Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 672801 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

4GVN

Saint Louis, MO

#405126 Nov 26, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Ezek 36:25-27
Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
Yes the scripture says clearly that if we BELIEVE(first) and then we are baptized we will be saved. No belief, no baptism, no salvation. Amen, Dust Storm, Sounds like you are learning. And Fr. Robert Dye says that even though catholics practice infant baptism, it is probably not necessary till they reach an age of reason.(Till they can chose to believe.
Live Action

Fort Cobb, OK

#405127 Nov 26, 2012
preston wrote:
<quoted text>has anyone ever told you , yadahim, that you are a looney bird. if not. let me be the first.
They Told Yahshua The Same thing so no big thing here.
4GVN

Saint Louis, MO

#405129 Nov 26, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmmm ...
.
.
While it is true that we as Catholics practice infant baptism, I seriously doubt it it truly ne essary for anyone who has not attained the age of reason.
.
Rob
Agreed.
Live Action

Fort Cobb, OK

#405130 Nov 26, 2012
Because most want to over look the truth i will post this again you sheeple are scared of the truth scared you will have to change and admit you are wrong.
One day we will all know the truth. this is what we are all searching for.

And please remember you can not take every word of the scripture as the truth especially the new testament.Let us not forget the lying pen of the scribes let us not forget the roman catholic church they have changed the scriptures .A great point is line upon line precept upon precept.

If you name id let's say George And I call you ted are you going to answer me probably not.

Well it is the same with the creator His Name Is Yahweh.He is Not A god.Man made him into a god by changing his name. And he even say's so you will cause them to forget my name.And the world has.

He warns you about the worship of gods he don't even want to be in the same category as god and or gods.

I myself was brainwashed fro a child grew up in a baptist church but then grew up and did my own research And found what I am trying to tell you.

The words lord god Baal were Added to his name because of the divine reverence of his name was believed to be to holy to be spoken so YES MAN MADE HIM A god. Let us not for get revelation 12/9 the whole world is deceived And what better trick for Satan to play on mankind.And here is another possibility that by worshiping a man made god you could be worshiping Satan. Do not under estimate the Power Of Satan.

And the message will be preached to all the world and then the end will come

I pray Dear Heavenly father Yahweh I am john and I ask permission to come to you through you great and wonderful son Yahshua Messiah to please give these people understanding when it comes to your name and your laws Praise Yahweh.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#405131 Nov 26, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed.
4GVN wrote:
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmmm ...
Which strikes me as absurd. I'll grant, I don't know of any god to compare God to, but it seems to me that, if God is truly Good, He would not condemn unbaptised infants.
.
Jesus DID say it was necessary, but He also seems to make exceptions, such as the Good Thief.
Rob
.
Rob
Rob, have you truely considered the possibility that Jesus 'does not make exceptions' but perhaps there is a flaw in the understanding of what the 'GOSPEL' truely is and what part if any, baptism has in ones salvation. And perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what 'born of water' truely means. Is it possible that it is not in referance to water baptism at all?
.
I don't think there is any question that the Christ commanded water baptism as a condition of salvation, and all who are capable of hearing that and understanding it are bound by it.
.Does this mean that Jesus Himself is bound by it? I don't see why He would be.
.
Jesus is the One in Charge. If He chooses to make exceotions to His own rule, who are we to question that.
.We know the rule, and should be following it.
.
Infants cannot know the rule, and I seriously doubt that God would hold them to it.(Might He hold their parents to it? it's possible ...)
.
We do what we can. With infants, if we are going to err, we will err on the side of caution, and baptize.
.I cannot find your earlier post, so I will try to address it as best I can from memory.
.
It is my belief that baptism of infants confers grace. Does this involve the HS? Yes, of course. All graces involve all the Persons of the Trinity.
.
Is the grace received at baptism of an infant (or an adult, really) the same as being "born from above?"
.
Well, we need to be careful not to be twisted up by semantics.
.
ALL grace comes "from above." so, is a person born again from water (baptism) "born from above?"
.
Well ... in a manner of speaking... yessssss ...
.
But Jesus spoke of this as two different things, so let us treat them as two different thing.
.Jesus said we must be reborn of water and the Spirit.
.
Okay. The water part is easy. It is the "death of baptism," the symbolic drowning, and coming back up out of the water ... this is "born again of water.
.
Born of the Spirit seems to imply some new relationship to the Spirit. If we treat it as analogous to baptism (and Jesus DID speak of both in the same breath, so linking them this way is not without justification), then it would be a "death to our old life, and a rising to a new life." A "death" to the life of sin, and a "rising" to a new life of virtue.
.
In other words, just getting baptized won't do it, at least not for anyone capable of doing more.
.
Luke 3:

