Why I Had To Apostatize

[Webers_Home]

-
Rome's poster child, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa) is a
terrible disappointment. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her
public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner
being. Below are some quotes taken from her own private letters; and
excerpts of her statements from other sources. You be the judge: role model
or role player, believer or make-believer?

"Only pray that I keep up this joy exteriorly. I deceive people with this
weapon-- even my Sisters."

"I am grateful to for all the kindness & help you give to my Sisters and me.
My prayer, though miserably dry & frozen, is often offered for you & your
work for souls."

"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting
emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my
very soul. How painful is this unknown pain-- I have no faith."

"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness &
emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

"Now Father-- since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss-- this untold
darkness-- this loneliness, this continual longing for God-- which gives me
pain deep down in my heart-- Darkness is such that I really do not see
neither with my mind nor with my reason-- the place of God in my soul is
blank-- There is no God in me-- when the pain of longing is so great-- I just
long & long for God-- and then it is that I feel-- He does not want me-- He is
not there-- God does not want me-- Sometimes-- I just hear my own heart
cry out-- "My God" and nothing else comes-- the torture and pain I can't
explain"

"My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains."

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment
with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I
feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not
really exist."

"If there be God . . please forgive me."

"Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim
or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how
to worship him" (Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths, Associated Press,
9/7/97).

"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of
Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's
presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for
this better men-- simply better --we will be satisfied. It matters to the
individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes
that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes
into their life-- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no
doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times tells the story of Mother Teresa
sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and
helped him to die reconciled with his own gods."

Teresa was virtually 100% estranged from both God and Christ during the
whole five decades of her work in India. She experienced a darkness of the
soul unparalleled among Catholic mystics. Some say this was in preparation
for her eventual sainthood. But Paul the apostle was a "saint" and he never
once experienced Teresa's depth of abandonment. In point of fact, he never
experienced any abandonment whatsoever; nor should any other of Christ's
followers.

†. John 14:15-18 . .If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray
the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, that He may abide with
you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it
neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you
and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

†. John 14:23 . .If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father
will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

†. John 15:10 . .If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love,
just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

†. Phlp 4:5-7 . .The Lord is nearby. Do not be anxious about anything, but in
everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your concerns
to God. And the peace of God, which is beyond the intellect, will guard your
hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear;
but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Abba!
Father! The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Spirit's silence in Teresa's heart, and her utter lack of peace, were
indicative of something very gone-wrong in her association with Christ.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare
to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have
fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the
truth.

Father Neuner, one of Teresa's spiritual advisors commented: "Why had God
abandoned her totally? She had to lead the Sisters, initiate them into the
love of God and into a life of prayer, which had been wiped out in her own
life as she lived in total emptiness. Had she become a shameful hypocrite
who spoke to others about the divine mysteries which had totally vanished
from her own heart?"

All evidence points to the obvious conclusion that Teresa was the most
convincing Christian pretense the twentieth century ever produced; and if
she was a charlatan, who else is playing church inside the Church?

†. Matt 7:22-23 . .Many will say to me in that day; Lord, Master, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them; I
never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Christ's statement doesn't target Atheists, nor Buddhists, nor Hindus, nor
Muslims. No, it targets people professing to have prophesied in "thy name",
and to have exorcised demons in "thy name", and to have done may
wonderful works in "thy name"; viz: it targets Christians-- and not just your
average rank and file pew warmers either, no, but rather, it targets the
cream of the crop; the celebrities of the Christian world; renowned for their
accomplishments, their piety, their perseverance, their love, and their
dedication.

It is to many of those very kinds of Christians that Christ will say: I never
knew you. Why? Because though those luminaries glistered, they were never
in league with Christ though they certainly appeared to be; and that is really
scary because it make one wonder who to trust.

Recommended Reading:

Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light
The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
Edited with commentary by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C.
ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9

NOTE: The book is a collection of Teresa's letters written privately to
spiritual counselors; published with hierarchy approval by her long-time
friend Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk M.C.; director of the Mother Teresa Center,
and a Postulator in favor of her canonization.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. Matt 16:18 . .I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.

The verse above was taken from the Douay Rheims. Modern versions of the
Bible have changed the wording just a bit to more accurately reflect what
Jesus actually said, because hell (as we usually understand hell) is incorrect
since the Greek text doesn't use the word geena; instead, it uses haides,
which is just simply the afterlife; so that the verse should read like this:

†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will
not overcome it.

Some versions substitute the word "powers" for gates, but the Greek word is
pule (poo'-lay); which literally does mean a gate, viz: the leaf or wing of a
folding entrance. So then, the netherworld is depicted as a walled
community; the entrance to and/or exit from is controlled by gates the likes
of those in the walls of the old city of Jerusalem, which had twelve gates.
Gates then, are designed to either keep people in or to keep people out.
apparently the purpose of the netherworld's gates is to keep people in.

