Why I Had To Apostatize

[epostle1]

-
Questions Rome Cannot Answer

1• Where did your deceased Catholic relatives go when they died?

2• Where will your of-age Catholic children go when they die?

3• Where did the previous Catholic Pope go when he died?

4• Where will Catholic you go when you die?

Catholicism is a gamble. Nobody in the Church knows what to expect when
they cross over to the other side. Theirs is a hope-so hope rather than a
know-so hope; which is really not much different than a roll of the dice at
Las Vegas.

When I was a Catholic, I sincerely believed I had a better chance of going to
heaven than non Catholics. But the reality is: chances are not sure things;
no: a chance is a risk no matter how good the odds.

=========================

Again, you make false assumptions viewing Catholic teachings through biased anti-Catholic lenses. And your take on the "Hail Mary" prayer just proves you don't accept the bible.


The doctrine of "once saved, always saved" was invented by John Calvin during the Reformation. Under this theory, the Protestant believes that one is saved when he accepts Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. This is comforting - after all, who wouldn't want assurance? According to this view, true Christians are the ones who will persevere to the end. For those who accepted Christ during their lives but did not persevere to the end, the doctrine calls these people superficial Christians. So true Christians will go to heaven and superficial Christians will not. Not only is this teaching not Scriptural, it is difficult to accept the teaching on reason.

The only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian did not persevere to the end. Otherwise, the two types of Christians appear to be the same. The superficial Christian has all the earmarks of a true Christian except that he did not persevere. But this necessarily means that the true Christian cannot know that he really is a true Christian either until the end of his life. He, too, won't know whether his conversion was genuine until the end of his life. Therefore, despite all the talk about assurance, he cannot be sure.

This doctrine, therefore, actually gives its adherents less assurance of their salvation. It necessarily imposes upon them uncertainty until the end. The Catholic (and Scriptural) view, however, does give assurance to the believer that he is in fact currently saved (a true Christian), and that, if he perseveres to the end, he will be saved at death. We also know that God will give all the graces necessary for us to be faithful to the end (because of our freewill, the question is always whether we will accept the grace or not). Thus, Catholics know that it is theirs to lose. Protestant Calvinists don't even know whether it is theirs to begin with.

 

[epostle1]

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Roman Catholicism has created thousands of warped psyches and totally
unnecessary guilt complexes by its attitude toward the male libido; and at
the heart of it is the passage below.

†. Matt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.

Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first
have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously
somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse
between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a
married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in
order for a sexual incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the
participants has to be married.

The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which
means: to set the heart upon.

Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely
liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something
is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the
ruling of covetousness; which reads:

†. Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his
ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to
"covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy
(1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the
full intention of possessing it.

Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it
condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting
your own.

†. Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires, but rather, upon
taking steps to fulfill those desires; which has the distinction of being the
correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.

So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that I can't look across the
street at my neighbor's Mercedes and drool over it, turning green with envy?
Or that I can't gape at his buxom young wife, undressing her with my eyes,
and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking
about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies my forming a plan in my head
to get my hands on the neighbor's buxom young wife and his Mercedes
instead of getting my own.

Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of
Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca
Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance
photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the
moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an
adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her
heart to make it happen.

Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to
look with lust at a woman. Well; too bad because if his conscience bothers
him whenever he gazes with longing at a woman, then he is an adulterer.

†. Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

†. Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

Seeing as how adultery and covetousness are prohibited by the Ten
Commandments, then both acts are mortal sins.

That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men at risk
of eternal suffering for nothing more than a normal, healthy, male libido.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

-
Roman Catholicism has created thousands of warped psyches and totally
unnecessary guilt complexes by its attitude toward the male libido; and at
the heart of it is the passage below.

†. Matt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.

Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first
have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously
somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse
between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a
married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in
order for a sexual incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the
participants has to be married.

The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which
means: to set the heart upon.

Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely
liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something
is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the
ruling of covetousness; which reads:

†. Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his
ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to
"covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy
(1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the
full intention of possessing it.

Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it
condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting
your own.

†. Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires, but rather, upon
taking steps to fulfill those desires; which has the distinction of being the
correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.

So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that I can't look across the
street at my neighbor's Mercedes and drool over it, turning green with envy?
Or that I can't gape at his buxom young wife, undressing her with my eyes,
and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking
about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies my forming a plan in my head
to get my hands on the neighbor's buxom young wife and his Mercedes
instead of getting my own.

Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of
Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca
Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance
photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the
moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an
adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her
heart to make it happen.

Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to
look with lust at a woman. Well; too bad because if his conscience bothers
him whenever he gazes with longing at a woman, then he is an adulterer.

†. Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

†. Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

Seeing as how adultery and covetousness are prohibited by the Ten
Commandments, then both acts are mortal sins.

That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men at risk
of eternal suffering for nothing more than a normal, healthy, male libido.

=========================

Your view of Catholic teaching on sexuality is sick and twisted; you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.

 

[epostle1]

Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Says US News and World Report in a story that mentions fellow Patheosi Greg Popcak. This seems like a big huge “Duh!” to me since devout Catholics also tend to insist that sex is a sacramental union of love, not just a quick hook up. They see it as involving not just the love of one’s life, but the love of God. They see children, not as a disastrous side effect, but a bonus. And they know how to party! When you go into sex full bore, as a union of body, soul, and spirit designed to bring forth children, rather than with your fingers crossed behind your back, afraid she’s going to ask you to commit, afraid you will wind up a parent, struggling with latex, and pills, and IUDs, and worried about STDs: yeah you’re going to have better sex.

It’s often forgotten that the gospel while difficult in a fallen world is nonetheless about cooperating with, not fighting against our nature as human beings. Obey God and you find that life often gets a lot less complicated and happier. Devout Catholic sex, unlike almost all modern sex, is natural. Natural stuff is easier.
read more here


See graph of study: U.S News and World Report

 

[Webers_Home]

-
According to Rome, Christ was fully man: viz: 100% human. So then, if
Christ was really and truly fully human, then he would have had a full male's
feelings about women, and he would have had a full male's libido, and a full
male's reproductive system; which includes all the organs, fluids, secretions,
and hormones that all other full males have: and most importantly, Christ-
as a 100% human --would have had the psychology of a straight human
male. Thus, Christ would have not only been fully able to reproduce; but no
doubt would have liked to given the opportunity. In other words: Christ had
just as many needs as the rest of us.

I believe Christ was fully man too. So then, my belief forces me to accept
that Christ, as a full-grown male in the prime of life, would have liked to get
laid on occasion. Unfortunately, his mission in life precluded getting laid
and/or starting a family of his own, so he had to endure a good number of
years of sexual frustration during his tenure on earth before departing for
the celestial regions.

A man's libido peaks between the ages of 18 to 24, and then begins to taper
off towards the end of his life. The tapering is gradual and hardly noticeable
at first, but sometime in a man's thirties, his libido has wound down enough
that he'll realize his interest in sleeping with girls is no longer as wild as it
was at 18. Christ lived to be about 33, so although his libido had tapered off
somewhat by then, he still had a pretty good supply of sex drive at his
crucifixion.

Is it unreasonable to assume that Christ, in the prime of life, thought about
women and/or thought about what it would be like to be with a woman, or
maybe even just a girlfriend? This is a tough question for rank and file pew
warmers because of their guilt complexes associated with sex and the
human body.

However, God created men with a desire to mate and to reproduce with
women. Catholics feel it's okay for Catholic men to have those desires; but
not okay for Christ to have them; and yet, they forever bleat that he's fully
man. No, truth be, in their minds, Christ wasn't really fully man at all; no, he
was a divine hybrid who hasn't a clue what it's like to be fully man.

†. Heb 2:17-18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is
able to aid those who are being tempted.

What does that verse say to you? Well, as a red-blooded man who didn't get
laid till he was 36, that verse tells me that Christ went through some rough
nights all alone on his bed.

†. Heb 5:7-8 . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was
able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he
were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

Now I'm back to Matt 5:27-28. My question is: Was Christ a hypocrite? I
mean, if Rome is rock-steady convinced that a man's erotic feelings and
thoughts about women are adultery, then how would a prime-of-life, 100%
fully functioning, fully human, fully straight man like Christ evade the
condemnation of his own words?

Rome's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 is as unrealistic as it is impractical. If
their interpretation were to be correct; it would actually put Christ in grave
danger of eternal suffering for breaking the sixth and tenth commandments;
unless of course he underwent surgery to become a eunuch; which is not all
that far-fetched really.

