Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 661871 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.


Rockford, IL

#465238 Jul 23, 2013
atemcowboy wrote:
<quoted text>I was hoping that this foolishness of OSAS would be hinderd if not stopped since it divides, but DOM comes back and they pick up again with a renewed vengeance.
I just don't understand why they cant see it that if you sin, after you are Saved, and don't confess that sin, you are not going to Heaven.
and we explain it to them and make it so simple that even a 3 y/o child could understand.
Satan has blinded them just as he did those in the day of Peter
Have you sinned sin you were saved? Have you confessed all of your sins since you were saved? The sins of commission and omission? What will happen if you have sinned and do not realize you have sinned? Then what? Will you go to hell? No, no. Don't be so foolish. Let me ask? Is there any sin the blood of Jesus does not cleanse? When God looks at you what does he see? If you are saved does He see you or does He see His Son? If He sees you He sees sin. When He sees His Son He sees righteousness. You and I traded our sin for His righteousness when we were saved. We have His righteousness and He will never ask for it back and we can't ever give it back.

The one blinded by satan is you. He has fooled you into believing you have to be perfect after you were saved and if you are not perfect you are headed for hell. That my friend is not the Gospel.

Rockford, IL

#465239 Jul 23, 2013
Better to be separated by truth than united in error.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#465240 Jul 23, 2013
Humans in religion seem to believe that thought is only possible because of a god or gods favoring humans, and that when the body dies the thoughts continue on to be with a god, or attach their selves to a new human body through reincarnation.

How silly.

All animals think and use plenty of reason. If that were not so, they would not survive to adulthood. This living issue is a very risky venture, and wild animals must be aware of their surroundings at all times.

For wild animals, trying to survive in the wild is comparable to humans being in the middle of a war zone with bullets whizzing by at every moment. It's not as noisy, but it is every bit as dangerous and takes courage and skill to survive.

I suggest that humans are simply arrogant in the idea that thought in humans is guided by something either divine or evil, and in other animals it is "put down" to simple instinct.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09


#465241 Jul 23, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, OSAS7
Slow down on the Bible verse warfare. You're slinging the Bible verses like its dynamite.
Do you have any verses that shows where you're an authority to determine the Ministry of Jesus Christ?
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

1 Jo 2:27

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#465242 Jul 23, 2013
OldJG wrote:
Better to be separated by truth than united in error.
So others know truth and YOU are in error???

How tragic for you!

Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#465243 Jul 23, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>==========
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
SCOBA Chairman: Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh
Catholic Chairman: Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati
If you knew Orthodoxy you would have the knowledge that Bishop Maximus is known as an ecumenist so this is no suprise. I have read many articles by respected Orthodox that have real troubling issues with Bishop Maximus and his ecumenist views. They believe, as I do , that he would compromise the True Faith. By the way Mr. Orthodox Expert, have sat and had coffee with Bishop Maximus=just my wife, my daughter and 1. Foe about 1 1/2 hours.A PhD Philosophy. A Brilliant and most humble man. So Ill talk to the Bishop and you go looking for more crud on the internet cause you just cant be wrong and let it go-that is becoming a Catholic dogma here
When Jesus prays to the Father "that they may all be one" the Catholic prayer in response is "yes, let's see if we can work to heal the schism and become one". The Orthodox prayer is "they can shove it where the sun don't shine!"

Thank God for your patriarchs and bishops!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465244 Jul 23, 2013
Response to Bishop Maximus Chair of Site Anthony Uses to Show Orthodox Support Reunion w Catholicism

"... As for those who, in defending the stand taken by Bishop Maximos and other ecumenists of like mind, claim that the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings have never been condemned by the Orthodox Church,

Let us cite the following statement from the Greek periodical Hagios Kyprianos,a sober and erudite periodical which has, for a number of years, published significant assessments of the ecumenical movement from a traditional Orthodox point of view:

"...Two Ecumenical Synods (the eighth / 879-880, concerning St. Photios the Great, and the ninth / 14th century, concerning St. Gregory Palamas) and at least fourteen (14) other anti-papist Orthodox Synods have condemned Papsim and its numberless errors in belief, while more than two hundred (200) Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers have written against the Latins and have overturned those dogmas which they hold in opposition to the Gospels."