According to Jonah, the netherworld's gates are like the bars of a prison.
(Jonah 2:6)

Christ testified that his church could not be held by the bars of the
netherworld. He didn't say some of his church, nor most of his church.
Seeing as how he didn't qualify his statement, I think it's pretty safe to
assume Christ meant his entire church; from the lowliest pew warmer to the
top of the hierarchy.

Roman Catholicism insists that it alone is Christ's church. So then, if Rome's
claim is true, then the gates of the netherworld should be powerless to
permanently confine even one Catholic. In other words: no Catholic should
be in danger of going to hell.

†. John 6:39-40 . .This is the will of Him who sent me: that I shall lose none
of all that He has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my
Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall
have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But the fact of the matter is: Rome cannot guarantee its followers 100%
safety from the wrath of God; but instead, fully expects to lose a number of
its people to hell; and that should not be if Roman Catholicism is Christ's
true church; especially seeing as how Christ is the custodian of the keys to
the netherworld's gates.

†. Rev 1:18 . . I hold the keys of death and the afterlife.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who heed my message, and believe 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.

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep heed my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

How many Roman Catholics can honestly say: I have eternal life, I have
passed from death into life, I will never be condemned for my sins, and I will
never perish. The truth is: they better not make such a claim because the
Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16 slams all such with
anathema for professing that kind of confidence.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks
you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

That passage should probably always accompany this next one.

†. Rom 8:23-25 . .We ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit,
groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons: the redemption
of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no
hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we
do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in those passages is elpis (el
pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure); and to expect with
confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and
confidence.

Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with
expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note
the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by
expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or
success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

The plan of salvation includes not only rescue from the wrath of God, but
also rescue from despair and feelings of futility. In other words: unbelievers
do not expect to survive the demise of their bodies, nor do they expect to
get another body in the afterlife; let alone a better body-- one that's
superior in all respects to the body they have now. Believers expect to not
only survive the demise of their body; but also to get a better body-- one
that's superior in all respects to the one they have now.

When somebody has that kind of hope, it rescues them from despair and
feelings of futility. In other words: the unbeliever's current existence is
futile, but the believer's current existence is merely a stepping stone to
something better. Believers have something to look forward to while
unbelievers have nothing to look forward to. That's what it means to be
"saved by hope". In other words: saved from having nothing to look forward
to. (cf. 1Cor 15:51-54)

†. Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind
dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they
do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

Does an adherent of Catholicism have elpis hope? I don't think so; and in
point of fact, Church dogma forbids having it.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he
will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift
of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a
special revelation, let him be anathema. (cf. CCC 1020)

Webster's defines "anathema" as: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by
ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

Since Rome doesn't permit elpis hope, then it's de facto that Rome's
constituents can't possibly comply with Peter's command to give a reason for
having it.

The Bible says that elpis hope is a "calling"

†. Eph 4:5 . .you were called to one hope when you were called

Catholicism's hope is not Peter's elpis hope; but rather, a somewhat nervous
state of anxiety and wishful thinking that hovers within a hair's breadth of
bitter disappointment.

The Council aside; it only stands to reason, that any candidate for a better
body who is in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and
trembling as per Rome's interpretation of Phlp 2:12, cannot possibly have
elpis hope.

Think about it. If a candidate for salvation is still in the process of working
out their own salvation with fear and trembling, then it's obvious they do not
believe themselves to have a better body locked in yet; ergo: no
conscientious Catholic can honestly look forward to a better body with a
100% doubt-free expectation of obtaining it; viz: they do not yet have the
kind of hope about which Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15, nor the kind of hope
about which Paul wrote in Eph 4:5; and if they claim otherwise, then they
merit the penalty of Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Rome's dogma of Christ's mom as a "new Eve" is a proprietary Catholic
fantasy not found in the New Testament. In order for Christ's mom to be
considered a true Eve, she and Jesus would have to be the parents of an
entirely different human race distinctly separate from the race that God
created with Adam and Eve.

The in-house Catholic concept of Christ's mom being a "new Eve" and Jesus
being a "new Adam" implies the vilest sort of relationship: that of a mother
mating with her own son and bearing his children.

Though born-again Christians are a new race of human being, they are not
Mary's children: no, they are God's.

†. John 1:12-13 . . But as many as accepted him, to them he gave the right
to become children of God, even to those who rely upon his name; who were
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.

†. John 3:5-6 . . Jesus answered; I tell you the truth, no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and The Spirit. Flesh gives birth
to flesh, but The Spirit gives birth to spirit.