†. Matt 19:12 . . and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

Whether nor not Christ was a eunuch I don't know, but it's certainly a
possibility; especially when taken into consideration with Isaiah's prediction
that Christ would leave behind no posterity.

†. Isa 53:8 . . And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off
from the land of the living

Sometimes an isolated teaching like Matt 5:27-28 contains a principle that
can be applied to other areas; e.g. bank robbery. I would love very much to
possess every dollar they have on-hand in the vault of the local branch of
Bank of America. Does that make me a bank robber? No. But supposing I
start casing the bank and figuring out a way to rob it. Does that make me a
bank robber? Yes; because casing a bank and figuring out a way to rob it, is
a bank robber's behavior. You see I'm okay with wanting BofA's currency
just so long as I don't set a plan in motion to steal it.

Let me add, that even if I believed erotic fantasies were sinful, I would make
absolutely no effort whatsoever to stop having them. No doubt in Rome's
mind, my attitude is defiant; but in my mind; it's self defense. Fighting
against nature can lead to sleep deprivation, personality disorders,
depression, and neurosis. I've rubbed shoulders with ascetic Christians, and
I can tell you from personal experience that they are typically defensive,
bigoted, self righteous, despotic, intolerant, critical, imperious, judgmental,
and cranky too. Well, I don't want to be like them, no, I prefer to be happy
and well-adjusted. I do not want to be so heavenly minded that I'm of no
earthly good.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

-
According to Rome, Christ was fully man: viz: 100% human. So then, if
Christ was really and truly fully human, then he would have had a full male's
feelings about women, and he would have had a full male's libido, and a full
male's reproductive system; which includes all the organs, fluids, secretions,
and hormones that all other full males have: and most importantly, Christ-
as a 100% human --would have had the psychology of a straight human
male. Thus, Christ would have not only been fully able to reproduce; but no
doubt would have liked to given the opportunity. In other words: Christ had
just as many needs as the rest of us.

I believe Christ was fully man too. So then, my belief forces me to accept
that Christ, as a full-grown male in the prime of life, would have liked to get
laid on occasion. Unfortunately, his mission in life precluded getting laid
and/or starting a family of his own, so he had to endure a good number of
years of sexual frustration during his tenure on earth before departing for
the celestial regions.

A man's libido peaks between the ages of 18 to 24, and then begins to taper
off towards the end of his life. The tapering is gradual and hardly noticeable
at first, but sometime in a man's thirties, his libido has wound down enough
that he'll realize his interest in sleeping with girls is no longer as wild as it
was at 18. Christ lived to be about 33, so although his libido had tapered off
somewhat by then, he still had a pretty good supply of sex drive at his
crucifixion.

Is it unreasonable to assume that Christ, in the prime of life, thought about
women and/or thought about what it would be like to be with a woman, or
maybe even just a girlfriend? This is a tough question for rank and file pew
warmers because of their guilt complexes associated with sex and the
human body.

However, God created men with a desire to mate and to reproduce with
women. Catholics feel it's okay for Catholic men to have those desires; but
not okay for Christ to have them; and yet, they forever bleat that he's fully
man. No, truth be, in their minds, Christ wasn't really fully man at all; no, he
was a divine hybrid who hasn't a clue what it's like to be fully man.

†. Heb 2:17-18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is
able to aid those who are being tempted.

What does that verse say to you? Well, as a red-blooded man who didn't get
laid till he was 36, that verse tells me that Christ went through some rough
nights all alone on his bed.

†. Heb 5:7-8 . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was
able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he
were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

Now I'm back to Matt 5:27-28. My question is: Was Christ a hypocrite? I
mean, if Rome is rock-steady convinced that a man's erotic feelings and
thoughts about women are adultery, then how would a prime-of-life, 100%
fully functioning, fully human, fully straight man like Christ evade the
condemnation of his own words?

Rome's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 is as unrealistic as it is impractical. If
their interpretation were to be correct; it would actually put Christ in grave
danger of eternal suffering for breaking the sixth and tenth commandments;
unless of course he underwent surgery to become a eunuch; which is not all
that far-fetched really.

†. Matt 19:12 . . and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

Whether nor not Christ was a eunuch I don't know, but it's certainly a
possibility; especially when taken into consideration with Isaiah's prediction
that Christ would leave behind no posterity.

