PART 6: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: SOME OF WHY I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC OR PAULINE

This is a somewhat lengthy comment reply to Kevin's (Saturday, December 27, 2008 @ 11:31:04 AM) comment left on Part 1 of this series.

Hello Kevin,

Before I begin, let me say that it is incumbent upon you to answer concerning Chris [deleted] not because he put it to you but because I have. Chris cut you off in mid conversation labeling you (us) as mean-spirited and in fact labeling me as evil. You don't "owe" him in the mundane sense. I simply want a demonstration of having no problem with clarifying and reiterating in other words (re-phrase your apology so Chris cannot possibly deny it) for the sake of getting together on the right path as much as that's possible. My position is that humanity can and will come together on the right path.

I will attempt to work through the whole of our discussion to make sense for readers as to where we overlap but still have salient distance between us.

I will begin by stating that you are in many ways proof of what I been putting forth concerning the Roman Catholic denomination. Why are you, a so-called layperson (non-cleric, not ordained by the RC church), doing as much or more in proselytizing your church's position vis-a-vis a non-Roman Catholic such as myself? I have been on the Internet for years. I have been on official Roman Catholic sites where I have left comments and questions. I have Roman Catholic clergy visit and read here. However, you are first openly Roman Catholic (although I had to draw that out of you) to do what that clergy should have done long ago? Now, that's a rhetorical question, but you are not precluded from addressing it. Knowing the Roman Catholic mind as I do, I know what I would say were I holding up Roman Catholicism. Of course, again, knowing the Roman Catholic mind and knowing what I know in addition to it, I already know why the RC position is incorrect. So, it's chess but with the moves already known and planned out into the infinite and the RC position has already been checkmated. It's just that spectators can't necessarily see that yet. I don't wish to leave the analogy sitting without also clarifying that I don't consider this a game. If the RC apostolic succession were intact, in anyway that apostolic succession is not intact with me, the RC clergy would have been here and engaged. However, there lack of engagement is caused by their very Roman Catholicism.

Let me say that I'm not looking for ecumenism and neither are you. The Roman Catholic position is that everyone ought to return to holding that the Pope, in this case now, Benedict XVI, is infallible in matters of faith (not always the practical position of the RC's, as RC's were lead to believe that the Popes were infallible, period). I'm not for ecumenism for exactly the same reason from the opposite perspective. I am adamantly opposed to holding that Benedict XVI is infallible in matters of faith. I already read a number of his writings, including before after he became Pope, and know that he is far from infallible in matters of faith. I'm not going to recite all that here. The Internet search engines and the search features on this site allow worthy seekers to find posts dealing with "Benedict XVI" here.

I think he thinks he's good intentioned, but he isn't very bright in the sense Jesus means when Jesus uses the term "light." This is interesting, because Benedict is held up as being particularly intellectual. There's no doubt he's studied the various religions and philosophical schools of thought. Being "learned" in those is far from a guarantee of wisdom or the imparting of same, which in my book are inextricable. That said, everything that comes out from his heart is not evil. He's just loaded though with partial truth. As Jesus made clear though, any falseness is utter darkness relative to God's Holy Light. So, it's all contextual one situation at a time — more than one way to look at it at a time. The absolute is missing from much of Benedict's writings.

You, Kevin, said you agree with the priesthood of all believers. What's a priest in the Roman Catholic church but one who is officially ordained as such within that church. I am not a priest in their eyes. In addition, all who believe and profess the RC dogma and who practice that religion are not priests in the RC church. To say that you hold with the priesthood of all believers makes no sense. It doesn't follow. It's a dead end. It's torturing the words. It's misleading to others. Wherever you learned it is a source of misinformation. I speak of your RC church. If that offends you, so too does truth.

You don't comprehend the telling aspects of the Catholic Inquisition or the selling of indulgences (that were approved of the Popes) and how those indicate a clear break with Jesus. You don't understand that such fruits define your church. You are defending a line that runs to clear breaks. That doesn't stop you from asserting an unbroken apostolic chain of succession. It's nonsensical. There's no unbroken chain. There is the requirement to leap the breaks the dark holes of which are definitely Roman Catholic. I leap right over your whole church from right now to Jesus. I owe nothing to the Roman Catholic Church. That's because the world would have been better had the Church of Rome not fallen to Constantine.

I part at the first sign of breaking from Jesus. I do that right in the Gospels. The only right teachings are the words and deeds of Jesus and the reiteration thereof. Every deviation by any Pope breaks with righteousness. It breaks off the RC church that continued or continues following that breakaway Pope's train of thought and follow-on deeds or lack thereof. This case is self-evidently made, and all arguments against it are futile and a waste of time. Bear in mind that I have gone to the source in spite of the false teachings of Popes and not because of them and not because of later corrections (what few and anemic attempts there have been) by Popes. I have come to Christ in spite of the Roman Catholic Church and not because of it. The Roman Catholic Church has presented a historical obstacle to coming to Christ.

That is not to say that there have not been and are not people within that church who are not closer to Jesus than those on the outside professing Christ. There are and have been many members of that church who are closer to Christ than is their so-called Vicar of Christ on Earth (the Pope).

Now, here you come saying that I don't have a valid succession from Jesus. Why is it that I don't have a "valid succession," because I don't have the stamp of approval from Pope Benedict? He doesn't have my stamp either. He's not calling for the Christian Commons. I am. You decide. Each soul decides.

Benedict doesn't teach that Jesus is a communist (not Marxist). I do. Benedict doesn't teach that war is wrong and that none should engage in it without exception. I do. Benedict has dealt very poorly with the issue of sexual depravity, although he has been forced to confront the issue by outside influences. It is my understanding that those who have not personally repented to the congregation where they ought to have are still not only active clergy but in some cases have been elevated — no doubt for having done a "good" job protecting the faith by downplaying the evident, deep corruption within the hierarchy.

I see that you don't understand the "as above, so below" and vise versa concept. There are occultists and Satanists who use this expression as well. They don't connect with God and Jesus in it though. The chairs, as to right and left, are not merely right versus wrong. All on the left are not always wrong. You don't grasp the teaching of Jacob in this as he switched Joseph's sons. It was a learning experience.

The forgiveness of brothers is the ultimate lesson in the lesson. Jesus came and enhanced the message and understanding for those who would and will grasp it. Right and left in the sense you've used them don't exist in the end in Heaven, and Heaven comes here. All are forgiven, and all are put right — freely choose righteousness not for having been beaten into it but rather to stop beating each other (other first).

The Christian Commons Project isn't something for just some members of the Church. It is the Church. What is the Pope's is mine if he is in Christ and Christ is in him. However, he has and takes more than he needs while others go without. He accommodates the capitalists. He does not emphatically preach against capitalism and private property and possessions within the whole Church body. For that, he is flat wrong — antichrist. There are many antichrists. I do not consider Benedict the worst offender or the Antichrist, as it were, only in his own soul (spiritual universe &mdash microcosmic situation).

I see that you are insisting that I must have intermediaries. I don't need them or want them. Get out of the way.

As for Constantine, he most certainly pronounced on spiritual matters. Have you never read anything he wrote on such? You of course are saying that he was not a spiritual teacher because the church didn't officially state that he was such. That's circular for you but broken for me, as I don't hold with the necessity of formal, official labeling by the Roman Catholic Church before I know that someone is attempting to teach on spiritual matters. You are attempting to teach on spiritual matters here while being a member of the RC church and saying that only ordained clergy may apparently rightly be labeled as doing exactly what you are here working. Sort that out.

Constantine was lauded by the RC church. Have you read Eusebius of Caesarea? I haven't read that any Pope refuted Eusebius concerning Constantine. I haven't read everything every Pope ever wrote though. If you know that the RC church has officially denounced Constantine's spiritual statement/teaching concerning the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, let us know.

Constantine duped his troops into falsely imagining that they were fighting for Jesus. Constantine lied when he said that he, Constantine, saw the Chi-Rho in the sky or dreamed it and was told that by it he would win the battle ("In this sign you shall conquer" or words to that end). The Chi-Rho, for those who are unaware or have forgotten, is a symbol of the first two Greek letters of the word Christ (savior; X and P superimposed on each other). That was a dirty trick. That was an abhorrent thing to do. That was a complete twisting of Jesus to evil means and ends. Where is the Roman Catholic denunciation of it with a full and clear statement as to why?