The second births about which John wrote, and about which Christ spoke,
are the result of creative acts of God.

†. 2Cor 5:17 . . If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature

†. Gal 6:15 . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
un-circumcision, but a new creature.

Catholicism's "new Eve" is extrapolated from its own faulty logic; e.g. since
Mary is the mother of God, and God makes men new creatures via a second
birth performed by God, then to Catholicism, Mary is, in effect, the mother
of all born-again Christians.

However, God has neither a wife nor a mother: from the vanishing point in
the past, to the vanishing point in the future, God always was, He always is,
and He always will be because the Bible's God is an eternal life. Though Mary
was Christ's mother, nobody has ever been God's mother. Jesus was a flesh
and blood human being; while God is, and always has been, spirit rather
than flesh. (John 4:24)

NOTE: Catholicism has difficulty discerning between the Word of John 1:1
and the flesh that the Word became as per John 1:14. Though Christ's
mother could give birth to the flesh that the Word became, she could not
possibly have given birth to the Word; which, according to John 1:1-3 and
1John 1:1-2, preceded Mary's existence by an innumerable number of years.

Catholicism's theory of a new Eve is premised upon three gross errors.

1• Sin came into the world via Eve.

It didn't. The Holy Bible clearly, and without ambiguity, lays responsibility for
the entry of sin into the world squarely upon Adam (Gen 2:16-17, Rom
5:12, Rom 5:14-19). Eve instigated their sin, but her own act didn't do the
trick. It wasn't until Adam's eating that anything serious happened. (Gen
3:6-7)

2• Mary's submission to the Angel's announcement implies she was given a
choice. (Luke 1:38)

The Angel's announcement sought neither consent nor decision. It simply
informed Mary quite clearly, and without ambiguity, prior to her voluntary
submission, that the Holy Spirit was going to make her pregnant with a child
who would become the ultimate Israeli monarch. (Luke 1:31-35)

3• Mary was a special creation.

Catholicism's in-house teaching that Mary was a special creation isn't found
in The Holy Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the sacred record indicating
that she wasn't an ordinary Jewish girl produced by two ordinary Jewish
parents.

If perchance Mary had been a special creation, then Jesus himself would
have been the offspring of a special creation, and in no way biologically
related to either David, Abraham, nor Adam; and thus totally disqualified
from inheriting David's throne and/or redeeming the sins of his fellow man;
primarily because he wouldn't have any fellow men. However, the Bible
clearly, and without ambiguity, says David was Christ's biological kin (Luke
1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3) therefore Jesus' mother couldn't possibly
have been a special creation.

Q: If the Bible contains no information clearly stating that Jesus' mother was
a special creation; then why does the Church insist such a thing?

A: Allowing Christ to biologically descend from Adam would mean that Christ
shares the consequences of Adam's disobedience.

"Sin entered the world through one person, and through sin, death, and thus
death came unto all, inasmuch as all sinned." (Rom 5:12)

"all sinned" is grammatically past tense; which means that when Adam
sinned, his posterity sinned too; viz: everybody descending from Adam
became collateral damage; so to speak, including Christ. Don't ask me how
that's fair: I just know it's a reality.

Q: How can you be so confident that Christ was collateral damage just like
everybody else?

A: Easy. Two of the consequences of Adam's disobedience were mortality
(Gen 3:17-19) and loss of access to the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24). Had
Christ been immortal, and/or had access to the tree of life, the Romans
would have had like zero success trying to execute him on the cross.

The Bible says that Christ came into the world in the likeness of, not
innocent flesh, but of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). In other words; he came into
the world as Adam's biological posterity; which means Christ really and truly
is humanity's fellow man; and if Rome can't cope with it; well; that's just too
bad.

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

 

[mjrhealth]

Nice tesitmony Weber,

Was once a catholic that was 36 years ago. Aspen if you ever get bored , get a book called Gods War by Christopher Tyerman,, i believe its on Kindle or what ever the other one. is. It may open your eyes some. I read another book about Jerusalem, follows similar lines but about the history took me 12 months to read mainly because the writter loved using big words.

God Bless

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Catholicism's "new Adam" is a misnomer. It's supposed to be last Adam
rather than new Adam: and the last Adam isn't even a human being; no, the
last Adam is a spirit being.

†. 1Cor 15:45 . . So it is written: the first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam: a life-giving spirit.