"7 Then said [John the Baptist] to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

They are called not just to the eternal sign (baptism), but to live an INTERNAL one as well, repentance.
.
Do infants receive grace from the HS at baptism? Of course.
.
Are they capable of living repentance?
.
No, not at all.
.
When they DO become capable of repentance, and they do repent, do they enter into a new and DEEPER relationship with the Holy Spirit?
.
I woukd insist that they do, and that it wad this that Jesus refers to.
.
Rob
truth

Perth, Australia

#405132 Nov 26, 2012
Yes..they scare of truth.
I am personally scare too..but not on way as others.
Who am I?
Who live my life?
How many times?
How many place trough history and time?

What is most as high level..they can't have what they want..even if i died its set up from all eternity.
LTM

Geraldton, Canada

#405133 Nov 26, 2012
preston wrote:
<quoted text>i agree that John and I went after each other tooth and nail, but did you read when John became very sick, that I told 4bdn to back off because John was a good guy.
John liked me and I liked him.
I dont need to add anything more than that.and when i found out. that he had passed away, I cried many a tear for him.DID YOU?
Preston , John was a very sick man who was very dedicated to his faith.
He had great knowledge in the history of his church and very protective of it.
I had great respect for him, I was very sad at his passing.
marge

Leesburg, GA

#405134 Nov 26, 2012
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry KayMarie but baptism is a COMMAND.....with many more COMMANDS from Jesus in the New Testament....
And, I am NOT speaking of the 10 Commandments.....
You have to be Saved first, only then can one follow the Law of Christ.
guest

United States

#405135 Nov 26, 2012
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
Uhmmmm ...
.
.
While it is true that we as Catholics practice infant baptism, I seriously doubt it it truly ne essary for anyone who has not attained the age of reason.
.
Rob
-
-
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed.
-
Robert Dye, you as Catholics do a lot of things that are not necessary, not only for those who have yet to reach the age of reason, but also for those who HAVE reached the age of reason, and yet refuse to *reason* in deference to the Church hierarchy.
-
You go against the words of Christ, to follow the words of the pope.
-
Christ himself said, "Call no man your father." (Matthew 23:9)
Pope said, "No THAT'S not right, call me AND your local parish priest father."
-
Christ himself said, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:8)
Pope and church leaders said, "forget what Jesus said, Church tradition has equal importance to the Bible."
-
-
These are only two glaring examples of how the church has implied that they know more than Christ himself.

there are more examples, but I am feeling too sick tonight to type much more

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#405136 Nov 26, 2012
who="Michael"
KayMarie says......
"A day with the Lord is as a thousand years." No man lived a full thousand years. Methuselah came closest at 969 years.
Michael said, so what is wrong with living over 1,000 years and spending a day with the Lord as you claim? Few people back in the day could not even count to 10.
KayMarie says.....
Then the allotted time was reduced to 125 years, and finally to 70 years, where it remains and it can be shortened or lengthened.
Michael says......You make this stuff up on the fly. Its sillyness.
What source of information tells you this?
makes no common sense. Its laughable!

**********

The Bible is not based on (human) common sense (logic). It is based on Truth...the knowledge of God, which is greater than 'logic'.

It is hard to kick against the prick...

KayMarie

“" THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH!"”

Since: Jun 10

"ISA 53:1.--6 "MATT 10:27"

#405137 Nov 26, 2012
who="guest"

Robert Dye, you as Catholics do a lot of things that are not necessary, not only for those who have yet to reach the age of reason, but also for those who HAVE reached the age of reason, and yet refuse to *reason* in deference to the Church hierarchy.
-
You go against the words of Christ, to follow the words of the pope.
-
Christ himself said, "Call no man your father." (Matthew 23:9)
Pope said, "No THAT'S not right, call me AND your local parish priest father."
-
Christ himself said, "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:8)
Pope and church leaders said, "forget what Jesus said, Church tradition has equal importance to the Bible."
-
-
These are only two glaring examples of how the church has implied that they know more than Christ himself.
there are more examples, but I am feeling too sick tonight to type much more

**********

Be healed...