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09


#465245 Jul 23, 2013
Judicial and Parental Forgiveness - What's The Difference?
by William MacDonald
Two different kinds of forgiveness are found in the Scriptures, and if we are going to be careful students of the Word, we must learn to distinguish them. We will call them judicial and parental forgiveness (though these names are not used in the Bible).

To put it very simply, judicial forgiveness is the forgiveness of a judge and parental forgiveness is the forgiveness of a father. The first term is taken from the courtroom and the second from the home.

First let us go to the courtroom. God is the Judge and sinful man is the person on trial. Man is guilty of sinning, and the penalty is eternal death. But the Lord Jesus appears and announces, "I will pay the penalty which man's sins deserved; I will die as a Substitute for him!" This is what the Savior did on the Cross of Calvary. Now the Judge announces to sinful man, "If you will surrender to my Son as your Lord and Savior, I will forgive you." As soon as the man puts his faith in the Savior, he receives judicial forgiveness of all his sins. He will never have to pay the punishment for them in hell, because Christ has paid it all. The forgiven sinner now enters into a new relationship: God is no longer his Judge; now He is his Father.

So now we move into the home for an illustration of parental forgiveness. God is the Father and the believer is the child. In an unguarded moment, the child commits an act of sin. Then what happens? Does God sentence the child to die for the sin? Of course not, because God is no longer the Judge, but the Father! What does happen? Well, fellowship in the family is broken. The happy family spirit is gone. The child has not lost his salvation, but he has lost the joy of his salvation. Soon he may experience the discipline of his Father, designed to bring him back into fellowship. As soon as the child confesses his sin, he receives parental forgiveness.

Judicial forgiveness takes place once-for-all at the time of conversion; parental forgiveness takes place every time a believer confesses and forsakes his sin. This is what Jesus taught in John 13:8-10: we need the bath of regeneration only once to deliver us from the penalty of sins, but we need many cleansings throughout our Christian lives to give us parental forgiveness.

The difference between the two types of forgiveness may be summarized graphically as follows:(see graph at link).....More here:
Anthony MN

United States

#465246 Jul 23, 2013
Hermeneutics Smutics wrote:
<quoted text>Youre hopeless Anthony. Go bother someone else
No problem. I suggest you just scroll past my posts from your patriarchs and bishops.

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#465247 Jul 23, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any verses that shows where you're an authority to determine the Ministry of Jesus Christ?
Every Christian in the world maintains to have that authority.

It's in the bible. All you have to do is "find it" and believe that you KNOW. It's all there for every arrogant boob that flips through the pages.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#465248 Jul 23, 2013
Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus "The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as "archrantos", "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]

Fr. Kucharek continues:

No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title.[The very vastness of available testimony precludes listing. Two excellent surveys may be consulted: A. Ballerini, "Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium conceptionis immaculatae virginis deiparae spectantium" (Rome, 1854-1855), and C. Passaglia, "De immaculato deiparae semper virginis conceptu commentarius" (Rome, 1854 -1855).] Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.

In support of this statement, Fr. Kucharek cites these references in a footnote on pp. 355-356:

Among the better known ninth to thirteenth century Byzantine theologians: Patriarch Photius in his homilies "De Annuntiatione" and "De Nativitate Deiparae" (S. Aristarchis, "Photiou logoi kai homiliai", Vol. II [Constantinople, 1900], pp. 230-245, 368-380); George of Nicomedia in his homilies (PG 100, 1336-1504), especially "Conceptione deiparae" and "Praesentatione Mariae virginis"; Michael Psellos in the recently discovered and edited homily "De Annuntiatione" (PO 16, pp. 517-525); John Phurnensis, "Oratione de Dormitione" (G. Palamas, "Theophanous tou kerameos homiliai",[Jerusalem, 1860], append., pp. 271-276); Michael Glykas, "Annales", III (PG 158, 439-442); Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople, "In annuntiationem" (edit. Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 283-382); Theognostos the Monk, "In dormitionem" (PO 16, pp. 457-562); Nicetas David, "In nativitatem B.M.V." (PG 105, 16-28); Leo the Wise, "In dormitionem" and "In praesentationeum" (PG 107, 12-21); Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, "In Conceptionem Annae" (PO 16, pp. 499-505); Bishop Peter Argorum, "In conceptionem B. Annae"(PG 104, 1352-1365); John Mauropos, "In dormitionem" (PG 120, 1075-1114); James the Monk, "In nativitatem et in praesentationem B.M.V." (PO 16, pp. 528-538). Cf. Jugie, "L'immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale [Rome, 1952], pp. 164-307, for others.