The reference is to Gen 2:7 where the Hebrew word for "living soul" is
nephesh (neh'-fesh) which categorizes critters as opposed to non critters. In
other words: nephesh is not only a label for humans; but also other species.
For example: aquatic life and birds (Gen 1:20). Cattle and beasts (Gen
1:24). Creepy crawlies (Gen 1:24). Everybody and every critter aboard
Noah's ark (Gen 9:10)

The meaning is: the first man Adam was endowed with life while the last
Adam is an endower of life. In other words: though the first man Adam was
alive, he was merely a critter; viz: the first man Adam did not have the
capability to construct either himself nor any other critter. But the last Adam
isn't a critter. He had, and does have, the capability to construct both
humans and critters. There are many spirits, but the last Adam is the one
spirit capable of creating living things.

The Watch Tower Society and its missionaries (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses)
don't believe it's possible for someone to exist simultaneously as a human
being and as a spirit being. But the Christ of the Holy Bible is the irrefutable
proof of such a possibility.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
KJ Howell's explanation of the term "New Eve" supposes that Eve was a
virgin the day she succumbed to the Serpent's reasoning and ate the
forbidden fruit. His explanation is no doubt predicated upon the data
indicating that Eve and her husband produced their first child of record after
they were expelled from the garden.

†. Gen 3:23-4:1 . . So Yhvh God banished him from the garden of Eden to
work the ground from which he had been taken. After He drove the man out,
He placed on the east side of the garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming
sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Adam lay
with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

However, there is nothing in the sacred text clearly, and without ambiguity,
indicating that Eve was a virgin prior to Gen 4:1. At the very most, it can
only be safely deduced from the data that she wasn't a mother at the time.
And it would seem to me thoroughly illogical to assume that the first couple
- the most perfect specimens of human psyche and physicality that ever
existed --were frigid up until the moment they ate the fruit; especially since
God had already blessed them with fertility on the sixth day of creation, and
encouraged them to procreate prior to the forbidden fruit incident.

†. Gen 1:27 . . God created man in his image; in the divine image He
created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying;
Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the
fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the
earth.

I have, in the past, challenged Catholics to provide me with just one good
reason why Joseph and his Jewish wife did not at least try to have children
of their own after Jesus was born. The response I got?

Nobody cites the Bible; but rather, they cite Ste. Jerome's logic saying: "
What bigger blessing could two Moses-trained Jewish adults wish for than
the Messiah?" In other words, according to Ste. Jerome's logic; surely
Joseph and his wife would neither want, nor need, any additional children
than Jesus: implying that Joseph and his wife had fewer paternal feelings for
children than people do today for a pair of Manolo Blahik heels. Personally, I
have yet to know of anyone whose one pair of Blahniks were their only
shoes.

If Jerome didn't believe the holy couple had children of their own; fine. But it
was a gross error in his reasoning to assume that Joseph and his wife didn't
at least sleep together without first proving-- clearly, and without ambiguity
--that their libidos were somehow miraculously disabled.

No, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of human experience, that
Adam and his wife slept together prior to the forbidden fruit incident, and it
has to be assumed from the normal round of human experience that Joseph
and his wife slept together after Jesus was born. Otherwise I am forced to
seriously question Joseph's sexual preference.

You know, prior to their expulsion, Adam and his wife associated in the
nude. Exactly how KJ Howell could possibly believe that an otherwise
normal, red-blooded man, whose libido was unaffected by hormonal
irregularities, can associate 24-7 with a nude specimen of the most perfect
female form in existence, and not get aroused to mate, can't help but make
me question KJ Howell's own sexual preference.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. 1Tim 3:15 . . But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God; which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It's a very common error among Catholics to look at that verse and let their
minds see the church of the living God as the pillar and ground of the truth
rather than the God of the church but that would make no sense at all since
the church of the living God consists of mortal human beings plagued with
human nature and a natural propensity to twist the truth rather than
preserve it.

The New Testament Greek word for "pillar" is stulos (stoo'-los); which
means: a post. The same word is used at Gal 2:9, Rev 3:12, and Rev 10:1.
Pillars (a.k.a. columns) were common structural members in the architecture
of the ancient world; utilized inside buildings as colonnades, and to hold the
roofs of porches in place. It was those kinds of structural members that
Samson tugged to pull down a Philistine temple (Jdg 16:29-30).

The word for "ground" is hedraioma (hed-rah'-yo-mah); which means: a
support. Unfortunately, 1Tim 3:15 is the only place in the entire New
Testament where hedraioma is used so it's difficult to really know precisely
what Paul was trying to convey. One of Webster's definitions of "support" is:
to provide a foundation for. That seems reasonable since colonnades don't
usually rest upon soil, but upon some type of solid flooring; which in turn
would rest, ideally, upon bedrock.

A much clearer translation of 1Tim 3:15 would be like this:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, who is the
colonnade and the foundation of the truth."

The "truth" then, is depicted as a building constructed upon bedrock, and
whose roof is supported by colonnades; with God himself being both the
foundation and the colonnades.