†. Isa 53:8 . . And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off
from the land of the living

Sometimes an isolated teaching like Matt 5:27-28 contains a principle that
can be applied to other areas; e.g. bank robbery. I would love very much to
possess every dollar they have on-hand in the vault of the local branch of
Bank of America. Does that make me a bank robber? No. But supposing I
start casing the bank and figuring out a way to rob it. Does that make me a
bank robber? Yes; because casing a bank and figuring out a way to rob it, is
a bank robber's behavior. You see I'm okay with wanting BofA's currency
just so long as I don't set a plan in motion to steal it.

Let me add, that even if I believed erotic fantasies were sinful, I would make
absolutely no effort whatsoever to stop having them. No doubt in Rome's
mind, my attitude is defiant; but in my mind; it's self defense. Fighting
against nature can lead to sleep deprivation, personality disorders,
depression, and neurosis. I've rubbed shoulders with ascetic Christians, and
I can tell you from personal experience that they are typically defensive,
bigoted, self righteous, despotic, intolerant, critical, imperious, judgmental,
and cranky too. Well, I don't want to be like them, no, I prefer to be happy
and well-adjusted. I do not want to be so heavenly minded that I'm of no
earthly good.

=========================

Your constant derision of "Rome" is based on twisted reasoning; your monologue is boring as well.

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Your constant derision of "Rome" is based on twisted reasoning; your
monologue is boring as well.

In a democratic society like the USA's where there's pros and cons,
somebody somewhere is bound to become bored with their opponents'
remarks, and to summarily dismiss all comers as off their rockers.

The worst cases become inflamed and outraged that anybody would dare to
find fault with their core values, and/or their heroes and role models;
especially in religion and politics.

Your reactions thus far have been somewhat toxic; but not all that extreme.
Pray they don't escalate to the point of becoming militant.

=======================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My church." (Matt. 16:18)What is the meaning of that verse?

A: Below is a revision of Christ's statement. Watch for the change.

"Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church."

Here's another revision. Again; watch for the change.

"Thou art a rock, and upon it I will build my church."

The rock about which Christ spoke is a special kind of rock modified by the
word "this". In other words, the focus in Christ's statement shifts from the
apostle to something else entirely: viz: to a suitable anchorage upon which a
temple can be constructed; which is not ordinary rock, but rather, bedrock.

The great skyscrapers in New York City's lower Manhattan are anchored in a
huge underground mass of dense material called schist. It's some pretty
tough stuff and not easily cut by tunneling machines for aqueducts and
subway trains. Manhattan's schist can be likened to the rock about which
Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.

†. Matt 7:24-26 . . Everyone who hears these words of mine, and acts upon
them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst
against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the
rock.

The Greek word for "rock" in that passage is petra (pet'-ra) which is the very
same word for "rock" in Matt 16:18.

Petra rock can also be an entire mountain of stone like Gibraltar, or Mt.
Palomar in California. Palomar was chosen to site the Hale telescope because
underneath it's coating of earth, Palomar is just one huge hunk of solid
granite.

Another good example of petra rock is the ancient rock-hewn city of Petra in
the country of Jordan. Major portions of the city are carved right into stone
cliffs and mountainsides

Christ is clearly identified as petra rock.

†. 1Cor 10:1-4 . .For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers,
that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed
through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the
sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink;
for they drank from the spiritual petra that accompanied them, and that
petra was Christ.

Nowhere in the New Testament is Peter even once identified as petra rock.

There are very convincing arguments supporting both sides of this issue: the
one side insists that Peter is the bedrock of Christ's church, and the other is
that Christ is the bedrock of his church. I would highly recommend erring on
the high side with Christ rather than erring on the low side with Peter and
thereby relegating Christ to a position of less importance than the apostles
in his own church.

Q: The Latin words Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam
meam (You are Peter (the rock) and on this rock I shall build my church) are
carved in marble above the main altar in St Peters. Why can't we just let it
go at that?

A: We can't go with Rome on that because Christ's church is built upon his
crucifixion for the sins of the whole world, and his subsequent resurrection
for our justification. Had it been Peter who was crucified for the sins of the
whole world, and then raised from the dead for our justification; I'd go with
him instead of Christ, but as everyone knows; that's not how it went down.

Here; let me show you just how stupid we'd look were we to go with Rome's
interpretation of Matt 16:18.

John 3:14-15 . . Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so Peter
must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:17-19 . . For God did not send Peter into the world to condemn the
world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in Peter is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already
because he has not believed in Peter's name.

