Roman Catholic Church is the Who-re o...

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Wilson, NC

#106 Jul 17, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>BS
.
LOL. I enjoy the entertainment factor of you, Nettie. I enjoy watching the highest form of hypocrisy work your charm on topix.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#107 Jul 17, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>BS
GS, I have watched tampon commercials that are more interesting than you.
Its so funny to watch GS bring out the real Nettie!

I laugh at you!

HA HA

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Wilson, NC

#108 Jul 17, 2013
Huntington Guy wrote:
<quoted text>Its so funny to watch GS bring out the real Nettie!
I laugh at you!
HA HA
I find it more entertaining than watching TV. Nettie is the highest form of hypocrisy that posts on the CF.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Wilson, NC

#109 Jul 17, 2013
Huntington Guy wrote:
<quoted text>No Nettie, you need to get off your high horse. How does anyone on a Christian Forum discrediting your faith. What do you expect, you're a Catholic, coming to the Christian forum flaunting your religion, and trying to discredit the Christian posters on the Christian forum. And you know what, dont even try this, You're a Christian BS with me. Let me just remind everyone that a few short months ago her avatar tagline said "Christians SUCK"! Your game is obvious. You crave negative attention. You're a troll. And you are using every tactic you can drum up to keep your innocent look, but just know I'll always be here to remind everyone how you lie, and how you play your game.
Last but not least, everything you posted today about the Catholic religion, WHERES THE BEEF?
lol
Brilliant simple Brilliant.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#110 Jul 17, 2013
Huntington Guy wrote:
<quoted text>Its so funny to watch GS bring out the real Nettie!
I laugh at you!
HA HA
I have posted the same way since 2008 on the Topix forums.

You probably were in fifth grade?

What is fun is to see you and GS come in and try to clean up yet another fundie's mess and failure at knowing anything about the history of the Bible and the history of the Catholic Church while failing to check out the source of the websites they attempt to use to support their ignorance.

You both get really busy now.
Lots of covering up and cleaning up to do for one of your hand puppets.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Wilson, NC

#111 Jul 17, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text> .
Nettie you are very entertaining. Nettie, you are truly the highest form of hypocrisy.
Johnny Trunk

Philadelphia, PA

#116 Jul 18, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>One last thing, you troubled Evangelist:
. The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church – compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
There is a long list of Popes, starting with Peter:
The List of Popes
See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus)(76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
Since the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), there WAS NO written scripture for anyone to misinterpret, now was there?
Geez
John>>

A list of Catholic nonsence
The Lion of God

San Antonio, TX

#117 Jul 18, 2013
Johnny Trunk wrote:
<quoted text>
John>>
You can say all you want ,But the Roman Catholic Church did not come about until the the 4th century they can make what ever claim they want.
How come you cut and run?

I started a thread just so you can prove to me that Jesus is an angel. Go get anyone of your faith that is the wise to help you.
Johnny Trunk

Philadelphia, PA

#118 Jul 18, 2013
The Lion of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How come you cut and run?
I started a thread just so you can prove to me that Jesus is an angel. Go get anyone of your faith that is the wise to help you.
John>>

You say this over and over.

I made my point on another thread when are you going to make your point?

If you don`t use scriptures forget about it!!!

are you sure your not the prophet of Jesus Christ?
Johnny Trunk

Philadelphia, PA

#119 Jul 18, 2013
The Lion of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How come you cut and run?
I started a thread just so you can prove to me that Jesus is an angel. Go get anyone of your faith that is the wise to help you.
John>>

Why do you cut and run? you are not there when I want you!!!

what do you think I am going to wait on you all day?
The Lion of God

San Antonio, TX

#120 Jul 18, 2013
Johnny Trunk wrote:
<quoted text>
John>>
You say this over and over.
I made my point on another thread when are you going to make your point?
If you don`t use scriptures forget about it!!!
are you sure your not the prophet of Jesus Christ?
lol

The only point you made was you are a liar. Yes stupid, I am a prophet of Jesus Christ?

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#121 Jul 18, 2013
The Lion of God wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
The only point you made was you are a liar. Yes stupid, I am a prophet of Jesus Christ?
You got caught LIAR! LOL!

PODP wrote:

"I have one and use one registered name just like you."

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#122 Jul 18, 2013
POJC, TheWingsOfWisdom and 'the lion of God', for starters.

"I have one and use one registered name just like you."

What a LIAR! LOL!
Johnny Trunk

Philadelphia, PA

#123 Jul 18, 2013
The Lion of God wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
The only point you made was you are a liar. Yes stupid, I am a prophet of Jesus Christ?
John>>

then prophecy for us a little something will you?
Ant

Palo Alto, CA

#124 Jul 24, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>I have posted the same way since 2008 on the Topix forums.
You probably were in fifth grade?
What is fun is to see you and GS come in and try to clean up yet another fundie's mess and failure at knowing anything about the history of the Bible and the history of the Catholic Church while failing to check out the source of the websites they attempt to use to support their ignorance.
You both get really busy now.
Lots of covering up and cleaning up to do for one of your hand puppets.
Maybe we should do a posting of all the symbols an signs of ancient Sun God worship and compare them to what the catholic church does now and we will see who is copying ancient pagan symbols and practices.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#125 Jul 24, 2013
Ant wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should do a posting of all the symbols an signs of ancient Sun God worship and compare them to what the catholic church does now and we will see who is copying ancient pagan symbols and practices.
Use of a round wafer implies sun worship?

Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Ex 29:1-2).

Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, "Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament ... just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc." Unless the Fundamentalists are willing to honestly examine the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, they are left defenseless. Fortunately, like the attacks on Catholicism in particular, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called "pagan influence fallacies."

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#126 Jul 24, 2013
4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism...
Disciple

United States

#127 Aug 2, 2013
Stop the nonsense already. Everyone knows that Rome was big on Sun God worship and When they converted to Christianity the only way they could get the pagans to join is by letting them bring along some of their pagan customs. This is why a lot of catholic symbols are pagan is because they were pagan all along and have stuck for 1800 + yrs.
Johnny Trunk

Westland, MI

#128 Aug 22, 2013
Disciple wrote:
Stop the nonsense already. Everyone knows that Rome was big on Sun God worship and When they converted to Christianity the only way they could get the pagans to join is by letting them bring along some of their pagan customs. This is why a lot of catholic symbols are pagan is because they were pagan all along and have stuck for 1800 + yrs.
And that is why the Roman Catholic Church is a very pagan Church.
Ant

Alpharetta, GA

#129 Sep 3, 2013
Disciple wrote:
Stop the nonsense already. Everyone knows that Rome was big on Sun God worship and When they converted to Christianity the only way they could get the pagans to join is by letting them bring along some of their pagan customs. This is why a lot of catholic symbols are pagan is because they were pagan all along and have stuck for 1800 + yrs.
Many wont admit it, but it is true

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 3 hr adelaide 1,557
False Teachings of Jews that defy their Holy Sc... 3 hr adelaide 59
SUPER SERVERs 5 hr Neo Neo Neo 4
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 6 hr adelaide 1,362
is it me or who else can see demons and angels ? (Nov '11) 6 hr adelaide 395
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 6 hr adelaide 2,325
Israel is anti christ, literally 7 hr adelaide 115
More from around the web