You see, without the words "who is" that passage is vague and can trick the
mind into thinking that the building exists without God being an integral part
of the structure; but it doesn't. The building would collapse in an instant
during the very first earthquake without a solid foundation supporting hefty
colonnades. So then, the truth doesn't uphold God, no, just the opposite:
God upholds the truth (cf. John 14:6).

1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God of the Bible out there
somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth and Christ's church no
more sacred than the Elk's Club. It's only the reality of a Bible's God that
makes so-called "truth" to be actually true and reliable.

FYI: The Bible is highly recommended by the Church.

"The Scriptures are sacred and canonical because: Having been written by
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such
have been handed down to the Church" (Vatican Council; Sess. III, c. ii)

"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)

So then; according to that Vatican Council and to Paulus PP VI; when I listen
to the Bible; I'm listening to the voice of God, and I'm also listening to that
which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all
men. Ironically, it was by my listening to the voice of God on the pages of
the Bible that the Holy Spirit led me to part company with Rome.

†. 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.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
At the epicenter of New Testament Christianity is a man named Jesus Christ.
But at the epicenter of Catholicism is the woman who gave birth to the man
Jesus Christ. It's just a shame that the Christ of New Testament Christianity
has to compete with his own mother for the loyalties and affections of people
passing themselves off as his faithful followers.

†. John 12:32 . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto [not my mother] me.

†. Matt 17:5 . .While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped
them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with
him I am well pleased. You listen [not to his mother] to him!"

†. Matt 28:18 . .Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given [not to my mother] to me."

†. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was
one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshiped [not his mother] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

†. Phlp 2:8-11 . . And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted [not his mother] him, and given [not his
mother] him a name which is above every name (every name includes his
mother's name): that at the name of Jesus every knee (every knee includes
his mother's knees) should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue (every tongue includes
his mother's tongue) should confess that Jesus Christ [not his mother] is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

†. Col 1:18-19 . . And he [not his mother] is the head of the body, the
church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things
he [not his mother] might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father
that in him [not his mother] should all fullness dwell

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
According to the 2011 World Almanac and Book Of Facts, the approximate
number of Christians tallied in the six major continents of Africa, Asia,
Europe, Latin America, Northern America, and Oceania as of mid 2009, was
2,264,492,000 or roughly 2.26 billion. Of that number were 1,142,604,000
Catholics. Those 1.14+ billion Catholics represented a whopping 50½% of all
Christendom. The remaining 49½% were splintered into five major non
Catholic groups-- Protestant, Independents, Orthodox, Anglican, Marginal,
and Unaffiliated.

If God's experiences with Yhvh's people in the Old Testament teaches me
anything at all it's that the majority is never in the right; no, it's always a
remnant that's right. A remnant is what's left over; like food at the end of
meal, or pieces of wood after a home is built, or material after a carpet is
laid.

According to Christ's and his Father's combined testimony as expert
witnesses, only Christians in the right-now possession of eternal life qualify
as valid believers (John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, 1John 5:13). That really
narrows the field.

So then, we can rule out any, and all, Christian denominations teaching their
followers that nobody obtains eternal life before they die and pass over to
the other side. Within that group of denominations just happens to be the
single largest Christian denomination in the whole world: Roman
Catholicism.

Are you currently in possession of eternal life-- right now? The reason I ask
is because according to Christ's Father, as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to His own son, Christians lacking eternal life; also lack His son.

†. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us
eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life;
whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christians lacking Christ are not his sheep.

†. Rom 8:9 . . And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

Isn't that amazing!? Rome's huge following of approximately 1.14+ billion
Catholics is truly a church of the walking dead because according to the
testimony of God's son, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to the
living and the dead; Christians have to possess eternal life in order to qualify
as one of the living; viz: without eternal life the default is death.

†. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto you: those who heed my message,
and believe 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.

According to John 5:24, I didn't have eternal life as a Catholic because:

1• I heeded Rome's message instead of heeding Christ's

2• I believed in Rome instead of believing in God

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. Rom 14:14-15 . . I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing
is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

Although that passage primarily regards foods, it lays down an important
principle; viz: Be it unto you according to your conscience (cf. Rom 2:12
15).

Therefore, Catholics shall be judged according to their religion of choice;
ergo: they shall be punished for their every failing to comply with all that
Rome teaches and stands for-- every commandment, every Tradition, and
every last thing in the Catechism.

†. Rom 2:5-11 . . For there is going to come a day of judgment when God,
the just judge of all the world, will judge all people according to what they
have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is
good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But
he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who
refuse to obey the truth and practice evil deeds. There will be trouble and
calamity for everyone who keeps on sinning-- for the Jew first and also for
the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all
who do good-- for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For God does not
show favoritism.