Fr. Kucharek notes that Eastern theologians took St. Thomas Aquinas to task on this issue.(Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception):

Garden City, MI

#465249 Jul 23, 2013
Osas7 wrote:
<quoted text>That's quite an accusation, coming from someone who uses a gnostic mentality to revelation, and what I mean by that is, is that you can make up any tradition you want, claim it is a 2000 yr teaching, even though there are no eyewitnesses or recording of such a doctrine early on in the early roots of Christianity.
The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. "Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord" (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, "Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them... which he recorded in the book of the law of God" (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses'(cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, "Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord" (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to "take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters" (Isa. 8:1) and to "inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness" (30:8). Daniel had a collection of "the books" of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2).
If you investigate where the Bible came from instead of just saying, "It came from God", then you'll be that much closer to the Church that Jesus Christ started.
Our Lord started a Church. Once you get past the terrible slander being spread about the Catholic Church, it gets easier and easier to see how this Church out lived every single nation on the planet- when emperors and dictators sought to have them exterminated. Its guided to Biblical truth without error.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#465250 Jul 23, 2013 of Thomas Aquinas' most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas' works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas' views on the immaculate conception.[Demetrios Kydonios, "Hom. in annuntiationem deiparae", contained in "Cod. Paris gr.", 1213 (cf. Jugie, op cit., pp. 276-279.] No less did the other great Thomist, Georgios Scholarios (fifteenth century), in his synopsis of the immaculate conception.[Georgios Scholarios, "In dormitionem" (PO 16, p. 577); cf. Petit-Siderides-Jugie; "Oeuvres completes de Georges Scholarios", Vol. 1 [Paris, 1928], pp. 202-203; also Petit-Sisderides-Jugie, op. cit., I, p. 501; also Jugie, "Georges Scholarios et l'Immaculee Conception", Echos d'Orient (Paris-Istanbul, 17 [1915], pp. 527-530.]

How did Orthodoxy come to reject the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos? Fr. Kucharek concludes:

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.[Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie "L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale", p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas'(1371) teaching on the immaculate conception ("In nativitatem" [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; "In dormitionem" [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today ("De hypapante"; "De annuntiatione"; "De dormitione" [PG 151]; also "In Christi genealogiam" and "In praesentationem" [edit. K. Sophocles, "Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai", Athens, 1861]). Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the "Staroviery" (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential.[Cf. N. Subbotin, "Materialy dlja istorii Roskola", Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p. 457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

Garden City, MI

#465251 Jul 23, 2013
Osas7 wrote:
<quoted text>As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
1 Jo 2:27
You guys are unbelievable. You're not the only one who believes their hands are washed once they sling a Bible verse at someone. You guys have been slinging sacred scripture at each other for the last 24hrs trying to prove the false doctrine of Sola Fide.
This proves that half of you are not guided to Biblical truth. Yet, all of you claim to be guided to Biblical truth because you're Born Again.

Jonesboro, AR

#465252 Jul 23, 2013
A portion of the jesuit vow says this.....

I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race.

The one true church? I don't think so.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#465253 Jul 23, 2013
At the time of the ninth century, the Eastern Church’s belief in the Immaculate Conception has numerous support, if not universal consent. Tarasius of Constantinople for example, speaks of Mary as being predestined from the creation of the world and chosen from among all generations that she might be the immaculate domicile of the Word and the immaculate oblation of human nature (In SS. Deiparae Praesentationem, PG 98, 1498; 1482; 1490). Joseph of Hymnographus describes Mary as wholly and entirely without stain (Mariale PG 105, 983). Gregorius Nicomediensis exempts Mary from all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam (Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG 100, 1454; 1443).

In the tenth century, Euthymius of Constantinople with Petrus of Argo said that Mary was liberated from the infection of original sin from her conception in the womb of St. Anne (Oratio in conceptionem S. Annae, PG 104, 1351; 1359). Joannes Geometra wrote that Mary was a new creation who was the supreme work of God (Hymnus 2 and 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG 106, 858; 862).

We have a lot to thank to the Eastern Church for developing this doctrine. They had great devotion to Mary, specifically shown in their beautiful Liturgies. While this was going on, there were also Western Fathers that expressed their belief in the Immaculate Conception.