Constantine was the first Caesar who allowed "Christianity." He had a huge influence over the Roman church. Don't underestimate it. Doing so is a huge disservice to those seeking truth.

The Roman Catholic Church not only doesn't denounce this abomination, they canonized Constantine. He's a Roman Catholic saint for crying out loud.

I see that you made reference to Chris [deleted]'s post, "Dealing with Abusive, Irrational and Divisive People." I hadn't addressed that, neither had I read it. The title speaks for itself. Chris deems you and me to be abusive, irrational, and divisive. If Chris considers hearing the truth to be abusive, that's his problem, Kevin. As for divisiveness, I address that at some length in the other posts in this series that I encourage people to read. Jesus was divisive. He made clear that he came here to bring division. I'm with him. Chris is with Paul to the exclusion of striving to be true to Christ. It's the common error of the Pauline.

Kevin, I'll offset your words with block quotes or expressly state that I'm quoting you and put your words in quotation marks accordingly.

The presentation (tradition of bible interpretation) you uphold Tom would make each of us our own bishop, our own episkopos and that is not only not rational, it's simply not good faith.

This is just an arbitrary statement. There is nothing irrational about not needing a bishop. I have no bishop in the sense you use the term. You will deny entry of souls into the kingdom of God based upon their not having a Roman Catholic bishop? You won't get in yourself doing that.

Secondly, what tradition of bible interpretation? I know of no such tradition, as you use the word. Who else interprets as I do? I've been seeking such people for years and have found none.

The authority of popes do not start with men (as you've concluded) it starts with God. The promise of infallibility on teaching of faith and morals does not guarantee impecciablity of the teacher, of the pope, of the man, it promises an infallibility of instruction to others.

This says, "Do as we say, not as we do." That's antichrist.

you write, "Popes in history made such a mess of things speaks volumes about how the succession they claimed was far from superior and not unbroken" and I respond no doubt their have been anti-popes or what you've termed elsewhere, "apostate Popes" but more importantly I have to ask you to present precise examples of instruction by these Christian teaches where and when have they in administering their office as bishop of the Church taught something in grave error concerning matters of Christian faith?

Well, good for you that you acknowledge apostate popes have existed in history. That's to your credit. As for the teachings being in grave error, I've discussed that above. The teachings on indulgences were a grave error. The burnings at the stake were grave errors. Don't claim that the RC church didn't officially sanction (teach) burning people at the stake and other such killings and torture. The history is loaded with examples. The pope had mundane armies did they not? They engaged in warfare where they took men's lives did they not? Jesus did not come to take men's lives. Check and mate, as it were.

Tom you've claimed there was no established hierarchy (meaning teaching authority) of the Church by Christ but I strongly disagree. The Apostle Peter is mentioned first whenever the apostles are listed as a group. From the Greek Peter is known as "protos" and is understood not only as first but chief apostle. It is to Peter our Lord is described as instructed "Feed my sheep" John 21:17 and to Peter alone out of all the apostles.

You read the scripture wrong. Your church teaches this wrong reading. Jesus founded his forgiving Church on fallible, sinful, souls. When he speaks to Peter, he is definitely not speaking to "Peter alone." Besides, if you were correct, then why did Paul have the effrontery to rebuke the designated leader of the Church? Also, why did Peter take a backseat to James, as is clearly the case? James had the last word in Jerusalem, not Peter.

2. re: John20:20-22 and Matthew 16:19 (no confusion Tom, there is more than more verse to quote which refers to the authority of Christ restricted to certain functionaries) see above regarding the keys and John 21:17, Isa 22-21-24 regarding authority to bind and lose

Well, I won't quibble. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:23 KJVR) does imply keys. As you know, I was trying to be of assistance to readers in finding "keys" verbatim.

It is through the Church man has the holy scriptures, knows of the Messiah, knows of the promise of salvation. It is not enough to say "I know Jesus" and have a "personal relationship" or say "all I need is my bible" without first knowing these are less likely (outside personal revelation from God) if not for the instrument of Christ's annointed ministerial priesthood.

It is through the Church, but that Church is not all things Roman Catholic and only all things Roman Catholic — never has been. The Roman Catholic Church has done more to block Christianity than it has done to bring forth. The RCC does not teach the whole message. It is selective as is convenient to it. It errs.

There is no Holy Spirit within "outside personal revelation from God." When the Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant. The Roman recieved the faith directly before Peter had even caught on to such degree.

I understand that much anti-First Christian literature is written as hate propaganda which meligns the Church (Catholic) as being outside Christian or Not the "New Testament Church" by later separatists, all of it is easily debunked.

It is only easily debunked if one accepts your whole view on Roman Catholicism, which I do not for the clear and plain truths I've already expressed. "hate propaganda" is loaded, and I take it that way from you. There is hate, and then there is hate. I do rightly hate errors. Propaganda is information. There is right propaganda, and there is wrong propaganda. What I've stated here is right information. In addition, there were separatists who had to brave the violent coercion of the extremely violent Roman Catholic Church that could not win by words and deeds of truth. There were also Churches that never joined the RC's. The Thomas Christians in India are a case in point. The Ethiopians are another. The Celtics in the British Isles are another. Your church tried to terrorize to lord it over others. You should see that and convert to pure Christianity that are the words and deeds of Jesus not filtered through Roman Catholic distortions.

The Roman Catholic Church is not as was the first Church that was in Jerusalem. I do understand that much of that Church was orthodox Jewish and continued to observe the Mosaic Law. While Jesus did not teach to do that, per se. He did teach the common purse and goods in common, something Paul neglected. So, the so-called Ebionites (after James) and Paul were each partially correct. Paul was right in encouraging people to transcend the ritualistic law while James and John were right in encouraging people to hold all things common and parse according to real need. I say to do it via the Christian Commons to hold all things common and to parse according to real need, bringing forth abundance from God to carry out the command not to Peter alone but to the whole of humanity as one to feed all. It's better than exhausting and relying upon capitalism.

I profess the creed of our early Christian brothers and believe as bishop St Athanusius of Alexandria, "whosoever wills to be saved must before all else. adhere to the Catholic Faith" (catholic meaning katholikos or according to the whole from the Greek words kata and holos)

Yes, but the universal truth is in what I've related to you here and is not as stated by the succession of popes from the beginning, as none taught the Christian Commons.

Lastly, you've declared that you are a Roman Catholic layperson. Are you a member of any other Roman Catholic organization such as Opus Dei? Are you a Freemason? The answer will help us all to put things into perspective.

Blessings of truth to all,

Tom

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • I think you mean to overwhelm me Tom with the length of your post. Though much has been written little sadly is applicable or reflective of the real Catholic Church. For example, no papacy approved the sale of indulgences, more correctly it was the abuse of indulgences that created an uproar. It was therefore an abuse of the doctrine and not the doctrine itself which was creating a problem.

      Q. have you read the council of Trent documents regarding correction of these abuses by the Church?
      Q2 Do you even know what a indulgence is defined as?
      Q3 Are you aware of the fact one can receive an indulgence without any exchange of money? In fact one can receive an indulgence by reading holy scripture, and of course you most likely know already it was Saint Jerome who stated, "ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ"

      note: giving of alms should not be confused with a buying of indulgence, many anti-catholics often used the giving of alms as an excuse to oppose rightful authority and argue in favor of materialism.

      When confronted by such inaccuracies you will be called to make account for the fallacious arguments
      posted. It is my hope we will begin to speak the same language, in a context of viewing history through an authentic and truthful len.

      I refer you to Myths About Indulgences by James Akin http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp

      Background
      James was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound
      conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he was compelled in conscience to enter the Catholic Church, which he did in 1992. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, James is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers, a contributing
      editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live.".
      for more see http://:http://www.jimmyakin.org/" target="_blank">:http://www.jimmyakin.org/

      In days to come, time permitting, I hope to debunk further inaccuracies and assumptions on Christian doctrine, Christian Church structure and Christian history including inaccuracies on, Inquiry meaning Inquisition(s)including Protestant/Evangelical/Puritan and Hebrew lead Inquistion, the denial of Holy Orders or the falsely preceived loss function by the laity because of Holy Orders.