John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to Peter's message, and believe
in God who sent him, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

John 6:53-58 . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat Peter's flesh and drink
his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and drinks his
blood has eternal life, and Peter will raise him up at the last day. For Peter's
flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and
drinks his blood remains in him, and Peter in him. Just as the living Father
sent Peter and he lives because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Peter
will live because of him. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your
forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live
forever.

1Cor 3:10-12 . . By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an
expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be
careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one
already laid, which is the apostle Peter.

=========================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or
devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.

Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage,
celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self
flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz:
in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.

Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually
Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement,
mortification, and devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for
sin.

†. 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of
guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it
arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't
sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom
6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.

†. 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins

Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate,
mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words: Christ's crucifixion adequately
satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.

†. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he
was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The practice of penance insinuates that Christ's crucifixion is inadequate for
paying the wages of sin. In other words: penance says that Christ's
crucifixion makes it possible to obtain absolution, but by itself is insufficient
to procure it.

=========================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Not all Christians are permitted to grasp the complexities of the Divinity.
Only specially selected individuals are given that privilege and the rest are
left to a superficial overview because The Son is the custodian of that kind of
knowledge and it can be found out from no one else.

†. Matt 11:27 . .No one really knows The Son except The Father, and no one
really knows The Father except The Son and those to whom The Son
chooses to reveal him.

Do you currently possess eternal life? I ask you that because according to
the lord and master of New Testament Christianity, nobody can begin to
understand the Complexities of the Divinity until they are first in possession
of eternal life.

†. John 17:2-4 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You
have sent.

Christians trying to get a handle on the Complexities of the Divinity sans
eternal life are like blind men, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that
isn't there. That's what it's like to sort out the Godhead without eternal life--
it's just not there for them. The obvious conclusion is that since the average
pew warmer does not have eternal life, then they are spending Sunday after
Sunday in church and getting no closer to understanding the complexities of
the Godhead than they were the day they first entered catechism as a child.

The complexities of Jesus Christ, and those of his Father, are well guarded
sacred secrets that are revealed only to selected individuals of Christ's own
personal choosing. So that no matter what a person's IQ, those secrets can't
be discovered by deep thought, nor by catechism, nor by lectures; no, they
can only be understood via inspiration on a person to person basis.

You see, even if professing Catholics were to hear, and/or study, the most
exacting, the most detailed, the clearest, the simplest, and the easiest to
understand explanation of the complexities of the Divinity, they wouldn't
accept it; no, not even from a trusted source because nobody can accept the
explanation sans the Son; and to obtain the Son, human beings must first
obtain eternal life.

Christians who aren't in current possession of eternal life can study the Bible
all they want to and still not accept who and what Jesus is really all about. In
point of fact, it's typical of those kinds of Christians to adamantly oppose the
possibility of living Christians possessing eternal life right now in this life;
thus self-locking themselves into perpetual ignorance.

According to God's testimony as an expert witness; professing Christians
who don't have eternal life don't have His son; viz: they are Christless
Christians.

†. 1John 5:9-12 . .We accept human testimony; but God's testimony carries
more weight because it's the testimony of God, which He has given about
His son. Everyone who believes in God's son has this testimony in his heart.
Everyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he
hasn't believed the testimony God has given about His son. And this is the
testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who
has The Son has this life; he who does not have this life, does not have
God's son.

If someone were to die this evening as a Roman Catholic before first
obtaining eternal life from God's son, then they will leave this life without
Christ, and go into eternity a total stranger to The Only True God; and hear
these dreadful words:

I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer! (Matt 7:23)

=========================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Rome sometimes compares itself to Noah's Ark. But If Rome were truly a
model of the Ark; then not one single Catholic would ever be in the slightest
danger of hell and eternal suffering because nobody aboard the Ark perished
in the Flood.

And not only that, but were the Church a true model of the Ark, then nobody
would be able to apostatize. The reason being that after all were safely
aboard in preparation for the Flood, God sealed the hatch.

†. Gen 7:16 . .Those that entered were male and female, and of all species
they came, as God had commanded Noah. Then Yhvh shut him in.

The Hebrew word for "shut" actually means to shut up; like as when a corral
gate is closed to pen livestock and/or the door of a jail cell is locked to
confine a convict. In other words, Noah was locked inside the ark by a door
that could be opened only from the outside.