KM
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#405139 Nov 26, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teaching...

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared,'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John!:-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
truth

Perth, Australia

#405140 Nov 26, 2012
http://www.google.com.au/search...

creation determination recreation..
Are you for sure you destroy everything?

i am not sure they destroy ..in small segment of rock any small tiny life..
perhaps within is ''formula=code''..yes for what?
creation..which they think they destroy..
no
7th Day Catholics Rock

Poplar Bluff, MO

#405141 Nov 26, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
4GVN wrote:
Fr Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmmm ...
Which strikes me as absurd. I'll grant, I don't know of any god to compare God to, but it seems to me that, if God is truly Good, He would not condemn unbaptised infants.
.
Jesus DID say it was necessary, but He also seems to make exceptions, such as the Good Thief.
Rob
.
Rob
Rob, have you truely considered the possibility that Jesus 'does not make exceptions' but perhaps there is a flaw in the understanding of what the 'GOSPEL' truely is and what part if any, baptism has in ones salvation. And perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what 'born of water' truely means. Is it possible that it is not in referance to water baptism at all?
.
I don't think there is any question that the Christ commanded water baptism as a condition of salvation, and all who are capable of hearing that and understanding it are bound by it.
.Does this mean that Jesus Himself is bound by it? I don't see why He would be.
.
Jesus is the One in Charge. If He chooses to make exceotions to His own rule, who are we to question that.
.We know the rule, and should be following it.
.
Infants cannot know the rule, and I seriously doubt that God would hold them to it.(Might He hold their parents to it? it's possible ...)
.
We do what we can. With infants, if we are going to err, we will err on the side of caution, and baptize.
.I cannot find your earlier post, so I will try to address it as best I can from memory.
.
It is my belief that baptism of infants confers grace. Does this involve the HS? Yes, of course. All graces involve all the Persons of the Trinity.
.
Is the grace received at baptism of an infant (or an adult, really) the same as being "born from above?"
.
Well, we need to be careful not to be twisted up by semantics.
.
ALL grace comes "from above." so, is a person born again from water (baptism) "born from above?"
.
Well ... in a manner of speaking... yessssss ...
.
But Jesus spoke of this as two different things, so let us treat them as two different thing.
.Jesus said we must be reborn of water and the Spirit.
.
Okay. The water part is easy. It is the "death of baptism," the symbolic drowning, and coming back up out of the water ... this is "born again of water.
.
Born of the Spirit seems to imply some new relationship to the Spirit. If we treat it as analogous to baptism (and Jesus DID speak of both in the same breath, so linking them this way is not without justification), then it would be a "death to our old life, and a rising to a new life." A "death" to the life of sin, and a "rising" to a new life of virtue.
.
In other words, just getting baptized won't do it, at least not for anyone capable of doing more.
.
Luke 3:
"7 Then said [John the Baptist] to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
They are called not just to the eternal sign (baptism), but to live an INTERNAL one as well, repentance.
.
Do infants receive grace from the HS at baptism? Of course.
.
Are they capable of living repentance?
.
No, not at all.
.
When they DO become capable of repentance, and they do repent, do they enter into a new and DEEPER relationship with the Holy Spirit?
.
I woukd insist that they do, and that it wad this that Jesus refers to.
.
Rob
Good Thief ?.........LOL
4GVN

Saint Louis, MO

#405142 Nov 26, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teaching...
St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
"Polycarp declared,'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)
Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John!:-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
Boy, that is a typical bit of Catholic engineering.lol So Polycarp began serving the Lord when he was one year old??? In what capacity did he serve him??? As a one year old priest? This is just ridicules.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#405143 Nov 26, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>Boy, that is a typical bit of Catholic engineering.lol So Polycarp began serving the Lord when he was one year old??? In what capacity did he serve him??? As a one year old priest? This is just ridicules.
A Jew becomes a servant of God and entered into the covenant on circumcision by the faith of his parents so does the baptized person. The 8th day has a significants but you can look it up.

That you consider Polycarp's words chosen by St John to be ridiculous is no surprise as it doesnt fit the way you want to mold things to your personal view. Whats new? Just as you want to twist my words or Fr. Robs into what you want it to mean not what was said.

I wont speak for Fr. Rob and put words in his mouth as you do and would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop it with me as well.