      Hopefully the caricature of Catholicism and First Christianity you've presented will be unravelled for your RLCC site readers.

      I think it also important we define Church, whether it be a "mixed body" or "pure body" hopefully you will already be familiar with those terms, as I'm already sensing a Anabaptist/Donatist influence on your part with leanings toward a view of the Christian Church as a "pure body" which denies the sinner access to the Church and is against the orthodox view of removal of weeds from the wheat at the end of time with Christ's final coming. A pure body Church suggests the Church has been fully perfected yet much of the Separatist movement within Christianity readily quotes Paul in claiming "All have sinned" quite the contradiction.

      Peace to you Tom

      • Ah, Kevin,

        This is in reply to your comment Submitted on 2008/12/30 at 4:59pm:

        I think you mean to overwhelm me Tom with the length of your post.

        It never occurred to me, and I don't plan to think about it.

        no papacy approved the sale of indulgences

        That's not true. You're trying to cover the pope the way Dick Cheney tries to cover himself when he says the U.S. doesn't torture when it water boards.

        By the way, what's your position on the Roman Catholic Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia? He used Paul to defend capital punishment. Do you hold with capital punishment too?

        Why did it take Luther rather than the Pope at the time? Where was the Pope? He was not out front in ethics was he? No, he wasn't. However, he was infallible in matters of faith you say. You say though, "do as we say but not as we do." I say that that is not what Jesus teaches. He does say it concerning the Pharisees but not to the exclusion of the rest of his teachings where the good shepherds will not say one thing and do another.
        I'm right. You're wrong.

        more correctly it was the abuse of indulgences that created an uproar.

        The abuses came out from the climate set by the entire Roman Church from the very top down usually (but at least from the level of Cardinals and those so-called temporal lords who were powerful in their own rights and also clergy). You can't change that.

        The torture came out from George W. Bush setting the tone and direction of his administration. You can't change that either. What or who is to blame for the torture? Are you saying that George W. Bush has plausible deniability because his underlings have given him cover? That doesn't work with God or with me.

        You're trying to pigeonhole the doctrine to the exclusion of whole aspects of the doctrine. The term Indulgence has many connotations. Some are good. Everything encompassed by the Roman Catholic dogma on the subject was not good.

        Q. have you read the council of Trent documents regarding correction of these abuses by the Church?

        Yes

        Q2 Do you even know what a indulgence is defined as?

        "Do you even" is unmerited condescension. Do you follow my meaning here?

        Can you define torture for me? You see, this sort of use of the terms is as Chris used "faith."

        Also, you're beating around the bush avoiding the obvious thrust of this site and that is that capitalism is not the way and the Pope hasn't ruled your church as communistic through and through. Now you can say that that isn't required, but you just have to leave it at that and walk away because you can't show it by anything Jesus said or did when taken in full context.

        You're here trying to argue just some narrowly selected things. I'm not going to go alone with that. I know how to get the subject back on track or show the other party's refusal to take a stand and to defend it using Jesus.

        Q3 Are you aware of the fact one can receive an indulgence without any exchange of money? In fact one can receive an indulgence by reading holy scripture, and of course you most likely know already it was Saint Jerome who stated, "ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ"

        Tell me something I don't already know, Kevin. What does your question have to do with other than to obfuscate and postpone the day when you finally admit to yourself that your popes were total asses in many respects, as I have been too in my life for not seeing the light to bring forth in unison as the Church of the upside down and level hierarchy, which is as it is in Heaven that is supposed to already be in your heart only you've been misdirected away from that understanding while your church not only wastes time but does so deliberately for fear of losing more fat-cat backers.

        note: giving of alms should not be confused with a buying of indulgence, many anti-catholics often used the giving of alms as an excuse to oppose rightful authority and argue in favor of materialism.

        This is irrelevant to making whatever point you're attempting to make here, but okay. It doesn't shoot down anything I've stated.

        When confronted by such inaccuracies you will be called to make account for the fallacious arguments
        posted. It is my hope we will begin to speak the same language, in a context of viewing history through an authentic and truthful len.

        You remind me of Chris here. What inaccuracies? You haven't pointed out any inaccuracies. Also, I am standing before the Lord all the time. I'm not in any trouble with God for being in opposition to Chris's church or your church.

        God is moving me to expose that your church has more than squandered.

        Kevin, your church is not one. You don't hold all things common as Jesus held with his disciples (all of them). Other readers here should also read the Christian Commons Project post and your comments and my replies to you there as well as here. Your church persecuted thousands to death. That was sheer evil. Your popes did that. They were warlords. They were slave owners. You can twist those words in an attempt to justify such evils, but you will have to account for why you wouldn't call evil, evil.

        Do yourself a favor. Don't warn me when you don't flip it around to check how your standard applies to you.

        In days to come, time permitting, I hope to debunk further inaccuracies and assumptions on Christian doctrine, Christian Church structure and Christian history including inaccuracies on, Inquiry meaning Inquisition(s)including Protestant/Evangelical/Puritan and Hebrew lead Inquistion, the denial of Holy Orders or the falsely preceived loss function by the laity because of Holy Orders.

        There once was a boy who raced another. He lost and said I'll beat you again another time.

        Kevin, do everyone a favor and let him go read about the history of the Inquisition himself. Your argument will be that not everything about the Inquisition was bad. That doesn't shoot down the fact that the bad parts were sanctioned by the popes.

        Look, people have jobs in Iraq. They get pay checks or cash. They feed themselves. Many of them are working off the U.S. economy. Now just because it's good that they aren't starving doesn't make the invasion acceptable. If you don't get this, go think more before commenting here further.

        Also, don't point to the errors of other churches to shoot down the RLCC. I'm not a Lutheran or Calvinist or any of the others. I'm not a disciple of anyone but Jesus. If you want to shoot down the RLCC, then you say that holding all things in common and bringing forth the giving and sharing economy is evil and that pacifism is evil and that sexual purity is evil, etc., and why all the while using Jesus's words and deeds to show it. That won't work of course. So why are you hear speaking against the RLCC when it stands for what is best and only what is best?

        Hopefully the caricature of Catholicism and First Christianity you've presented will be unravelled for your RLCC site readers.

        Actually, all you've done is prove my points. You are hypnotized into saying anything and everything in defense of a system you should openly reject. Why you are so beholden for your ego to the Roman Catholic Church you'll have to soul search to discover. Why you don't say that your church has been directly responsible for abominations is not good for you and that those abominations defines it most is not good for you. Your church has not repented. It won't repent until it is regenerated as one with the RLCC. Then it won't be the same old church that as a whole has zero continuity with Jesus's teachings and deeds. Only some RC's are close — closer than your pope and all your cardinals and bishops and that's in spite of those astray clerics.

        I've had so many people come here arguing against what I don't hold as if in doing so they refute what I do hold.

        I don't have to "define Church, whether it be a 'mixed body' or 'pure body'" in the terms you use. I don't do that because your church aims too low for me. That's why I would never join it and would leave it were I to have been raised in it or what have you.

        You go ahead and have your separation within. You hold with your popes who have never just simply said that capitalism is false-heartedness and must be ended and is hereby ended for the whole real church and the same with violence and war (militarism). You see, if you are going to continue defending Roman Catholicism, I'm going to just rev it up here more and more.

        There is no such separation in the Real Liberal Christian Church. Everyone who is a member of Jesus's church owns the whole thing with everyone else. That's not how it is in your top-down only, centralized, violent, coercive system. There are no militarists in the RLCC. Militarism is righteously denounced. That doesn't mean that former capitalists and militarist aren't part of the RLCC.

        I'm already sensing a Anabaptist/Donatist influence on your part

        I haven't read them and been influenced. I read them after the Gospels and agree with those aspects that are turning in the right direction. I do that for Roman Catholic literature too.