The difficulty with obtaining glory, honor, and immortality via performance is
that God demands persistence (Rom 2:7) viz: doing what's good not just
some of the time, nor even most of the time, but all the time. I'd venture to
say that none in Rome have succeeded in doing good all the time; not even
the Pope; so how can Rome reasonably expect it's followers to succeed with
persistence? In point of fact, any Catholic, including the Pope, who thinks
they have what it takes to be persistent at doing good is in very big trouble.

Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16: If anyone says that he will
for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of
perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special
revelation, let him be anathema.

Webster's defines "anathema" as a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by
ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

At the very least, Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon16
denounces Catholics brazen enough to think they have what it takes to be
persistent at doing good; and rightly so seeing as how no doubt Rome itself
has yet to succeed in consistently exemplifying even so much as the
Beatitudes or the Sermon On The Mount; let alone the rest of the New
Testament. Ergo: seeking after glory and honor and immortality via Roman
Catholicism is an iffy proposition at best.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
God granted Jewish rulers the authority to legislate in regards to cases not
specifically spelled out in the laws of Old Testament Judaism; and it is a
death offense to ignore their decisions. (Deut 17:8-13)

However, the rulers were never given carte blanche to add to, embellish,
diminish, nor repeal already-existing covenanted Law.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I
enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you.

†. Deut 27:26 . .Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and
observe them.

The intent of Deut 17:8-13 was to give Jewish rulers the authority to apply
the covenanted law to Jewish civil life; not to write new laws for the religion
of Judaism that would actually make the religion of Judaism more strict and
more burdensome than it really is. Israel's religious laws were God-given
and set in stone; any additional laws Jewish authorities legislate have to be
regarded as non-covenanted law; e.g. the Talmud and Halacha (a.k.a.
Halakhah)

By that same principle, Christ gave his top men the authority to police his
church (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:15-18) but he did not give them authority to
independently add to the religion of Christianity nor to repeal it, nor to
diminish it. Whatever they taught in their teachings, and/or their writings,
they did by the inspiration and/or revelation of God, not by the fertile
imaginations of despotic men of ambition.

Although the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments of the
Apostles are binding upon all Christians, the in-house laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments of individual denominations are not. Any
laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments that an individual
church and/or denomination binds upon itself and its members have to be
considered local only, and binding only within the jurisdiction of the
individual church and/or denomination.

No one is bound to the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and
commandments of just one denomination within Christianity claiming to be
the "one true church". That's laughable. Christ's church alone is the one true
church; there is no one denomination like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism
that is the one true church. A claim of that nature is nothing but downright
fraud.

If Christ was chafed with Jewish rulers for legislating laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments that countermanded, added to, embellished,
repealed, and/or diminished from Old Testament Judaism, don't you think he
would be just as chafed with Christian rulers who legislate laws, rules,
teachings, traditions, and commandments that countermand, add to,
embellish, repeal, and/or diminish from, New Testament Christianity? Yes, of
course he would; primarily because it invalidates Christ's personal guarantee
that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light (Matt 11:28-30)

Case in point: The Roman emperor Constantine initiated a committee to
compile a universally acceptable Christian handbook from an archive of
already-existing manuscripts in hopes it would unify the Christian factions in
his kingdom.

Ironically, the Catholic Church, which takes sole credit for the existence of
the New Testament, has succeeded in fragmenting Christ's church with far
more effect than Constantine's efforts to unify it. As of mid 2009, there were
1.14 billion Catholics worldwide totally alienated from the rest of Christ's
church via Rome's catechism, the laws of its Ecumenical Councils, and its
collection of Bulls, and encyclicals. The average pew warmer's Christianity is
a smothering religion that has become far more strict, and far more
cumbersome than the Apostles ever dreamed or expected.

†. Matt 15:7-9 . .You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he
said: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away.
Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's will with their own man-made
teachings.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Here is Rome's definition of contrition:

CCC 1451 . . Among the penitent's acts, contrition occupies first place.
Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed,
together with the resolution not to sin again."

The resolve not to sin again is of course a big joke because no natural-born
human being has enough self control over themselves to truly honor that
kind of a commitment. However, resolve is not our concern in this section;
but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.

The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used 34 times in
various places --is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o) which just simply means to
think differently, or to reconsider; viz: to change one's mind.

Metanoeo never, ever implies either regret or remorse. Although those
emotions may accompany changing one's mind, they are not metanoeo: no,
the changing of one's mind is the true metanoeo, with or without remorse
(e.g. Matt 21:28-30).

A second New Testament Greek word translated repent/repentance-- used
but 6 times in various places --is metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee);
which means to care afterwards; viz: regret.

