He calls himself:
“God’s representative on earth.”
He calls himself:
The “Head of the Church.”
He calls himself:
The Vicar of Christ, one who stands vicariously in the place of Christ.
He calls himself:
“Holy Father.”
Guess who does this unholy act?
Unless you’re Roman Catholic you might think that God’s representative on earth is Messiah, Jesus the Christ.
Unless you’re Roman Catholic you might think that the “Head of the Church” is a title reserved for Christ.
Unless you’re a Roman Catholic you might think The Vicar of Christ, the one who stands vicariously in the place of Christ is a title solely reserved for the Holy Spirit.
Unless you’re a Roman Catholic you might think you should agree with Jesus when He said that no one should allow himself to be called Holy Father since that name applies ONLY to God the Father.
All these titles the Pope willingly takes upon himself. The Pope actually accepts and encourages people calling him Holy Father and millions of faithful disobey Jesus in order to obey their earthly prince. The Bible says there is no other head of the Church than Jesus Christ and Rome says “No. It is the Pope,” which makes the Pope the very embodiment of anti Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps you wouldn't be so concerned about what the Pope does if you convinced yourself that he is just a piece of bread. After all, the distinction between flesh and bread is entirely subjective, and is made by the observer.
ReplyDeleteOh, Brap, dial it back my friend. I don't want to feel responsible for you having a stroke.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I think you're mixing your characters.
We read in Revelation this morning how John fell at the feet of an angel and began to worship him and was chastised for doing so. "Worship only God," he was told.
Yet the Pope not only allows but encourages people to prostrate themselves before him and call him Holy.
Yikes!
Again, I am very disappointed in you. You claim to be a Christian, but have clearly (no doubt intentionally) overlooked part of the The Bible. One that says "thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbour."
ReplyDeleteNo one worships the pope, except in the misguided imagination of yourself and people as obnoxious as yourself.
A definition of "holy" is "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion: a holy man." Such as a priest, a pastor, or pope. But I am sure that proper use of the English language is no concern of yours, so how about some Biblical use ;
1 Peter 1:15 But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy:
16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.
1 Corinthians 7:34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.
Ephesians 1:4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
It is no sin to call someone holy, so long as they are so by proper definition. That being, pious and devoted to God.
And I'm curious, what do you call the man who sired you? what do you children call you? Note, that words like "dad" and "papa" are synonyms for "father." You rigid and out of kilter interpretation of "call no man father" presents many problems for you.
Why do you find it hard to believe that God has representatives on Earth? Isn't The Bible a big list of many of these people through out history? Why is calling the pope one of them hard for you? Or is it that you would prefer to imagine that God just doesn't want him, because *you* don't and of course, God has to answer to you?
And by the way, the term "Vicar of Christ" comes from the ancient, first Christians, and represents *all* bishops.
Mr.Gronk, why do you get into philosophical debates if you are both unable and unwilling to properly participate?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I was not trying to get into this particular philosophical debate, since I don't care what people call the Pope. (I don't have a dog in that fight, so to speak.) Rather, I made the comment for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. To entertain myself. I thought it was a clever use of some of the statements used to support transubstantiation on the "Cult of Mary" post, and it served to point out the absurdity of those statements when applied more broadly.
2. To entertain the other non-Catholics who read this blog, especially those who followed our discussion about transubstantiation.
So, Mr.Gronk, you responded to a post that is all about what people call the pope (which you do not care about) and posted your remarks because ;
ReplyDelete1. You wanted to make yourself feel clever by distorting a previous argument to say what you want, despite the fact that it would mean back peddling on everything that *you* said as well.
2. You wanted to bring up something unrelated in order to make fun of a people you do not identify with because, that's just the thing you like to do.
Got ya.
Friedly comment on Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWhen you said "Or is it that you would prefer to imagine that God just doesn't want him, because *you* don't and of course, God has to answer to you?"
