Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News 567,239
The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ. Full Story

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#441895 May 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted it many times, but I will post it again. I left religion for the last time at the age of seventy, but the process was gradual after studying most religions and their concepts of supposed truth for many years. I will be seventy four this June, so that is four years ago.
I thought I was going to be seventy-five this year, but my husband corrected me.
Let's see - you left religion 4 yrs ago, whereas I left organized religion well over 30 yrs ago.

With this, you arriving on this forum within the month, seem to know all about non-believers and why they believe a they choose.

What a bunch of hogwash. It'll work with the believers though, huh?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#441896 May 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in the big-bang theory.
It makes more sense to me that the universe always existed and in it's every-changing forms will always exist.
However, I admit that my belief is just one among all other beliefs and that it holds no value except to me and those who believe as I believe.
The problem is that the "Bing Bang" has tons of evidence to support it. The steeay state universe is proven wrong and the Bible story is a joke.

Wat happened prior to the big bang is best explained by a quantuum fluctuation in an infinite vacuum. IE: The Universe came from nothing. That something can indeed come from nothing an observeable and well documented reality.

Since: Sep 09

Fraser Lake, Canada

#441897 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually not June.
The topic is about how the RCC claims to be the true church for salvation.
IMO - the Pope mispoke - because of many paths to salvation.
Now - if you want to talk about beliefs - mine are only an objection to the RCC's.
If you want to oppose the RCC then do so, as you have been. My beliefs have no bearing on your refutation, so please remember that point.
Your beliefs have every interest to me, as you would like to impress others with your own "knowledge," and I perceive you are full of hot air.

You are here to tear down other people's beliefs, and I believe you also need to be scrutinized as other than a credible "spiritual leader."
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#441898 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
....but yet you still only accept less than six of the original 13 Apostles.
You are still confused and misleading.
If you believe in the Apostles, then do so, not just one or two as you do.
Wake up!!
Um, we accept all of the apostles, but they didn't all write stuff down, and Jesus never instructed them to.

The guys who succeeded the guys who were appointed by the apostles knew the gnostic texts were fraudulant. They knew that because the texts opposed the verbal transmission of the faith received from them,(i.e., Sacred Tradition).

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#441899 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
This is true - decisions by men to decide what beliefs other men are to believe.
You fell for it.
Bummer.
You should've believed Jesus instead.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you absolve yourself of what you accuse Regina and JS (and me) of.
Typing "self" every third post or so doesn't put you out of the company of people who believe what men wrote of Jesus.
Correction to your little treatise here.

I haven't accepted the men you have. In fact I dispute that they were indeed inspired by "God" to choose which books were to be accepted as a belief.

This is where we separate you from me. I am honest that men wrote these texts - not "God".

What other bullshit excuses you got?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#441900 May 17, 2013
LTM wrote:
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the Genesis account of creation in 6 days was literal?...In the face of scientific discovery and analysis that shows that to be totally incorrect?
Dan
No, I'm not saying that.
Why not its true, you don't believe in the Bibles account of creation??
You don't believe God is capable of Genesis account of Creation.
According to fossil evidence, the story is incorrect.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#441901 May 17, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, observe how you move people to follow your lead, and then you can give me advise.
I suggest that you alienate others with your "leadership" attitude.
People don't like braggarts unless it's them and those who believe as they believe.
I don't know if life continues after death ... but I know that if other forms of life are not special to a creator, I don't want to be special either.
I haven't asked anyone to follow me.

Strike two.
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#441902 May 17, 2013
Religion A Delusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, I stand corrected on the dating on when the earliest fragments were written. My mistake.
However, we still have the hearsay aspect. Who wrote the earliest fragments, 60 to 90 years after Jesus' death? Did they really live that long?
The first sentence of your link:
"With the exception of a few sections in the biblical section known as the Prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes, and every part was subject to revision by later authors."
Thanks again for correcting my mistake.
I don't think the authorship and timeline of the books of the Bible are in the realm of hearsay.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#441903 May 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose so, if it is within a person's power to "fulfill" the prophecy one could just for fun make it come "true".
This is hardly what happened in the cases of Biblical prophecies fulfilled.
Jesus would have known of the old prohecies.

Since: Sep 09

Fraser Lake, Canada

#441904 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask for alot of others.
I ask a lot of questions of all preachers.

If you believe that you are spiritual, do you also believe that (for instance) mosquitoes and the cells that keep our bodies functioning are "spiritual?"

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#441905 May 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the explanation about the obelisk. That's really cool.
For those that bash the CC, I've been wondering why they don't ask themselves "Why am I bashing the CC and not, say, the Jehovah Witness folks or the mormons? Why am I obsessing about the CC?" and really search themselves for an answer to that.
Perhaps it's the topic of the thread?