A useful example of metamellomai is Judas.

†. Matt 27:3 . . Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he
was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of
silver to the chief priests and elders

Although Judas experienced regret for what he did to his friend, it didn't
result in his salvation simply because he never did believe in Christ's
Messianic claims to begin with; and at this point, hadn't changed his mind
about it. Judas simply felt bad about himself for being instrumental in
executing an innocent man. But did he go and confess his sin to God seeking
forgiveness and absolution? No. He went out and committed suicide instead.

A useful example of metanoeo occurred on the day of Pentecost.

†. Acts 2:36-41 . . Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made
this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard
this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles,
"Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And
you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your
children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.

. . .With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them,
"Rescue yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his
message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their
number that day.

Peter's sermon succeeded in convincing his countrymen to change their
opinion about the very man they had so recently consented unto his death;
and as a result, they were spared Hell and eternal suffering.

So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well;
that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your
thoughts, words, and deeds are wrong (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10). It is
important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in
order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their
wrongs. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.

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

 

[thirdeyezero]

-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi-retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true religion. Some Catholics see red whenever
the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some Catholics see
criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as hatred for
Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is an authority in all matters
pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and read it. A
co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968 suggested
that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was not cool with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is an authority in
all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew what he
was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome or do I switch to following the Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as an
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice and due to my trust
in Jesus Christ's integrity— that he knew what he was talking about and
meant what he said.

Ironically, the Church sabotaged itself by instilling within me the justification
to defect. It's been said: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Give
him some fishing tackle, and you feed him forever. Well; the Church had
inadvertently given me some fishing tackle, so to speak, and here I am
today 47 years later still a Protestant. That's not forever, but it's a start.

http://cfbac.org/catholicism.htm

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

It's teach a man to fish, which means that it's learning that saves you.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
A key component in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with
the Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the
covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all; which means
that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the recipe of its plan
of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being condemned as repeat
offenders.

†. Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts
defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh and violated His commandment,
that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

†. Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have
received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the
enemies of God.

Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how
compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key component in the recipe of
Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of
no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.

†. Rom 4:13-16 . . It was not through commandments that Abraham and his
offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but
through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by
commandments are heirs, then faith has no value and the promise is
worthless because law brings retribution. But where there are no
commandments; there is no transgression of commandments. Therefore, the
promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed
to all Abraham's offspring-- not only to those who are of the law; but also to
those who are of the faith of Abraham.

†. Gal 5:4 . . For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by
keeping commandments, then you have been cut off from Christ! You have
fallen away from God's kindness and generosity.

†. Gal 2:21 . . I am not one of those who treats the kindness of God as
meaningless. For if we could be spared by keeping commandments, then
there was no need for Christ to die.

†. Gal 3:21-22 . . If the commandments could have given us new life, then
we could have been made right with God by obeying them. But the
Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to
receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ.

†. Rom 3:20-24 . .Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by
observing commandments; rather, through commandments we become
conscious of sin.

†. Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the commandments, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

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

 

[thirdeyezero]

-
A key component in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with
the Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the
covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all; which means
that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the recipe of its plan
of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being condemned as repeat
offenders.

†. Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts
defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh and violated His commandment,
that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

†. Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have
received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the
enemies of God.

Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how
compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key component in the recipe of
Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of
no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.

†. Rom 4:13-16 . . It was not through commandments that Abraham and his
offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but
through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by
commandments are heirs, then faith has no value and the promise is
worthless because law brings retribution. But where there are no
commandments; there is no transgression of commandments. Therefore, the
promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed
to all Abraham's offspring-- not only to those who are of the law; but also to
those who are of the faith of Abraham.

†. Gal 5:4 . . For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by
keeping commandments, then you have been cut off from Christ! You have
fallen away from God's kindness and generosity.

†. Gal 2:21 . . I am not one of those who treats the kindness of God as
meaningless. For if we could be spared by keeping commandments, then
there was no need for Christ to die.

†. Gal 3:21-22 . . If the commandments could have given us new life, then
we could have been made right with God by obeying them. But the
Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to
receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ.

†. Rom 3:20-24 . .Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by
observing commandments; rather, through commandments we become
conscious of sin.

†. Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the commandments, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

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

I cherry pick from everything, even bus stop posters.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a
virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. That
notion is easy to debunk.

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's
dust. That one lone male's flesh is the only human flesh that God ever
created from the earth's dust. God then proceeded to use a human tissue
sample amputated from Adam's body to construct a female version of
himself; in other words: the flip side of the same coin. (Gen 2:21-22)

Eve, then, wasn't a discreet creation. In other words: biologically, Eve's flesh
was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's. In point of fact, the Bible refers to
Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as Adam. (Gen 5:22)

From that point on; any human flesh that came into the world via either
Eve's body or via the body of one of her female descendants, whether
normally conceived or virgin conceived, would also be just as much Adam's
flesh as Adam's.