        The pacifist Radical Reformationists certainly are vastly more impressive then is the Roman Catholic Church in general. The Hutterites are much more impressive than most of your monasteries. It was the Hutterite-like direction that your church fought against all along. Your popes became bloody imperialists. Who doesn't know it?

        People aren't perfect until they aim high enough and then go through with it. I'm talking here about commitment to the highest aim and not about rejecting those who haven't already gone through. Shooting down the Donatists isn't going to touch the RLCC.

        Look, the RLCC is Jesus's teachings and exemplary life. Your Pope makes excuses for people not doing, not bringing forth. Get out of the way if you can't eat the real bread. Stop misleading the people into falsely imagining that they can't bring forth. They can bring forth, and I hate it that your popes have avoided doing what is right. How could they though when they've come up through the ranks. It would be like a life-long militarist, West Pointer being voted President of the world and then ordering total disarmament. Consider the source. What is the root of the RCC when the popes don't speak the whole truth that necessitates denouncing capitalism and militarism?

        Anyway, I didn't separate from Roman Catholicism. I'm not a Reformationist. I'm not a Protestant. I'm Nazir. Therefore, don't argue against what I'm not for while imagining doing so will sway anyone away from my thinking. Intelligent people will see right through it.

        Furthermore, you avoided much of what I wrote. You didn't answer questions. I asked you whether you're a member of any societies such as Opus Dei or the Freemasons. You didn't answer.

        I'm not going to allow you to continue posting here in favor of the Roman Catholics unless you are forthcoming. I'm not asking you anything that is unreasonable here. If you want to post here and to ask questions though, you'll have to answer questions.

        Therefore, please revisit the thread to-date to verify that you've answered my questions before posting here any further. That's a completely reasonable and intelligent thing for me to ask and to require. It isn't inconsistent with Jesus's teaching. If you find that unacceptable, go your way.

        You are already asked to defend greed, capitalism, violence, war, punishment, torture, and sexual depravity (at least how it has yet to be properly dealt with by even your current Pope). If all you can point to is that the worldly world is a mixed place, then all you're saying is that your church is of this world.

        Argue against peace, total pacifism, giving and sharing all, Christian communism and not capitalism, and sexual purity, as in no place for pedophiles or those who hide them and moved them around unbeknownst to the congregations.

        Now, here's something I think you (and many others) don't understand. The comment section here is fine for debate, but it's for getting to the point and not for missing it endlessly. It is also not for avoiding direct questions. That's my rule for this blog.

        What the comment section here isn't is a place for you to place the whole Roman Catholic Catechism for instance. I'm I clear? If you want to place a comparative theology somewhere, do it on your blog.

        I would have much less problem with your writing long posts on your blog in answer to mine and adding links in the comments here. Again though, if you duck the tough stuff, then I'd not be interested in allowing that to go on endlessly. The Gospels show people ducking the tough questions, but the Gospels show Jesus cutting it off with them. That's a lesson for us all.

        You aren't being treated differently here. I've held everyone to this same standard. It always has gotten to that point. I don't like it when people ask questions but don't answer or who duck the points.

        Tom

    • This is hard to follow, changing topics, links to all the different pages.

      YHWH planned a relationship with humans but not in a corrupted state; in His graciousness, He provided a way to clean us up, allowed the faith (faithfulness) of His Son to be ours as well. He called those He chose and gave us the spirit, the same spirit in Yeshua so that, as part of him, we are holy.

      When we have this faith, works will be done; if there are no works and no change, there's no faith, it's the result of faith. Works are not something we choose to do (of course we can but it isn't the same thing), works come naturally out of a faith-filled person. Like a person who is joyful will smile and laugh. You can do those things without being happy but they're meaningless. If you don't laugh or at least smile, it's not likely that you're filled with joy.

      -----

      I know this is the wrong post for this comment, you can move it if it fits better with the first. If it doesn't fit anywhere just email me and help me follow this thread! :-) tlminut@gmail.com

      • Hi TMinut,

        It is hard to follow. You're right. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the discussion didn't start on this blog. It started on another blog where the owner killed it.

        I couldn't recreate the whole thing over here, but there was so much worthwhile content in the comment replies I was making on the other blog that I reposted at least my side of the conversation over here. Had that other blog owner not killed the discussion over at his blog, you would have been able to read the whole thing straight through. It was an unfortunate decision to kill the conversation.

        The other reason that I reply via posts is because posts get so much more reading attention than do comments, even though often there is more depth in the comments. I don't know why visitors ignore comment sections here. I know that comment sections on other blogs range from really deep and well thought out to a total waste of time and even sickening if one allows that to happen to one. Other sites are formatted so that the comments aren't even visible without having to click a link to open the comments.

        Lastly, when the comments are long and numerous, this being a slow loading economy server, I like to begin a new post. I may not have to do that for long now though because the latest version of WordPress (2.7) has comment pagination built in. I've been running into more problems with this upgrade though than I've had with any other upgrade so far. It's really been a major, major pain. So, I don't want to mess with the comment pagination right this second. I'm sure you understand. Mostly though, I want people to read the comments and making them into posts does help in that regard.

        As for where you commented, it's fine.

        Concerning the content of your comment, I agree with you. It's a rare person who will do the good deeds in an attempt to fake his or her way into Heaven. It won't work of course anyway. It takes faith and deeds and what person without faith will really do the full-blown deeds pretending?

        Can anyone imagine Jesus having been a fake? I can't see that as even been a remote possibility.

        Blessings to you,

        Tom

    • The whole priesthood setup of the RC religion and the LDS religion I don't understand.

      How can there be a different high priest on earth when Yeshua is now the one in that position? If the priesthood in scripture is still ongoing on earth right now (as opposed to reinstituted on the new earth), why isn't it set up like in scripture? The whole plan of YHWH is not yet finished so why aren't the feasts part of this scenario? We were supposed to see the physical "religion" of Israel as the representation of the spiritual...

      • Hi Again, MTinut,

        The RC's and LDS's are different enough from each other that I won't go into them here in one comment other than to say that I have never met an RC who believes that what Joseph Smith claimed ever actually happened. There were no golden plates. There were no such wars between Whites and the Indians before even the Vikings touch this continent. The whole thing is made up — a complete fabrication. The Roman Catholics though do worship in their own way the historical Jesus. Jesus was not made up. He is not a myth.

        As for high priests, we are each supposed to be as Christlike as possible. That necessarily means for all the reasons Jesus was as he was. We are all to share the mercy seat.

        Right now, Kevin is commenting on this site. He's a Roman Catholic. When I told him that the pope should be helping to grow food to feed the poor, Kevin said that that's just my opinion and I should stick to facts. It's an arbitrary thing to say that it's just an opinion. I say it's a fact. It is.

        As for feasts, they are reminders for continuity sake. They are devices to help tell a progressive story of the unfolding of enlightenment. I don't suggest that Christians should have Jewish feasts as Jesus-less Jews. A Christian Passover is about more than Egypt alone. It's about Egypt foreshadowing Jesus and Christianity and also Jesus going to the cross and why, etc. We also aren't modeled on rigid ritual. Jesus did not set that example.

        He healed on the Jewish Sabbath. His disciples didn't ceremonially wash their hands. We must remember those things. The Old Testament is not our law. Our law is not the Mosaic Law. We don't stone people. We don't sacrifice animals. We don't call down the wrath. We don't make war or steal land.

        Our Yah is more revealed, and our requirements are therefore higher.

        This reply just barely scratches the surface. The most important thing to add that should help people who may be new to such thinking is that doing away with hypocrisy is key. If it's hypocritical, it's a problem. Also, if it selfish, it's a problem. Learn to reconcile everything Jesus said and did. It is the way.

        God bless everyone in the universe, including those who wrongfully call us evil and the enemy as we call for total pacifism, harmlessness, beneficence only, sexual purity, and giving and sharing all a la Jesus and then the Jerusalem Apostles in Acts.

        Tom

    • Tom can you please direct me to a listing of the allowable hypercodes that are usable in this comment window

      thank you

      • Hi Kevin,

        I have no "listing." You can do a Google search on WordPress comment text HTML if you want.

        Try highlighting text, then clicking a code button. Experiment that way before submitting or canceling. I have run into no HTML tags that have not worked. I haven't tried them all.