Since: Sep 09

Fraser Lake, Canada

#441906 May 17, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that the "Bing Bang" has tons of evidence to support it. The steeay state universe is proven wrong and the Bible story is a joke.
Wat happened prior to the big bang is best explained by a quantuum fluctuation in an infinite vacuum. IE: The Universe came from nothing. That something can indeed come from nothing an observeable and well documented reality.
It's still ALL theory. Each group of believers cling to their own theories ... but that doesn't warrant claims of truth.

Truth requires proof, not theory.

I have a theory that the universe always existed, but to prove it is quite another "matter." I can't, so I admit that ALL I have is a theory.

Religion is also based on theory. It makes people happy about their own theories and often very angry and defensive about the theories of others ... but from my perception, the anger stems from not being able to prove that on which one places the highest of value.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#441907 May 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite your source please?
History.
Do you know that the "inquisition" is still sanctioned today?
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#441908 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
This is true - decisions by men to decide what beliefs other men are to believe.
You fell for it.
Bummer.
You should've believed Jesus instead.
<quoted text>
Correction to your little treatise here.
I haven't accepted the men you have. In fact I dispute that they were indeed inspired by "God" to choose which books were to be accepted as a belief.
This is where we separate you from me. I am honest that men wrote these texts - not "God".
What other bullshit excuses you got?
A bit testy today aren't we. You seem to get that way whenever someone hits you right between the eyes.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#441909 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
This is true - decisions by men to decide what beliefs other men are to believe.
You fell for it.
Bummer.
You should've believed Jesus instead.
<quoted text>
Correction to your little treatise here.
I haven't accepted the men you have. In fact I dispute that they were indeed inspired by "God" to choose which books were to be accepted as a belief.
This is where we separate you from me. I am honest that men wrote these texts - not "God".
What other bullshit excuses you got?
Hmmm.

The Philosopher King now resorts to profanity. Must be your higher sense of enlightenment, yes?

I'm fairly certain that I already knew that men actually wrote the Scriptures-thanks anyway.

You have "accepted" the men who authored the Gospel of Thomas, and that it's divinely inspired, else you wouldn't be insistent that my rejection of it is my not accepting the whole of Christ's teachings.

One side of the street or the other, NASL.

Since: Sep 09

Fraser Lake, Canada

#441910 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't asked anyone to follow me.
Strike two.
It would please you no end if if they would follow you though. Otherwise you would never use that term "leader."
Just Sayin

Antioch, TN

#441911 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Do you mean "God" changed it, so it could be accurate.....or in truth, men did?
Well?
What happened was the dude, Constantin von Tischendorf (archaelogist), found the Code Sinaiticus in the Monastery of St Catherine at Sinai. He asked the monks if he could keep the 129 leaves he found and was permitted to take only 1/3 of them. He deposited them in the Leizig University Library where they remain. The other portions remained at the monastery. Later, he revisited the monastery to get the remaining leaves but was not successful. Later other leaves of the codex were found in the monastery. long story. Over the years the whole thing has been found and put together and is now available online.

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#441912 May 17, 2013
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
The use of the word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not denote the modern meaning of confidentiality. Its meaning is closer to that of the word "private", indicating that the archives are the Pope's personal property, not belonging to those of any particular department of the Roman Curia or the Holy See.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Secret_A...
Very good...

Now tell me how easily anyone can gain access to "any" of the archives...or copy any material.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#441913 May 17, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
This is true - decisions by men to decide what beliefs other men are to believe.
You fell for it.
Bummer.
You should've believed Jesus instead.
<quoted text>
Correction to your little treatise here.
I haven't accepted the men you have. In fact I dispute that they were indeed inspired by "God" to choose which books were to be accepted as a belief.
This is where we separate you from me. I am honest that men wrote these texts - not "God".
What other bullshit excuses you got?
Post #441893

"Correct, I have used other men and their theories to formulate my belief. "

So, your point is really "OK for me, but not for thee".

Did I get that right?

Since: Sep 09

Fraser Lake, Canada

#441914 May 17, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
History.
Do you know that the "inquisition" is still sanctioned today?
If it isn't, it means that the god that especially serves Catholics has changed his mind and now believes that heretics and witches should no longer be put to death ... as he once commanded was the case ... according to the popes.

It seems that many Christians are now trying to make GOD-heavy into some type of GOD-lite.

He used to be a mean son of a b*tch, and now they are trying to make him over into a divine guiding LIGHT, while at the same time they preach of the punishment of hell.

Ridiculous blather.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Bongo 793,142
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 18 min Pegasus 267,248
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr Rathore 38,042
Does science disprove biblical teachings??? 1 hr Ninja of Reason 5
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr samanthar 97,403
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr lovewithin 39,640
Muslim Women (Dec '09) 4 hr Aisha from Australia 383
Scientific proof for God's existence 4 hr Rick in Kansas 475
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr lil whispers 607,025
More from around the web