It is simple. The parents accept in faith the gift of Christ and it is up to the Child when they become adults to nurture or reject. The Jewish tradition says that the women kept the children from being circumcized against the will of the Lord. Why? Because some thought it cruel including Moses wife. God was not happy about it and I posted the scripture for the punishment in Joshua for doing so. I know you could not fathom the correlation. Nor could you connect that the faith of believer with unbeliever.

You can play bible dueling verses all day long and get nowhere. Jesus cried out how he longed to have them under one roof not constantly quibbling. You however condemn 2/3 of CHristianity which practices infant baptism. You do realize of course that is alot of ridiculous protestants. lol THe church is the culmination of the Jewish faith.

Here is a Jewish perspective on circumcision which would follow the same rationale.

http://www.circumcision.net/bris_overview.htm
4GVN

Saint Louis, MO

#405144 Nov 26, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
A Jew becomes a servant of God and entered into the covenant on circumcision by the faith of his parents so does the baptized person. The 8th day has a significants but you can look it up.
That you consider Polycarp's words chosen by St John to be ridiculous is no surprise as it doesnt fit the way you want to mold things to your personal view. Whats new? Just as you want to twist my words or Fr. Robs into what you want it to mean not what was said.
I wont speak for Fr. Rob and put words in his mouth as you do and would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop it with me as well.
It is simple. The parents accept in faith the gift of Christ and it is up to the Child when they become adults to nurture or reject. The Jewish tradition says that the women kept the children from being circumcized against the will of the Lord. Why? Because some thought it cruel including Moses wife. God was not happy about it and I posted the scripture for the punishment in Joshua for doing so. I know you could not fathom the correlation. Nor could you connect that the faith of believer with unbeliever.
You can play bible dueling verses all day long and get nowhere. Jesus cried out how he longed to have them under one roof not constantly quibbling. You however condemn 2/3 of CHristianity which practices infant baptism. You do realize of course that is alot of ridiculous protestants. lol THe church is the culmination of the Jewish faith.
Here is a Jewish perspective on circumcision which would follow the same rationale.
http://www.circumcision.net/bris_overview.htm
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would quit making unfounded incindiary comments about me. As you well know, I put no 'words in Rob's mouth. I simply posted HIS WORDS. And you really don't like that do you?
As you SHOULD know, circumcision was a SIGN of the covenent God had with the Jewish people. It is not the same as the sign of baptism which is a testimony of the 'new birth' in Christ. A Jew did not become a 'servent of God because his parents baptized him, and of course many circumcized Jews led ungodly lives. You are straining a knat. And doing bible contortions to try to find evidence for you practices. But they are exercises in futility. There is NO evidence that John baptized Polycarp or any other person as an infant. And to quote ROB, it is not necessary. As for being 'under one roof' unity in truth would be a great thing. But unity at the expense of truth is too great a cost.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#405145 Nov 26, 2012
Case in point, in Matthew 17:14-18, we are told how Jesus cast out a demon from a young boy because of an appeal by the boy's father:

"When they came to the crowd, a man approached, knelt down before Him, and said,'Lord, have pity on my son for he is a lunatic and suffers severly...."

And Jesus heals the boy because of the father's faith. Now, obviously, it was not possible for this boy to have faith in Jesus on his own. He was psychologically and spiritually disturbed (whether naturally or supernaturally); yet Jesus used the father's faith to make him whole again. So, if such a thing is possible with demonic possession, why should Baptism be any different?

Many retarded and/or insane people do not have the ability to reason so as to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" (as the Evangelicals say ;-) Yet, didn't Jesus come to save them as well? Don't they need to be Baptized into Christ?(Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)

Well, if so, then why should we assume that the ability to reason is necessary for Baptism? Why can't babies be Baptized before they reach the age of reason?

Well, an Evangelical might tell you that it's because the ability to reason is necessary before one can sin. And, indeed, that is very true. We Catholics have an old expression:

"If there's no knowledge, then there's no responsibility. If there's no responsibility, then there's no sin."