        I hope this information is good enough under the circumstances.

        Tom

    • Finally, let us put to rest the case of Chris and [deleted].

      For the final time, I affirm yet again, an apology has been made regarding any suggestion preceived or otherwise of faith alone teaching by Chris.

      As mentioned elsewhere on your blog I missed a portion of Chris' post explaining something which would deny sola fide doctrine.

      Obviously this apology is not an admission of Chris discussing all matters of justification accurately as we both also understand Chris has developed an entirely different doctrine on justification with a denial/diminishment of man's required response to God's initial gesture as portion of the justification equation.

      Peace to you

      • Hi Kevin,

        This is a reply to your 2008/12/30 at 5:25pm comment.

        I have removed Chris's last name and the name of his blog everywhere on this blog. I did that after asking you to make an unmistakable statement, as you have clearly done. Not that I expect that you will bring him up again, but if you have occasion to do so on this blog, please just use his first name and don't link to him. He sent private email that I won't go into other than to say that this is the right choice in his case.

        To anyone who may be interested: It was never my intention to send anyone's anxiety through the roof nor do I take responsibility for that reaction to what I've written on this blog. I do not think that any such reaction was or is merited. I have spoken from the spirit of truth only and far from carelessness. My focus has been on the way things could be and ought to be versus how they are, why, and what to do about it all. Others choose to focus on self apart from God. That's not my fault. If I have erred, it has been for caring too much, if that's possible, which I don't think it is. It's just that many don't want to give credit to righteousness' sake. They want to drag my message down rather than rising to it. They want to defend that which does not rise to it. They want to call Church that which is not.

        As for why you did or didn't hold with his position, it is fair to say that you and I did not and do not approach the issue from the same position. Yours is Roman Catholic. Mine is not.

        Nevertheless, thank you for making the emphatic statement.

        Tom

    • Ah, guess we'll have to disagree on a few points. Scripture tells us Yahweh calls the sabbath and the feasts "His" sabbaths and "His" feasts, not "Jewish" ones. And the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down by Yeshua, we are grafted into Israel with whom the new covenant was made.

      About the RCs, I've heard them pray to Mary, seen them kneel to statues, and heard them call priests Father - all things scripture says not to do. I don't know any catholics personally anymore so I can't say anything about that.

      The Mormons, one thing is that they definitely DO take care of the poor. Their prophets? I don't know, Bible prophets were some strange people with rather wild stories! But this whole other "scriptures" makes me very uneasy. Besides, when I picked up the Book of Mormon to read one day, it felt so ordinary that it was actually noticeable, I knew it was "just a book." So I picked up a Bible and knew it was different, I had never felt anything like that before.

      An irrelevant aside: Do you know your comment form says, "Input Your Website Address or leave"? Of course, it continues on the next line but that catches me every time so far! LOL!

      • Hi TMinut,

        I'll reply to you first, since Kevin left another message on the CCP post concerning which comment I just spent an inordinate amount of time addressing.

        I'll take your points in the same order as submitted.

        First, I understand exactly where you get what your saying about God and the sabbath and feasts, etc. I don't say you're wrong. I say that Jesus enhanced human understanding (some humans) concerning God. I don't have the same understanding of God's will as Moses took God's will to be, and neither do you. Were I there and knowing what I know, when Moses says go kill, I would refuse and inform him of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I trust you would do the same. The hypocrisy of covetousness would have become apparent to him. I'm not there though because hearts weren't ready. That's just how it is.

        As for the term "Jewish," if you were to attempt to define it, you'd probably not find a more difficult term to pin down to the satisfaction of even a handful. It used to be the direct fleshly descendants of Jacob (with Judah as the law keeper) the same way one might say so-and-so is Italian in the most mundane sense. Jewishness now though has become nearly vacuous through usage. My position is, as I see it, consistent with Jesus when I say that Jesus was and is a Jew in the truest sense. Those who rejected him are the ones who rejected the real spirit of Judah as he aimed and aims to be. I say that Jacob and Judah accept Jesus as the light of existence. Now, do you still feel you and I disagree?

        Also, the term "grafted" is unfortunate. I am not grafted into Israel. That's a Paulism, just as the requirement to pray with a bare head and short hair if one is male and the opposite if one is female. It's a bloodline, ethnic-ego thing on Paul's part (although probably quite subconscious — at least I hope so). Israel and I are conflated in the Holy Spirit. There's an important difference. It's about oneness and sameness. Grafted branches show the graft. I do understand Paul's point, but his choice of analogy deemphasizes the oneness of the concepts of YHVH and Elohim. That oneness saves. That one saves. I am salvation. Do you join?

        You don't need Pope Benedict's permission or stamp of approval or to believe that the bishop of Rome is the doorkeeper. He is not, even though we don't curse him but rather bless him.

        As for the New Testament and covenant, it wasn't made with Israel alone or per se in the current usual and customary sense. It was made with whomever accepts it. There is no doubt that Jesus went to "Israel" first and instructed his disciples to do the same. He did it consistent with the teaching on the importance of brethren. However, his teaching on brethren is not to be taken in light of usage at the time or even now. The true brethren are all the humans who accept. One may rightly extend that to all beings who accept — all souls who become one in truth.

        As for the RC's, yes they pray to Mary and do the other things you've written. They call Mary the Co-Redemptrix. This offends many people who feel it reduces Jesus. It is true that when one views RC's iconography, one is struck by Mary often being the focus. It's dishonest where it doesn't acknowledge Jesus's love/hate relationship with humanity, including his most immediate blood relatives, including Mary.

        I like Mary. It isn't improper of me to say that I love Mary. It isn't improper of me to say that her acts please me and sit well with me all qualified though by the full context of Jesus's teachings vis-a-vis Mary and the rest.

        The Roman Catholics, as anyone, can use circular reasons to justify anything. The only thing we can do is discern where the circles are in terms of perfection — the path to it. I'm not an RC, as I stated openly here. RC teachings didn't bring forth. They have rather been a hindrance. That does not mean that anyone must take away from Mary her grasping of the Holy Spirit. She was not the one though. The Romans were too "culturally relevant," just as Rick Warren is now for instance. They overshot the mark on just how much they needed to come down to scoop up the masses. In so doing, they held down those who were much higher and who would have been the shining lights otherwise. I trust you see the truth in this observation.

        As for the Mormons, they are loaded with partial-truths, just as are the Roman Catholics. The Mormons are organized and conscientious in a mundane sense. They are industrious. However, they are also nationalistic and patriotic toward the secular. This is all confusion. They join the military in higher percentages and go and kill for the secular cause. It's not right. It's bad.

        It sounds as if you're being visited by Mormons. They come here once a year, two young men, dressed alike, clean shaven, short hair, no body piercings, no tattoos, a little uncomfortable but determined to press on. They know chapter and verse. They know the Protestant buzzwords. They've rehearsed all the experienced objections and worked out all the marketing overcomes. It's door-to-door sales. It's obnoxious. I tell them a little more each time they come. There's only so much time they allot to each stop. They also know when they've met someone who is out to turn them more then they are out to turn him. They agree to disagree and leave with a smile and an open-ended offer to help in anyway I might need. Drop Joseph Smith's nonsense and join the Commons!

        Lastly, concerning your being thrown by the words, "Input Your Website Address or leave," I've added a manual line break after "Address." I hope that helps. Thanks for laughing about it. As we learn and grow in all seriousness, we can be struck by the humor in the illogical.

        Peace, love, and truth,

        Tom Usher

    • TOM, YOU SAID:

      when Moses says go kill, I would refuse and inform him of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I trust you would do the same.

      ---------

      I'm not sure of this, perhaps there were entire cultures or bloodlines that would never be called by the Father and they were supposed to be wiped out. Even the little ones would be growing up the same way. There was no "Jesus" yet to inform Moses of and the spirit was only given to certain people for a time. Different situation.

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

      THEN: The hypocrisy of covetousness would have become apparent to him.

      -----

      Are you talking about wiping out tribes/nations for their land? I don't know what I think of that, I've never lived in a tribal culture. To me as an American in these days, that is totally wrong.