That's interesting. It means that once the ark's door was sealed, Noah
became a prisoner; and were he, or anybody else inside, to change their
mind about going, it was too late. In other words: God alone controlled
access and egress, viz: were someone aboard to change their mind and
want off the Ark; they couldn't.

†. Rev 3:7 . . And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is
holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut,
and who shuts and no one opens

Ring a bell?

†. John 10:26-29 . . My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and
no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to
me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's
hand.

It's sometimes alleged that Christ's sheep are strong enough to overpower
God and snatch themselves out of both Christ's and his Father's hands; but I
should think that the words "no one" would preclude that possibility.

In addition, were the sheep able to escape; it would reflect very poorly
on Christ's competence as a shepherd. Well; in my estimation, shepherds
that let their sheep escape are careless: they're not good shepherds at all;
they're just average shepherds; viz: no better than most.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

-
Rome sometimes compares itself to Noah's Ark. But If Rome were truly a
model of the Ark; then not one single Catholic would ever be in the slightest
danger of hell and eternal suffering because nobody aboard the Ark perished
in the Flood.

And not only that, but were the Church a true model of the Ark, then nobody
would be able to apostatize. The reason being that after all were safely
aboard in preparation for the Flood, God sealed the hatch.

Umm...no. Rome is a city in Italy. Seeking some kind of spiritual higher ground over the Church you claim you were in is just a defense mechanism to overcome your guilt.

When Catholics speak about the Church as the “barque of St. Peter,” two images usually come to mind—the actual fishing boat of St. Peter and the ark that saved Noah and his family from the Genesis flood.

Indeed, since the time of the Fathers, Catholics have always seen the epic ark as a type of the Church. Just as the ark was the means by which Noah and his relatives were spared destruction, so also the Church is the instrument by which Christians are saved. The comparison between the two has an explicit biblical foundation in 1 Peter 3, where the apostle writes that the flood itself anticipated the sacrament of baptism.
Inspired by Peter and the Genesis account, early Church Fathers, elaborated on the many ways in which the ark prefigures the Catholic Church. Here are ten:

1) Wood and water.
Building on the words of 1 Peter 3, St. Augustine argues that the ark represents the primary means of salvation in the New Testament—the wood of the cross and the waters of baptism by which original sin is washed away (Contra Faustum, Book XII).

2) The door on the side.
Noah, his family, and the animals all entered the ark through a door on its side (Genesis 6:16). This is analogous to the way we enter the Church through the side of Christ, which was pierced on the cross, releasing blood and water. “And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the sacraments by which those who believe are initiated,” Augustine writes in The City of God.

3) The body of Christ.
Even the very ratio of the dimensions of the ark to each other suggest a human body, specifically, the body of Christ, according to Augustine: “For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the human body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the human body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front” (The City of God, Book 15).

4) One ark, one Church.
It seems obvious, but the point is a necessary one: there was only one ark, not a fleet of ships or an ark and a few tugboats. Just as there was one ark that saved Noah and his family so there is one baptism and one Church. St. Cyprian makes this case in one of his epistles: “the one ark of Noah was a type of the one Church. If, then, in that baptism of the world thus expiated and purified, he who was not in the ark of Noah could be saved by water, he who is not in the Church to which alone baptism is granted, can also now be quickened by baptism.”

5) The decks and stages of the spiritual life.
While there was one ark, there were many levels (at least three) within it, which Origen, in his second homily on Genesis, saw as symbolic of the varying progress Christians make in the spiritual life. The fact that there were three itself is noteworthy, as Church tradition often conceives of the spiritual life as progressing in three states: purgative, illuminative, and unitive.

6) The window above.
No detail of the Genesis flood account is insignificant for patristic interpreters like Augustine. For example, in Genesis 6 we are told that, in addition to the door on the side, Noah was instructed to make an “opening” for daylight, presumably near the top of the ark. Then, he was ordered to “finish the ark a cubit about it” (Genesis 6:16). “That the whole ark together is finished in a cubit above; as the Church, the body of Christ gathered into unity, is raised to perfection,” St. Augustine writes in Contra Faustum.