Fr. Luigi Gambero notes: "John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit the mystery of the Immaculate Conception." (Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999], page 401-2)

Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the "Immaculate Conception" celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called "Melchites" (from the Syrian word for "king") because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.

Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the "Conception of Mary" -- a more "politically correct" title for the wary Byzantines.
Dust Storm

Minneapolis, MN

#465254 Jul 23, 2013
the feast of the Immaculate Conception was re-instated in Italy by Pope Sixtus IV in 1477, moving the date from December 9th to December 8th (the date we use today). Later, in 1708, the feast on December 8th was extended to the entire Church by Pope Clement XI. Then, in 1854, the doctrine was declared an official dogma of the Catholic Church by Pope Pius IX, thus bringing the theological debate to a close. So, Catholics had celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th for 377 years before the dogma was defined; and, in the East, for 957 years before that on December 9th.

Rockford, IL

#465255 Jul 23, 2013
confrinting with the word wrote:
OldJG wrote:
Jude 1:24 says it all to those who do not believe in "Eternal Security".
Jude 1:24, "Now all glory to God, who is able to keep you from falling away and will bring you with great joy into his glorious presence without a single fault."
Glory to God because.....
1. He will keep you from falling away
2. He will bring you with great joy into his glorious presence.
3. Without a single fault
HALLELUJAH!!! Thank you Jesus.
So you believe as some teach...
That if you are a Christian and are in the bosom of a whore, are setting in a bar drunk ,,,
That if at that time... Jesus comes to catch away his bride that you will qualify as a part of the bride of Christ...
How do you explain away this verse
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
First, you never explained what Jude 1:24 tells us about eternal security in Christ Jesus. Give it a go. I can't wait!

Second, I believe as the Bible teaches. The some people you are speaking of are the apostles as taught by Jesus Christ. Wasn't Jude the brother of Jesus?

You said, quote, "How do you explain away this verse
2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." End quote.

Paul is afraid for the Corinthians in their obedience to the Gospel. Paul explains the manner of the deception with an analogy to the Garden of Eden. Just as the serpent was a servant of Satan, so are the false apostles. Satan is crafty and his methods are subtle. The reason for Paul’s fear was the doctrine of self-confidence preached and modeled by the false teachers which was contrary to confidence in Christ. The Corinthians were being deceived by the words and actions of the false teachers. The model of the false teachers was leading them from their single-minded devotion to Christ.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#465256 Jul 23, 2013

Gee, if he represented the position of the Orthodox Church why would they "avoid all communication with him" to keep our doctrine "unperverted"???

Why would his views undermine the foundation of the Church??????

In what follows, we cite earlier statements by distinguished “pioneers” of ecumenism and later—more recent—statements which bear witness to the “unity of spirit” of the ecumenists and the astonishing ecclesiological erosion of the Orthodox through their participation in the ecumenical movement, as well as their steadfast tendency towards the realization of a “Universal Visible Church


4. The views of Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh (now Metropolitan of Aenos).

“The Holy Spirit is at work at any Christian baptism”; “when we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we do not mean by that (only) Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism”; the Holy Spirit “is not limited by human canonical boundaries we have established for our convenience; we cannot bind the Spirit, and not allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just becaus some of us so decided”; “Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two ‘sister churches’ of old, continue to recognize one another’s baptism, as well as the other sacraments celebrated in these churches”; the rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is inspired by “narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry,”“is an injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a blasphemy against God’s Holy Spirit.”

Of the foregoing un-Orthodox views, the Orthodox in resistance to the panheresy of ecumenism, abiding on the basis of “sound and unperverted doctrine,” as St. Basil the Great puts it, are
* Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (1999), pp. 11-14.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#465257 Jul 23, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
When Jesus prays to the Father "that they may all be one" the Catholic prayer in response is "yes, let's see if we can work to heal the schism and become one". The Orthodox prayer is "they can shove it where the sun don't shine!"
Thank God for your patriarchs and bishops!

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
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 min bad bob 183,874
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 11 min MUQ2 895
Why are Mexicans trash? (Apr '10) 15 min Johnny 268
girls, when is the first time u saw a penis (Feb '14) 22 min Alex 36
Black Women - Easily Offended Or Always Offended? 24 min Johnny 12
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 33 min Joe Fortuna 78,767
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Demon Finder 18,956
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr another viewer 975,363
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 4 hr JTrainn 165
More from around the web