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

      I see what you mean about the use of the word "grafted". I'll have to look more into that before I say much. Jesus certainly didn't restrict himself totally to Israelites. He just seemed surprised to find hearts open to the spirit outside of Israel; when he did, he accepted them wholeheartedly.

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

      As for RCs, I have very little experience, just the little I know warns me away from those practices.

      Mormons, I live in Utah. I've never been to a Mormon church but my children have. When friends spent the night, they came to our church, when my boys stayed at their houses, they went to church with them. I wanted to find out about the religion because my friend and I would like to discuss things sometimes but we have such different starting points that it's almost impossible.

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

      Capital punishment is totally right in my opinion, to "rid the land of the evil among you." However, I don't think any human qualifies to make such a judgment - we don't know whether or not this person may be changed in the future. It's also true though, that I don't believe staying alive on this earth is paramount in importance, I don't believe in preserving human life at all costs. But scripture says He's waiting to give us more time, maybe the one who should die is one who will change and accept Christ given more time.

      • Hi TMinut,

        I like the way you think. You show the kind of mind that learns and then can pass that on in a spirit of helping. I say that not to "butter you up."

        Concerning Moses and wiping out bad bloodlines, of course (not meant condescendingly) that is what was going on. It was eugenics. God is the author of survival of the fittest. The question though that Jesus posed and answered is that the fittest is higher than fleshly eugenics.

        As for there having been no Jesus yet, well, yes and no. It depends upon the context in which were speaking. In fact, it wasn't that there was not Jesus. It was that humanity hadn't come far enough to receive him — all things in their times.

        As for stating that I would inform Moses, well that presupposes that it would have been the right time in the vast configuration of things that God comprehends. Why don't we go back to tell Moses? (He knows now.) What would we fail to appreciate doing that, going back? We must appreciate. If it is just handed to us, we won't have real knowledge. We don't take an artificial God-pill without knowing how to make one or what God is. This is why science is never going to cut it. It's a limited and limiting tool.

        As for Moses's people coveting the land of those they wiped out, of course it was hypocritical. That's one of those absolute truths. American relativism absent absolutes leads souls astray. (Say that ten times as fast as you can.) There is relativity. There is also the absolute truth. Jesus is the truth.

        About the term grafted, I like (very honest of you) how you said that Jesus "seemed surprised to find hearts open to the spirit outside of Israel; when he did, he accepted them wholeheartedly." It's great that, among other things, you see that Jesus didn't claim to know everything. It's key to understanding who he is and who we are. There are people on either side of this, both wrong about it. You have those saying Jesus knew everything God knew even though Jesus expressly stated that he did not. Then there are those who say he didn't so therefore he was not divine and should not be followed, even though those people don't believe in anything divine and haven't the foggiest notion of what it is they follow.

        "As for RCs, I have very little experience, just the little I know warns me away from those practices." That's right. Just look at the fruits after all the centuries. If they've had it right all this time, where's the fruit? Why did their antichrist traditions not bring forth as the whole, the one? They make blind excuses for less than lukewarmness rather than just admitting that they've had it wrong all along. Ego!

        More about the Mormons, I was raised in Arizona. I went to school with many Mormons. I had a Mormon bishop for a school principal. I had so-called jack Mormon friends too. A Jack-Mormon is one who might drink alcohol or smoke tobacco or take drugs, etc.

        I've made it a point to delve into Mormonism. I read the Book of Mormon and read other things by Mormons and about Mormons. My conclusion is that Joseph Smith was into the lust of the flesh. Mormons marry (multiple wives) for "Time and Eternity" in direct contradiction of Jesus who expressly states that we become non-sexual beings.

        Of course, they've backed off the polygamy to suit cultural relevance, but now that the homosexuals are beating down the gates of the secularist (and the secular, self-styled Christian churches) who can't save anyone (souls) from anything, the polygamists certainly aren't going to be denied and neither are all the other groups that the likes of homosexual, fornicator, male-prostitute-using, U.S. Representative Barney Frank say offend him, such as the pedophiles and the incestuous and sexually bestial. This is what happens when people don't know the truth when they hear it.

        I like that you state right out that you're in Utah — not hiding your statements here in anyway that anyone who might want to know who said them can't start tracing them right to you. You're showing the right spirit. Again, I don't say this to butter you up but rather to hold you up as a good example for others in this regard.

        Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. (John 18:20 KJVR)

        That's our guy — the one, our brother.

        Beautiful answer that, regarding capital punishment. You made me laugh and smile it's so right.

        Well, well, your user name puts me in mind of manumit and minute. Are you the lesser who ends up reigning?

        Tom Usher

    • Tom you wrote,

      "What the comment section here isn't is a place for you to place the whole Roman Catholic Catechism for instance. Am I clear? If you want to place a comparative theology somewhere, do it on your blog."

      First, I've not placed the whole Catholic Church Catechism on your site, I actually haven't even quoted anything from it yet, nor am I making a comparative theology study. What I am doing presently is responding directly to your comments which you feel describes Catholicism which in truth are historically and theologically inaccurate. I am responding to what you "think" Catholics-First Christians profess and responding to what you "think" the Catholic Church teaches of the Christian faith.

      For your benefit, I do not belong to the "Roman" Church nor is the official name of "The Church" I attest as the New Testament Church called Roman Catholic Church.
      Although some Catholics have adopted the title, primarily Latin Western Rite Catholics, the official title is The Catholic Church or The Church of Christ or simply "The Church".
      Roman Catholic was a title first devised by 16th century European separatists from the First Christian Church (so-called reformers) and used in a derogatory way. I'm pretty sure Tom you have little intention of being derogatory. Therefore please refer to me in your future posts as, a Catholic Christian and the community I belong to as, The Catholic Church. Although St. Paul wrote to the Church of Roman which is a very small portion of the entire Church Catholic which I belong to I am evermindful the Catholic Church is geographically, and spiritually greater than the diocese of Rome and so do all Catholic Christians. I'll explain more later if you desire to.

      Tom you also asked me to explain, "what inaccuracies?"

      I've already presented the first of many you've made.

      Inaccuracy #1

      Your insistence on the sale of indulgences as being allowable or supported by popes and/or being a portion of Catholic doctrine.

      I must now ask you to name the pope(s) and present a piece of officially written documentation (such as a papal bull or encyclical) that can support your accusation.

      I think it only fair and truthful for you to support your claim in such a way or readers such as myself will have to consider your comments as private opinion and heresay.

      Finally, you wrote,

      "I would have much less problem with your writing long posts on your blog in answer to mine and adding links in the comments here. Again though, if you duck the tough stuff, then I'd not be interested in allowing that to go on endlessly."

      I think that is a good idea, it will save space on the RLCC comment page for replies to your comments requiring indepth responses and I'll see my replies to you loaded faster, no offense Tom but your host server for RLCC is extremely slow and/or the pagecode needs repair.

      In regards to ducking out, the thought never crossed my mind.

      For your part I'm hoping you'll cease speaking on my behalf, telling me ego is getting in the way and suggesting I'm not responding directly or going off topic when I am entirely on topic and bringing to light deeper rooted issues requiring examination first so as to understand the overall context of the discussion at hand.

      I'll create a blogpost site for our discussions at RLCC, perhaps something called

      A Catholic Response to RLCC.

      Kevin

      Peace of Christ

      • Hello Kevin,

        First, I've not placed the whole Catholic Church Catechism on your site,

        No kidding (sarcasm fully intended but not worn out)
        Kevin, are you an expert only in the obvious?

        Any honest reading of what I said within context leads the reader to know that I was preempting any such attempt. I planted the good/God seed in your brain that you aren't going to go on without meeting certain requirements. It was stated in anticipation to head you off if and only if you might be tempted to head in that direction. Read if and only if. Don't jump to conclusions. I have not.

        What I am doing presently is responding directly to your comments which you feel describes Catholicism which in truth are historically and theologically inaccurate. I am responding to what you "think" Catholics-First Christians profess and responding to what you "think" the Catholic Church teaches of the Christian faith.

        If you have an official name that you are, and have been, insisting I use, why are you using something else yourself with this "Catholics-First Christians," title case no less? That's hypocritical.