I think you are correct. It is clear by reading this blog that Thesauros KNOWS that he is right. It feels so good to him, how could it be otherwise? He is better than the Pope, for sure.
Oh, but don't tell him that, he will simply reply that we are all bad people, we are all sinners... so he is not arrogant, no no no.
*****
Un-friendly comment to the same Anon:
Mr.Gronk is hilarious and makes you two Christian look like clowns, because of what your religion beliefs are.
I have no doubt that you, as a person, is not an idiot, probably a very clever and rational person, but your beliefs in magic are laughable, and that's why people read about religion online, because it IS entertaining...
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteRegarding point #1, can you tell me what part of the previous argument I distorted? My second sentence was simply combining two sentences from the following paragraph into one sentence:
"The distinction between flesh and bread is entirely subjective. As stated, the elements and molecules are the same, though existing in different amounts. The distinction between the two is made by the observer." (Comment on "The Cult of Mary" post, timestamped 11-4-10, 5:41 AM)
Regarding point #2, I did not intend to make fun of any people, just their beliefs. I'm all for "Ridicule the beliefs, respect the believer." It's kinda similar to "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Regarding Point 1)
ReplyDeleteNo one has made any debate as to whether the pope is "made of meat" or not. You have taken an unrelated arguement, reversed it, and applied it to this situation, when it was not up for debate, or being debated in the first place.
But while we're on the topic, lets look at your claim ;
- The religious believe the pope is a man and "made of meat" and have faith that when God made him, He made the pope "out of meat." There was not any debate, whether they look at the pope as a spiritual leader or not.
- Your argument that the chemical composition, concenttration and appearance are all that is relevant and there is nothing subjective about it at all. That anyone, even an alien from outer space, like yourself *laughs*, will automatically no the difference, despite not having any experience to know the difference.
In either case, the pope is not bread, and you are just being flippant.
Point 2)
"I did not intend to make fun of any people, just their beliefs."
How are you remarks not picking on a particular group? You made remarks about a particular faith, for the benefit of all other people not part of that faith.
Look-
ReplyDeleteJesus declared the bread and wine to be His Body and Blood. He declared Saint Peter to be the rock upon which He built His Church. The Church has survived for over two thousand years.
Why do Catholics believe what they do?
Because. Jesus. Said. So.
"How are you remarks not picking on a particular group? You made remarks about a particular faith, for the benefit of all other people not part of that faith."
ReplyDeleteSome people believe that aliens live on Venus and that NASA wants to hide that from us. Obviouslly, the same people believe that the Moon landing was a hoax.
If we luagh at these beliefs, are we laughing at a group of people?
Yes, but we are laughing at the BELIEFS that these people share, nothing more.
Same thing with your kids' stories that you label as religion.
"Why do Catholics believe what they do?
ReplyDeleteBecause. Jesus. Said. So."
And that brings me back to my final comment in the Cult of Mary thread, which I don't think was addressed:
===
Since people apparently believe in transubstantiation due to faith instead of evidence, I will pose the question I usually pose when people present the faith card to justify their belief in anything.
Given the overwhelming number of things one can choose to have faith in today, how should we decide what to have faith in? Should we look at what the majority of people on the planet have faith in, and go that route? Should we side with the majority in our own country or city, or with the majority among our friends and family? Should we just go with our gut instincts? Should we look for evidence to support our beliefs? Should we go with the oldest beliefs, since they have withstood the test of time the best?
The followers of Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Heaven's Gate founders all have or had faith, and some or all of those goups must have faith in something they shouldn't have. How do we avoid making similar mistakes going forward?
===
In other words, how does a non-believer with an open mind (which I do not have) decide what to have faith in?
If Jesus was god, why did he ask on the cross, My god, my god, why has thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46
ReplyDeleteAns: Because it's all a fabricated lie!
To Mr.Gronk, you said "In other words, how does a non-believer with an open mind (which I do not have) decide what to have faith in?"
