such a cavalier attitude about the birthplace of Christ, Israels 2nd holiest site being desecrated by pagan followers of a murderous pagan moon god. (that church was in Israel) Those 6 churches contained 53 women and children.
Don't feel compelled to be a Muslim Apologetic, I got the drift of your leanings. My command of Arabic, Islam and their culture is quite good.
Perhaps that's why I have a different view of it.
Last I checked, Paul was long dead by the early 300s when the new Roman emperor formed the amalgam known as the RCC. It bore little resemblance to the "early church" of Paul and the other Apostles, and to this day the differences are still numerous.
Your history of Paul is correct, however Paul is considered the original head of the Catholic Church and it's foundings based on his teachings. Whatever the personal bias you have against catholicism...you'll foind that the body of the church still holds those teachings sacred...and in practice.
Even though the sarcasm of what I said apparently burned a vapor trail overhead.
What I'm saying matches up with history. What I'm saying also matches up with the Bible, specifically Revelations chapters 17 through 19. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and the prophecies of Revelations chapter 17 through 19 fit the Roman Catholic Church down to the smallest detail...I dare say I'm not the one bearing false witness here
Toss me somma that history. As stated in the opening of this message, Revelations 17 thru 19 may be applied to MANY things, you happen to believe it applies to Catholics, I disagree. Believe what you like. Afterall 1 billion muslims believe we're both wrong and we'll both lose our head for it. The only difference is I'm watching for them, you aren't.
The Bible is the "inspired" word of God. Although that's a nice touch to say inerrant...exactly as the islamists put it "the inerrant recitation of God".
Your underwear is showing again.
I'll pass on your implication about false witness, it's casting aspersions where none exist. I have fully answered all your charges, specifically and to the point. Unflinchingly.
As to my assertion that you have borne false witness, I will stand by that.
It may make you feel better to know that muslims believe that Mary, mother of Christ was a street whore, if that's any consolation.
Noel
And of course I'm never a hypocrite! 
)
sometimes, you're beyond pathetic.