        Also, Roman Catholics were not first in the sense you are intending. All you are trying to say is that there was continuity (less than lukewarm) with real Christianity (that is solely based upon Jesus's words and deeds and not upon any deviations by Paul or Peter or anyone else). That's a tangled mess from which you cannot extricate yourself without renouncing Roman Catholicism, which is down but not whole.

        That's what you want others to "think" (above) you're doing. I happen to know that you don't know what the Roman Catholics teach or profess because you don't start at the beginning that are the words of Jesus Christ to compare them against the fruits borne by the Roman Catholic tradition, imagination.

        Roman Catholic was a title first devised by 16th century European separatists from the First Christian Church (so-called reformers) and used in a derogatory way. I'm pretty sure Tom you have little intention of being derogatory. Therefore please refer to me in your future posts as, a Catholic Christian and the community I belong to as, The Catholic Church. Although St. Paul wrote to the Church of Roman which is a very small portion of the entire Church Catholic which I belong to I am evermindful the Catholic Church is geographically, and spiritually greater than the diocese of Rome and so do all Catholic Christians. I'll explain more later if you desire to.

        Oh no, I fully intend to be derogatory. It is my intention to diminish the Roman Catholic religion right out of existence. If you mean by derogatory to hurt souls in the process, I won't be doing that.

        Jesus was derogatory, very, very derogatory while he didn't harm a soul.

        Everyone knows what the "Roman Catholic Church" means to say. Your church isn't the whole thing (Christianity; far from it). That's my very point here. I don't need to show you the respect you are demanding here. You can call the RLCC whatever. If I call the church of Rome something by which others won't know to whom I am referring, that will be my problem.

        RLCC is shorthand, but if people don't know that it stands for the "Real Liberal Christian Church," then a title of your planned blog "Catholic Response to RLCC" .... Weak.

        I've used the term Catholic as a standalone. Most people know to whom it is referring whether or not those people acknowledge the label as being indicative of the true spirit. I say your church has corrupted the language something awful. It's been dreadful. It's been misleading. The good Catholics (there; that's appropriate) have largely been in spite of most of "your" leadership down through the ages. Those Catholics by and large didn't follow your leaders when those Catholics did good.

        I must now ask you to name the pope(s) and present a piece of officially written documentation (such as a papal bull or encyclical) that can support your accusation.

        Ah, we've arrived somewhere. Before I answer you as you've requested, first a question and answer from you is required here. If I supply this information, will you denounce the Roman Catholic religion? Is "official" support sufficient to cause you to disassociate yourself? You see, I don't want to swat at flies. I'll just remove the dung heap in one fell swoop. Be careful what you ask for.

        Before I go there though, even if there is no smoking gun in your opinion, you must first tell all of us whether or not you hold with Jesus that we know the Roman Catholic Church by its fruits and lack thereof down through the ages. It takes no official papal bull to be produced to show that the Roman Catholic Church and its popes who teach for God's doctrine the traditions of men that that church did not instruct its membership not to join in making warfare, taking lives, maiming people for life where they didn't just kill them, taking innocent life, and more, all for secular reasons and all of which is completely antichrist.

        Eat that.

        private opinion and heresay.

        It's definitely private in that you can't see it, and it's definitely heresy and hearsay regardless of which you meant. I am a heretic in the blind eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. It's great. I hear and I say too. I do not bear false witness.

        Also, show me where I said I have the document concerning the popes that is comparable to the Downing Street Memo where George W. Bush and Tony Blair are concerned. I tell you I never needed the Downing Street Memo and that there are those who reject the Downing Street Memo as evidence regardless.

        "I would have much less problem with your writing long posts on your blog in answer to mine and adding links in the comments here. Again though, if you duck the tough stuff, then I'd not be interested in allowing that to go on endlessly."

        I think that is a good idea, it will save space on the RLCC comment page for replies to your comments requiring indepth responses and I'll see my replies to you loaded faster, no offense Tom but your host server for RLCC is extremely slow and/or the pagecode needs repair.

        No offense is taken concerning this. Why do you say these words when I've already said in this thread (you've read), that this is an economy server? As for page code, it's JavaScripting and loading from other servers too that slows things. It is a trade off. Every speed-up known other than reducing information has already been taken. You should have seen it before if you think it's slow now.

        I hope my unrighteous-mammon "poverty" doesn't offend you. It certainly offends plenty of others. I'm not fit because I'm not rich in mammon.

        In regards to ducking out, the thought never crossed my mind.

        No, not "ducking out," just "ducking." I have more respect for people who duck out than I do for those who stand and don't deliver. So far, you've delivered nothing. You have ducked. You've attempted to redefine the debate to your terms. That won't fly here. We start at the beginning (Jesus's words). We compare and contrast the Roman Catholic. You conveniently (temporarily and temporally) define RC as something other than its fruits. We do not. That church is what it has done — what it has and hasn't brought forth.

        Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:43 KJVR)

        Time for your church to go. You can see it happening. It will happen.

        For your part I'm hoping you'll cease speaking on my behalf, telling me ego is getting in the way and suggesting I'm not responding directly or going off topic when I am entirely on topic and bringing to light deeper rooted issues requiring examination first so as to understand the overall context of the discussion at hand.

        Oh, ego is the topic. Also, you're completely wrong that I'm speaking on your behalf in the sense you mean it. The only way I'm speaking on your behalf is by saying the reasons that you need to renounce the Roman Catholic religion. You can keep what's right, but not what's wrong. There's plenty wrong too that you haven't admitted enough. I also didn't say "off topic" as you mean it. I've said ducking.

        To debate here, you're going to have to throw out all the stuff you've used against others. You're going to have to be more precise. You're going to have to be excruciatingly careful. Still, you'll lose because your Roman Catholicness is hopelessly misleading and misled. Until you see that, you're lost and dead of the Holy Spirit.

        Look, Kevin, when you come here to defend Roman Catholicism, you have to defend the "whole" (not) thing against the whole of the Real Liberal Christian Church. You don't get to tell me what I can and can't say. You can do that on your Roman Catholic blog.

        If I say it's ego, you can say it isn't. The people will decide though. What do you want me to produce, a papal bull saying that it is official Catholic position that Catholics are egoists before there is evidence to support that ego is getting in the way of the truth in the Roman Catholic Church? You don't know the truth when you hear it.

        I'll create a blogpost site for our discussions at RLCC, perhaps something called

        A Catholic Response to RLCC.

        Don't you host your blogs? I believe you meant blogspot. Google won't follow any comment links on Blogger blogs. In a word, that "stinks" for the purposes intended in this debate on either side.

        Anyway, you're Kevin.

        Tom

    • TMinut wrote
      "About the RCs, I've heard them pray to Mary, seen them kneel to statues, and heard them call priests Father - all things scripture says not to do. I don't know any catholics personally anymore so I can't say anything about that."

      TMinut I see Tom has replied to these comments he is however not fair in his representation and as I've noted elsewhere their are once again inaccuracies and false preceptions being presented of Catholic practice and belief.

      Prayer to Mary

      Let's start with defining the word PRAY, originally the word pray in old English simply meant, to ask, to request. Today when a non-Catholic Christian expresses they are praying they usually mean to say they are offering prayer to God as a sign of worship foremost and possibly as a request for forgiveness of sins or for aid whether that be spiritual or otherwise. Catholic Christians practice this type of prayer also but when a Catholic prays to Mary, it is never in the context of worship of God and only as a request for pray from Mary to God on their behalf.

      What do I mean? Well many Christians ask others to pray for them to the One God like asking Tammy down at the Bible Chapel, "Tammy can you pray for me?" Catholics do the same with Mary afterall she is the prefect example of what a creation of God should be in her total obedience to God and of course Jesus instructed it is right for us to pray for one another. In fact the Old Testament explains, "a righteous man's prayers avails much" and who are more righteous than those already with the Lord Jesus in heaven?

      Now Tom has clouded things further regarding prayer to Mary and/or her position in God's plan of salvation as understood by Catholics by dropping the unofficial title Co-Redemptrix. Clearly what isn't explained is, What does Co-Redemptrix theologically mean? Tom has therefore left it to your imagine to assume what you will of the title.