Others object that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for
producing a male child. And that's right; they can't. However, seeing as how
God constructed an entire woman from man flesh; then I do not see how it
would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome
from woman flesh. And seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's
flesh as Adam's, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from
woman flesh would actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how
Eve's flesh was produced from Adam's flesh.

So then; unless somebody can prove-- conclusively and without ambiguity-
that Jesus Christ's mother isn't biologically related to either Adam or Eve;
then we are forced to conclude that Adam is Jesus Christ's biological father.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
The New Testament Greek noun for "gospel" is euaggelion (yoo-ang-ghel'
ee-on); which means: a good message-- the contents of the message; viz:
good news.

Its complimentary action verb is euaggelizo (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo) which
means: to announce a good message; viz: to announce good news; like this:

†. Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby,
keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to
them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.
But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of great
joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior has
been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord.

Not every Christian religion has a gospel that qualifies as "good news of
great joy". Several announce a version that is neither good nor joyful at all;
but is actually bad news indeed because their message-- although
adequately announcing the reality of Divine retribution --fails to tell of a
guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments
proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God.
Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity,
can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes.

Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world-- including
Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors --prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his
funeral. Let me point out something that should go without saying: if
someone has already gone on to eternal life; is it really necessary to
continue praying for them? Of course not. They'd be home free. The millions
of Catholics left behind would the ones in need of prayer; not Mr. Wojtyla.
But the sad reality is: no Catholic, not even a Pope, knows for sure where
they're going when they cross over to the other side.

If Popes are in danger of going to Hell, then what "great joy" does news like
Rome's gospel have to offer rank and file pew warmers? None, no joy at all.
So then, truly good news should be exciting and beneficial to everyone who
hears it; regardless of whether they're sinners or saints, Jew or Gentile,
male or female, adult or child, rich or poor, slave or free, smart or dumb,
educated or ignorant, literate or illiterate.

The angel of Luke 2:8-12 announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines
a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- firemen,
cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and
mountain rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing
imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything
about it.

Of what real benefit would the savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if
he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten
Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the
wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent
ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants
it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin
proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God
proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection
from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy? I
think you would have to agree with me that news like that would not only
most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and for ecstatic
happiness.

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

 

[Webers_Home]

-
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.

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

 

[epostle1]

Too much anti-Catholic bigotry and misrepresentations in this thread for me to reply to. It would take several books.

Funny how there are billions of "Bible-Christian" web sites bearing false witness against Catholicism, but I would like to see a Catholic web site doing the same to your church/group/bless-me-club. If any of you anti-Catholics can find one, please post it, because I don't think there are any. Catholics have better things to write about than bashing your beliefs with falsehoods.

Funny when a non-Catholic becomes a Catholic, their former faith is embellished, not cancelled, but when a Catholic turns their back on Jesus in the Eucharist, they become an anti-Catholic.
Please folks, if you are going to have a discussion with me, don't give me long lists of unrelated topics. I don't reply to psychotic rantings.

Webers_Home, based on the out-of-context garbage you posted about Mother Teresa, it looks like you are in league with atheist Christopher Hitchens, a popular source of similar hate speech.

Why does Hitchens hate Mother Teresa? Like Mother Teresa, Hitchens is troubled by poverty. Unlike her, he does nothing about it. What upsets him most is that the world’s greatest champion of the dispossessed is an unassuming nun. Hitchens would prefer to grant the award to ideology, namely to the politics of socialism. And because he is a determined atheist, he cannot come to terms with Mother Teresa’s spirituality and the millions who adore her. More than this, it is her Catholicism that drives him mad.

As expected, Mother Teresa has won scores of awards from all over the world. This bothers Hitchens. What has she done with the money earned from the awards? He doesn’t know, but that doesn’t stop him from saying “nobody has ever asked what became of the funds.” Not true. He has asked, so why doesn’t he tell us what he found? Because that would take work. Worse than that, he would then have to confront the truth. This is why he would rather imply that Mother Teresa is sticking the loot in her pocket. It’s easier this way.

His book, by the way, is a 98 page essay printed on eight-and-a-half by five-and-a-half inch paper, one that is so small it could easily fit into the opening of a sewer. It contains no footnotes, no citations of any kind. There is a role for this genre, but it is not associated with serious scholarship, and it certainly isn’t associated with works that make strong allegations against public persons. Rather, it is associated with the gossip pages of, say, a Vanity Fair.
read more here