Jump to content


The Passing Of John Paul Ii


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:54 PM

John Paul II has died. A Cardinal reported that his last words were, "I have entrusted everything to the Virgin Mary". Excuse me, but why would anyone entrust anything to a dead woman? The Lord Jesus Christ said in John 14:6, "..., I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That is an unassailable fact. Therefore, why would anyone entrust his soul to a mere mortal dead woman no matter what her office was in this life?

I submit for consideration that the most artistic way to lie is to tell the truth, but not all of it. Further, lies draped with fine biblical words will always find a ready audience. The father of lies is well schooled in how to do that, as the Bible makes abundantly clear.

My opinion is that we have just seen the passing of the foremost proponent of the church errant in the world.

It is not for no reason that Rome still holds all Protestants under anathema.

{Edited by me to moderate my language}

Edited by The Deacon, 02 April 2005 - 07:41 PM.


#2 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 02:01 PM

You heard it here first.

The next Pope, if he doesn't call himself John Paul III (unlikely), will choose to be called Peter.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 02:43 PM

I've never understood how someone can read the Bible, and worship Mary.....

Terry

#4 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 02 April 2005 - 03:09 PM

Even as an atheist, I find this thread in very bad taste.

#5 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 03:12 PM

Even as an atheist, I find this thread in very bad taste.

View Post



No doubt you do. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)

#6 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 02 April 2005 - 03:43 PM

No doubt you do. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)

View Post


My favorite quote is: You know you’ve found the right religion when God hates the same people you do.

#7 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 03:53 PM

My favorite quote is: You know you’ve found the right religion when God hates the same people you do.

View Post


Nuts, Wally.

What I hate is the mystical, Bible denying theology of Rome as embodied by words from the late Pope's own mouth, not the poor souls who have never heard anything else.

You, as an atheist, should not care one way or the other.

#8 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 07:39 PM

Quoting myself:

"What I hate is the mystical, Bible denying theology of Rome as embodied by words from the late Pope's own mouth, not the poor souls who have never heard anything else."

I just heard a discussion on the news in which the late Pope is quoted as saying that "conversion is not necessary for salvation". It would be hard to make any statement more contradictory to the Scriptures than that.

Matthew 13:15, "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Matthew 18:3, "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven."

Mark 4:12, "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

John 12:40, "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

Acts 3:19: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

#9 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2005 - 06:20 AM

I just heard a discussion on the news in which the late Pope is quoted as saying that "conversion is not necessary for salvation". It would be hard to make any statement more contradictory to the Scriptures than that.


Are you sure he didn't mean being converted into a catholic?

Terry

#10 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2005 - 06:59 AM

Are you sure he didn't mean being converted into a catholic?

Terry

View Post


Yes, I am sure, and for a number of reasons. Rome has for years absorbed native peoples without requiring them to give up their pagan customs (although it wasn't always like that). Instead, they are integrated into the local church. One has only to look at Central and South America to see it.

The Council of Trent placed all Protestants under anathema. That has never been recinded.

Dr. James Dobson visited Mother Theresa in India. While he was there he asked her how she went about witnessing to the local people. She replied that there was no witnessing because there "are many paths to God". The late Pope held the same view. In short, what she did (and Rome in general does) is minister to the body without ministering to the soul. Ecumenism and church growth have replaced evangelism.


What is happening in Rome is very similar to what happened in Ephesus:

the Revelation 2:1-7 "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 April 2005 - 03:05 PM

The Catholics fondness for saints, the Virgin Mary, etc, has always puzzled me somewhat, Being that it’s the oldest surviving Christian following it appears to have fallen into the trap of needing an excessive bureaucratic overhead for administering the mechanics of the faith. The very structured hierarchy is more akin to a national government or the military than a ministry, and the protestant movent seems inevitable with such inflexible attitudes.

As for the man himself, he a product of his times and upbringing, coming from Poland I suspect he would have had little exposure to protestant ideas. It appears his church alliances were somewhat in response to combating or rebelling against communism.

#12 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2005 - 03:27 PM

The Catholics fondness for saints, the Virgin Mary, etc, has always puzzled me somewhat.


What happend was that many pagan feasts and festivals were simply 'christianized', and the veneration of Saints replaced the veneration of idols.

Being that it’s the oldest surviving Christian following it appears to have fallen into the trap of needing an excessive bureaucratic overhead for administering the mechanics of the faith.  The very structured hierarchy is more akin to a national government or the military than a ministry, and the protestant movent seems inevitable with such inflexible attitudes.


If you look closely what you see is a continuation of the Levitical priesthood, complete with a high priest. In fact, many of the forms of Jewish worship were adapted for church use. A prime example is the Roman insistance that men still need a mediator between themselves and God. Rome supplies the mediator in the form of a priest. The problem is that the Bible denies the necessity: 1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

As for the man himself, he a product of his times and upbringing, coming from Poland I suspect he would have had little exposure to protestant ideas. It appears his church alliances were somewhat in response to combating or rebelling against


Quite possibly. I do not for an instant deny that John Paul accomplished a great many very good things, but all of them fall into the category of civic righteousness. The problem lies in Rome's ready acceptance of the theology of expediency and she does not hesitate to teach directly contrary to the words of Scripture whenever a benefit to the earthly church is in view.

For those who don't know it already, at one time or another Rome has repudiated all three of the possible ways of salvation as elucidated by Pellagius, Cassian, and the Reformers. Where does that that leave her? Spiritually bankrupt.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 April 2005 - 07:34 PM

The Deacon I would concur with your analysis.
The Catholic church like any large organisation is swamped by it’s own ‘inertia’. Individuals may desire change but it has to go up the chain of command, and can be stopped at any point long before the Pope need rule on it. In the past it took a brave man indeed to outwardly criticise such an institution.

To make matters worse the Pope is practically in the position of dictator (as being god’s representative on earth) and ‘inerrancy’ (not sure if that belief is still widely held). Surrounded by like minded individuals it’s difficult to imaging how theological change can be effected. A strong willed Pope may be able to win some concessions while he is young(ish) but as the position is for life he will have difficulties in later years, if not totally erased by the next Pope who may have a different outlook. I believe one Pope stated that “the word of a living Pope out weighs that of all that have passed before (paraphrased).

For those who don't know it already, at one time or another Rome has repudiated all three of the possible ways of salvation as elucidated by Pellagius, Cassian, and the Reformers.

For my own education can you expand upon this please.

#14 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2005 - 04:50 AM

For those who don't know it already, at one time or another Rome has repudiated all three of the possible ways of salvation as elucidated by Pellagius, Cassian, and the Reformers. Where does that that leave her?

For my own education can you expand upon this please.


There are three, and only three, possibilities with regard to how salvation is accomplished.

1. Man makes a conscious choice to be saved on his own (God allows it, but plays no other part). This is the Pellagian heresy, and it was rightly condemned first by Augustine and then by Rome

2. Man and God co-operate in salvation (God calls men, but it is up to them whether or not and to what degree to respond). This is the Cassian heresy, also called semi-Pellagian, and it too was rightly condemned by Augustine and Rome.

3. God does it all from start to finish. All man does is receive the free gift by faith alone after God has called him. This is what the Bible teaches, and it too was condemned by Rome some 500 years ago.

#15 Daniel

Daniel

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 23
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Buchanan, GA

Posted 05 April 2005 - 09:26 AM

I've said it on other message boards, and I'll say it here and let it rest:

All scriptural rantings and theological discussions aside, I feel no sadness over the death of a man that actively defended the rights of pedophiles and allowed his subordinates to oppress the families of the victims until other national governments stepped in.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users