ReplyDeleteWithout an open mind, you can't. If you keep yourself completely closed to the idea of anything more than what you can see and touch, then you, by definition, can't have faith.
But if you are to have faith, there is nothing from stopping you from applying some critical analysis to it. Jim Jones said he was every god that ev er existed, even ones that that are of very contradicting religions that can not be reconciled. Odds are, he was full of garabge.
To the other anonymous posted who asked "If Jesus was god, why did he ask on the cross, My god, my god, why has thou forsaken me?"
Because He was quoting Psalm 22 (sometimes listed as Psaml 21). You may want to read it and look at the glorious ending of the passage.
@(Theist) Anon
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you answer Brap's question?
The fact that he said he is not open minded to faith does not change the meaning of his question...
In other words, let's rewrite his question:
How does a non-believer with an open mind decide what to have faith in?
I would add... what constitutes good reasons to have faith in something?
If I may add, Jesus' cry was not one of actually wondering "where is God?" His cry shows those of us who have felt abandoned by God (which ONLY Jesus truly was) cf: "I will never leave you or forsake you." that Jesus knows what we're going through.
ReplyDelete"Why don't you answer the question?"
ReplyDeleteI know you're not talking to me, but I think that I did answer that question a ways back.
http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/10/now-faith-is.html
To "non-theist" you wrote ;
ReplyDelete"In other words, let's rewrite his question:
How does a non-believer with an open mind decide what to have faith in?
I would add... what constitutes good reasons to have faith in something?"
If you want assurances, well then you can't have any. That's why it's faith.
Everyone will have faith for different reasons. If a story is been told long enough, and professed to by enough people, especially those at the time said event happened, then others might be convinced enough to believe.
Some people believe because they have trouble believing that there is nothing else out there. The universe beign finite doesn't mean that we know everything, and that there isn't something more.
Now if you mean, "why this as opposed to that" then that is also personal. However, there are sure ways to stay away from cults.
Having unusualy or metaphysical beliefs doesn't qualify as a cult. Being powerfully and completely controling does. For example, most religions don't tell you who your friends can be. Most cults *do* tell you who your friends can be.
"If a story is been told long enough, and professed to by enough people, especially those at the time said event happened, then others might be convinced enough to believe."
ReplyDeleteFWIW, that, in my opinion, is exactly how Christianity started, with the story of Jesus' resurrection gaining traction among people who already believed the stories of supernatural events currently found in the Old Testament were true. Jesus is well-documented as a historical figure outside of the Bible, and early belief in (and martyrdom for belief in) the resurrection is well-documented outside of the Bible, but the resurrection story itself is well-documented hearsay only found inside the Bible.
Mr.Gronk, you are wrong. Josephus wrote ;
ReplyDelete"When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned [Jesus] to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him."
THat is, the Josephus the historian, from whom we get many details of the Canaan valley of the era.
You should also remember that the Bible flowed out from The Church, and not the other way around. The very existance of His followers testifies to His existence. The writings of His followers testifies to their beliefs.
So if a Jewish historian who lived in the first century AD, with much better access to the earliest Christians (and perhaps to some eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus), didn't feel compelled to convert to Christianity based on the evidence, why should anyone living today?
ReplyDeleteReservations perhaps? Some people believe he did later become a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI see where you are going with this, and I'll head that up.
You wanted something outside the Bible, and it was provided. You wanted something authoritative (by implication), and I mentioned Josephus and how his works are considered accurate.
If Josephus became Christian, it wouldn't nullify what he said because his works, again, are considered accurate. Also, given when this document was written, he was still believed to not be Christian.
Disregarding something about Christ, written by a Christian, would be like the police talking to everyone but the witnesses of an event.
But you would also be interested to know that Tacitus said. He spoke of the Christian movement that was "checked for the moment" but came back stronger. Perhaps by the renewed vigour of Christ disciple? Emboldened by seeing Him raised, rather than scattering to the wind?