7) Penance, the cross, and Christ.
The dimensions of the ark were 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. St. Jerome sees significant to each number. He notes that the Hebrew word for 300 contains a Hebrew letter associated with the cross (because of a prophecy in Ezekiel 9:4) while 50 is a penitential number (because Psalm 50 is penitential). Finally, Christ was 30 when He was baptized and began His ministry. In a sense, these three numbers represent the whole compass of the spiritual life: “through penance, we arrive at the mystery of the cross; we reach the mystery of the cross through the perfect Word that is Christ” Jerome concludes in Homily 84 (Early Christian Commentaries on Scripture, InterVarsity Press).

8) Sealed in love.
No nails were used in the construction of the ark. Instead, it was held together by pitch. For Augustine, this symbolizes the way in which the Church is held together by love: “For pitch is a glutinous substance, of great energy and force, to represent the ardor of love which, with great power of endurance, bears all things in the maintenance of spiritual communion” (Contra Faustum, Book XII).

9) Built of saints. The shape of the building material is symbolic too, according to Augustine. “And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the saints; for however you turn a cube, it still stands,” he writes (The City of God, Book 15).

10) God closed the ark.
Once Noah, his family, and all the animals are safely in the ark, Genesis 7:16 records this touching detail about who closed the door to the ark: “Then the Lord shut him.” (The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, adds at the end of the verse: “from the outside.”) Church Fathers saw this as an example of God’s tender care for men. “Notice in this place too the considerateness in the expression … to teach us that he had ensured the good man’s complete safety,” St. John Chrysostom says in his homilies on Genesis (Early Christian Commentaries on Scripture, InterVarsity Press).

 

[Webers_Home]

-
When people are desperately clinging to a treetop, with murky flood waters
roiling beneath their feet, just inches away from death and the hereafter,
the last thing they need is somebody coming by to lecture them on good
citizenship. No, they don't need lectures on citizenship; they need a National
Guard helicopter to lower a harness down and pull them up from that
treetop. That's the redemption stage of salvation. It rescues sinners,
regardless of their degree of piety or depravity, from certain death.

†. Rom 5:5-10 . .While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died
for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps
for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates
His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

. . . Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having
been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

"His life" refers to the kind of life that God is; viz: eternal life. The reason
that His life saves people is because eternal life is impervious to death.
Therefore, eternal life is impervious to the wages of sin.

†. Rom 6:23 . .The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in
Christ Jesus our Lord.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement: it's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who listen to his message, and believe in
God who sent him, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no waiting
period. People lacking eternal life, lack it because they don't listen to him;
neither do they believe in God who sent him.

=========================

 

[epostle1]

Now I see where you get your lies from. Most of your other posts have been plagiarized , but you are supposed to post the source. I report your posts but it seems we have two sets of rules here.

The only people who are gullible enough to buy into that garbage are the ones who are already predisposed to bigotry and ignorance.

Your post is reported for plagiarism and denomination bashing.

 

[epostle1]

-
You see, even if professing Catholics were to hear, and/or study, the most
exacting, the most detailed, the clearest, the simplest, and the easiest to
understand explanation of the complexities of the Divinity, they wouldn't
accept it; no, not even from a trusted source because nobody can accept the
explanation sans the Son; and to obtain the Son, human beings must first
obtain eternal life.

Yea, we call that Gnosticism

If someone were to die this evening as a Roman Catholic before first
obtaining eternal life from God's son, then they will leave this life without
Christ, and go into eternity a total stranger to The Only True God; and hear
these dreadful words:

I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer! (Matt 7:23)

You assume the Catholic Church says all you need to be saved is to be a Catholic. This is false.
It is also false to assume Catholics, who don't follow unbiblical slogans to "get saved", are evil doers. Pasting from a hate site that misrepresents Catholicism in 1000 ways does not make you an expert on Catholicism, it might make you an expert on anti-Catholicism.

=========================
There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. - Cardinal Newman

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Your post is reported for plagiarism

Webster's defines plagiarism as: the act of using another person's words or
ideas without giving credit to that person

You see, it's not plagiarism when someone uses and/or re-uses their own
words and ideas.

Your post is reported for denomination bashing

Has turning the other cheek suddenly gone out of vogue?

===========================================

 

[epostle1]

-

Webster's defines plagiarism as: the act of using another person's words or
ideas without giving credit to that person

You see, it's not plagiarism when someone uses and/or re-uses their own
words and ideas.


Has turning the other cheek suddenly gone out of vogue?

===========================================
You posted the source of your lies from a "bible-Christian" hate site in the OP, which I failed to see at first, so for that I apologize. So you are off the hook on a technicality..But nobody believes you "uses and/or re-uses your own words and ideas", unless you are the author of the source .

Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with exposing and refuting your lies in a forum, you simply don't understand hyperbole. Does Jesus really mean that we have to be doormats as Christians and let anyone who so wills to “pound us” at will? Even kill us? No, that is not what He meant. It's not a literal command. You should do some reading about turning the other cheek where denomination bashing isn't found, instead of persecuting me with your abuse of scripture. Here's 2.
turn the other cheek

Turn the Other Cheek by Tim Staples

It would take a whole book to refute the many misrepresentations and lies found on that site you paste from. But it's always open season on Catholics so the rules don't apply for us. That may be the only reason your posts have not been deleted.

Arguing with anti-Catholics is a waste of time. The ultimate source of their hatred for the Catholic Church, IMO, is self hatred. It's not so much a religious problem as it is a psychological problem.


“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Bishop Fulton Sheen.

 

[Webers_Home]

-

You posted the source of your lies from a "bible-Christian" hate site in the
OP, which I failed to see at first, so for that I apologize. So you are off the
hook on a technicality.

To verify that I am the author, composer, and creator of the alleged "hate
site" first click on the link in the OP.

When you get to the page connected to that link, look in the upper left hand
corner for a link titled: Home. It's alongside the little graphic of a house.

When you get to the home page, scroll down to the bottom and look for the
names Cliff and Joanne Weber. Contact us via the email address under our
names. If we don't reply, you'll know I'm a fraud.

====================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Webster's defines "immunity" as exempt; viz: free, or released from, some
liability or requirement to which others are subject.

Immunity is the current possession of all Christ's believing followers.

†. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not control your destiny, for you are not under
the jurisdiction of God's law, but under His grace.

†. Rom 6:15 . . God's grace has set us free from His law's jurisdiction

†. Rom 8:1-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.

Gospel immunity is not the same as diplomatic immunity; wherein foreign
ambassadors are exempt from prosecution by American laws. That kind of
immunity is not only insulting to law-abiding citizenry, but a miscarriage of
justice as well. No, the gospel's immunity is not like that. God can't turn a
blind eye to people's sins without seriously compromising His own integrity.
God's law has to be vindicated and enforced to its maximum extent:
somebody has to pay.

Christ's crucifixion is a "ransom" in that it satisfies debts to God's law by
punishing offenders via proxy participation in Christ's execution.

†. Rom 6:3-11 . . Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? . . For we know that our old self
was crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:2-3 . . Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Though Christ's believing followers are dead men walking, they are alive
forever more.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who heed my message, and trust in God
who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins,
but they have already transferred from death into life.

When Jesus was nailed to the cross to die for the sins of the world, God
somehow-- in a way that I have yet to fully understand --counted me nailed
to the cross right with him; so that on God's books, I satisfied justice that
day on Calvary. True, I got through it without a scratch. But on God's books,
Christ's injuries are my injuries, and his execution my execution. And since I
fully expect that the Bible's God would never lower Himself to the evil
practice of double jeopardy; then I fully expect that I will never again be
dragged to justice for my sins. The gospel's proxy justice system is a very
good deal for sinners; and a deal that is really just too good to pass up.

The sweet part is this: once Christ's crucifixion executes a sinner, they can
never commit a sin that God didn't foresee and subsequently place on the
cross already; because Jesus didn't pay for their sins up to a point; no, he
paid for them all the way to their grave; so, in reality, Christ's believing
followers have been fully punished already for every sin that they will
commit in their entire lifetime; from the first sin to the last sin. In point of
fact, if his believing followers didn't die for all their sins when Christ was
crucified; then they themselves will have to die for the balance later on in
the lake of fire depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Although I have a number of legitimate reasons for apostatizing; it's mostly
because Rome's way cannot, and does not, promise its followers immunity
from the wrath of God; whereas Christ's way does. So, I dumped Rome's
way and took up Christ's instead because his way guarantees whoever wants
it a fail-safe, fool proof, human error proof, sin proof, Ten Commandments
proof, God proof, Devil proof, human nature proof, stupidity proof, free of
charge, no strings attached rescue from the wrath of God and full time
protection from retribution.

†. Rev 22:16-17 . . I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these
things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright
morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And let the one who
hears say: Come. And let the one who is thirsty come-- let the one who
wishes take the water of life without cost.

=========================