So, our Evangelical brothers and sisters try to apply this to Baptism. In the case of an infant or a retarded person, they will say that these lack the ability to reason, and therefore they are free of guilt. And, again, that is very true. However, think about what it implies.:-) What this implies is that infants and retarded people do not need a Savior! Which, to us Catholics, is completely ridiculous.:-)

We know from Scripture itself that Christ came to save everybody, including infants and retarded people. He is their Savior just as much as He is the Savior of rational, healthy adults.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#405146 Nov 26, 2012
4GVN wrote:
<quoted text>I would sincerely appreciate it if you would quit making unfounded incindiary comments about me. As you well know, I put no 'words in Rob's mouth. I simply posted HIS WORDS. And you really don't like that do you?
As you SHOULD know, circumcision was a SIGN of the covenent God had with the Jewish people. It is not the same as the sign of baptism which is a testimony of the 'new birth' in Christ. A Jew did not become a 'servent of God because his parents baptized him, and of course many circumcized Jews led ungodly lives. You are straining a knat. And doing bible contortions to try to find evidence for you practices. But they are exercises in futility. There is NO evidence that John baptized Polycarp or any other person as an infant. And to quote ROB, it is not necessary. As for being 'under one roof' unity in truth would be a great thing. But unity at the expense of truth is too great a cost.
You forgot alot of his words that dont fit with your view so quit lying and spare me that you have taught anything except how to control massive contempt for someone like you. lol You have no truth thus far. I did not say Jews become servants when they are baptized. Is that another intentional twist or one of your usual half thoughts? Jews do not perform Christian Baptisms. lol And you have a problem with Polycarps words not mine.

As for no evidence I suggest you email Mark Bonocore and challenge him on that. His email is in the link and if you can actually muster up the ability to ask in a charitable fashion which I know is a severe challenge for a great Christian like yourself. Then, I am quite certain he will respond.
4GVN

Saint Louis, MO

#405147 Nov 26, 2012
Dust Storm wrote:
Case in point, in Matthew 17:14-18, we are told how Jesus cast out a demon from a young boy because of an appeal by the boy's father:
"When they came to the crowd, a man approached, knelt down before Him, and said,'Lord, have pity on my son for he is a lunatic and suffers severly...."
And Jesus heals the boy because of the father's faith. Now, obviously, it was not possible for this boy to have faith in Jesus on his own. He was psychologically and spiritually disturbed (whether naturally or supernaturally); yet Jesus used the father's faith to make him whole again. So, if such a thing is possible with demonic possession, why should Baptism be any different?
Many retarded and/or insane people do not have the ability to reason so as to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" (as the Evangelicals say ;-) Yet, didn't Jesus come to save them as well? Don't they need to be Baptized into Christ?(Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27)
Well, if so, then why should we assume that the ability to reason is necessary for Baptism? Why can't babies be Baptized before they reach the age of reason?
Well, an Evangelical might tell you that it's because the ability to reason is necessary before one can sin. And, indeed, that is very true. We Catholics have an old expression:
"If there's no knowledge, then there's no responsibility. If there's no responsibility, then there's no sin."
So, our Evangelical brothers and sisters try to apply this to Baptism. In the case of an infant or a retarded person, they will say that these lack the ability to reason, and therefore they are free of guilt. And, again, that is very true. However, think about what it implies.:-) What this implies is that infants and retarded people do not need a Savior! Which, to us Catholics, is completely ridiculous.:-)
We know from Scripture itself that Christ came to save everybody, including infants and retarded people. He is their Savior just as much as He is the Savior of rational, healthy adults.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm
You are comparing casting out demons and healing the sick with salvation and that is apples and oranges. You cannot because of bad comparisons and faulty reasoning, change 'God's plann of salvation'. And of course your flawed reasoning in regards to the mentally incapable is in the fact that you link salvation to baptism. That is not what the gospel entails. But then, you really don't know what the gospel is, do you? What is the 'GOOD NEWS" of Jesus Christ. Is it ,'if we get baptized as infants and then reach the age of reason and profess Christ and do ALL o;f the 'good works' required and endureth till the end and keep all of the commandments and go to confession regularly and don't die with any mortal sin unconfessed and go to purgatory for a feww hundred or a few thousand years or more(nobody knows) and if 'good catholics' don't forget to pray me out, then I 'might make it to heaven..??? Well good luck with YOUR gospel. That is really good news.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Buck Crick 104,421
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min another viewer 981,124
Ryan et al The Infinity Code 16 min maher86 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 33 min bad bob 184,568
Gay/bi Skype Sex ? (Mar '14) 46 min Hookamike 18
Why do women suck so much? (Aug '08) 1 hr Joe blow 369
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Peter Ross 445,835
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Choir Loft 286,298
More from around the web