      Basically the title is saying Mary cooperates with Jesus Christ her son and Lord in God's overall plan of salvation. It is important to understand all Marian doctrine starts with Jesus Christ and therefore is not a reduction of Jesus but an affirmation of Jesus as the second person of the Holy Trinity One God. The prefix "co" comes from the Latin cum meaning, with and should not be mistaken as equal to. Mary can never be equal to her son and Lord simply because Mary is a creation of God and is taught as such by Catholic Christianity. Now the prime honor given Mary is because of several reasons including her direct contact with all 3 persons of the Holy Trinity and her complete acceptance of God's will in her own response to God something the rest of us find utterly impossible to do with consistence.
      It is, therefore, bearing false-witness to imply Mary is given Godly worship by Catholics and obviously this is what is normally suggested when a non-Catholic raises the topic. It is also wrong to suggest the Catholic Church has instructed such Godly worship of Mary as the Catholic Church clearly spells out in official Church documents, supported by both scripture and Christian tradition, there is only one God to be given Godly worship and Mary is not the one God.

      Next time I hope to explain your other two complaints, kneeling infront of statues and calling someone other than God in heaven Father. For now I'll simply remind you Jesus and the first peoples of the Book the Jews call Abraham, father.

      Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad" John 8:56

      • Response to Kevin's comment Submitted on 2008/12/31 at 9:52am"

        TMinut I see Tom has replied to these comments he is however not fair in his representation and as I've noted elsewhere their are once again inaccuracies and false preceptions being presented of Catholic practice and belief.

        "...not fair in his representation and as I've noted elsewhere their are once again inaccuracies and false preceptions...."

        Wow, Kevin, you sure aren't careful. You're reckless. In spite of Chris's other problems, he was right about this concerning you. I said;

        As for the RC's, yes they pray to Mary and do the other things you've written. They call Mary the Co-Redemptrix. This offends many people who feel it reduces Jesus. It is true that when one views RC's iconography, one is struck by Mary often being the focus. It's dishonest where it doesn't acknowledge Jesus's love/hate relationship with humanity, including his most immediate blood relatives, including Mary.

        I like Mary. It isn't improper of me to say that I love Mary. It isn't improper of me to say that her acts please me and sit well with me all qualified though by the full context of Jesus's teachings vis-a-vis Mary and the rest.

        There is nothing unfair there. There is no inaccuracy. There are no false perceptions.

        There are definitely Roman Catholics who pray to Mary. I didn't even say it was wrong to do it — even to her in the way you are scrambling to make sure no one thinks official Catholics do.

        Look, when you worship someone, you have to understand what worship is. We worship Jesus. People freak out at the thought of worshipping Mary. Worshipping Mary though is glorifying God. All I did was qualify it. I didn't split hairs. Kevin is defending against things that aren't there.

        There are issues with overly elevating in relative terms. Mary is a case in point concerning many, many Roman Catholics.

        At the other end, there are those within Protestantism who are so vehemently anti-Mary worship that their hate of all things feminine is clear, even as Roman Catholics won't have females "priests" (priestesses). It is interesting that Kevin places Mary as unworthy to be a priestess while he prays to her as the perfectly obedient. He will of course resort to scripture (Paul), who we've addressed here but Kevin has chosen to conveniently select the topics he'll cover.

        Mary afterall she is the prefect example of what a creation of God should be in her total obedience to God

        Now that's the place where the separation begins with those who assume and jump to conclusions. When Jesus turned the water into wine, he did so after rebuking his fleshly mother. To use the term perfect when referring to Mary without any qualifications is not a good thing. She was obedient up to a point. Concerning the water and wine and the timing thereof, she was premature. This is also the case with Jesus's brothers who urged him to go with them to the center of the world in the open. Jesus though rebuked them and did not go as they would have had him go. This is the truth.

        The Roman Catholic emphasis would have you focus upon Mary to the exclusion of these enlightening and instructive and invaluable truths. They can attempt to close the barn door after the horses are gone, but that really doesn't work in Heaven. I say that their emphasis-placing is misdirecting. Nevertheless, Kevin still must answer concerning war and not giving and sharing all things as the Commons dictates.

        Kevin thinks the readers here will be so lazy as to not avail themselves of a simple Google search on the term "Co-Redemptrix." That's insulting. Furthermore, anyone who won't bother with finding out more about the terms used on this blog isn't worthy. Kevin must be worried about turning the unturnable or retaining those who wouldn't come here to read at length regardless. Weak, Kevin.

        Kevin, you assume that no one may ask me in a comment, "Tom, what does it mean." You, yourself didn't ask me what it means within RLCC theology. What you did is assign the label enemy to shoot it down. However, you missed because you think I'm someone else.

        So far, in all of your comments on this blog it is obvious that you think I'm what you've met before. I tell you clearly and plainly that you've never met me or my kind before.

        You abuse the term "clouded." What is going on, on this blog is revealing, not clouding. The clouding done by the Roman Catholic Church over the ages is being removed so that the people may see that they should have been and could have been living with all things Common all along — something the Roman Catholic Church never put forth.

        Hey, Kevin, show us the papal bull where any pope put forth the Christian Commons — meaning for the whole church — mandatory.

        Why don't you put up or hold your peace? Why do you insist upon continuing to dig yourself deeper into a hole?

        You were instantly offended by the term Co-Redemptrix. Why? It's telling that you took offense.

        It is, therefore, bearing false-witness to imply Mary is given Godly worship by Catholics and obviously this is what is normally suggested when a non-Catholic raises the topic.

        You use two hedging words while you clearly stated that I misrepresented, which I did not. You said "imply" and "normally," but you said that I misrepresent and am unfair. I did not misrepresent, and unfairness is where I unreasonably say, end of questions and answers forevermore. I did not do that. Kevin, you're reckless. That's not bearing false witness against you either. It's a fact.

        As for kneeling in front of statues and calling priests father, let's hope Kevin won't conflate the mundane with the divine. Don't hold your breath though.

        You might prepare to ask him about the official miracles of the Roman Catholic Church pertaining to statues. It's an easy matter to say the statues are merely representational to bring things to mind. It's an easy matter to say that the statues are symbolic only and not the article of worship confused with the source. I don't say I disagree — Shocking for Kevin.

        He won't be able to attack preexisting Protestant arguments to destroy the Real Liberal Christian Church, which is his agenda. I'm not worried. I'm smiling in fact. The more he tries, the more transparent his recklessness. He's heaping hot coals on his head, not that that is what I want. What I want though is for people not to follow his awful example.

        As for father, Kevin isn't going to get it right even though he'll defend it from the traditional Roman Catholic position calling priests father.

        The problem isn't with calling them father. The problem is with confusing who is and who isn't the father and the abuse that occurs when Roman Catholic tradition has taught a blind obedience to the "fathers" the priests, which is as those who were mesmerized by them have characterized the experience (taught blind obedience) — the abused.

        Of course, there will be no papal bull saying that the Roman Catholic Church will turn a blind eye to such abuses, but the actual fruits speak in the absence of any such "proof" or "evidence" that would satisfy the Kevin's of this world, or do you accept the fruits as proof and evidence more than enough in this case, Kevin?

        That power was used over children who were sexually abused and which false-hearted "fathers" were protected and concealed and allowed to continue for many decades by the Roman Catholic Church from the top down with no guarantee that it didn't go on at the top with certain of the popes Kevin has admitted of being anti-popes (antichrists). The papacy still hasn't dealt with it properly. The so-called Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholics didn't work. The worms infested the root. Weak and false doctrines and practices flowing to and from them allow the worms in and to take over. Is that mere opinion? You decide. Do you trust what Kevin is telling you, or do you trust what I'm telling you? Who reminds you of Jesus speaking?

        Father, more food for thought:

        ...reject all such names and titles, as are used to signify an authoritative power over men's consciences, in matters of faith and obedience; in which, God and Christ are only to be attended to. Christ's sense is, that he would have his disciples not fond of any titles of honour at all; and much less assume an authority over men, as if they were to depend on them, as the founders of the Christian religion, the authors of its doctrines and ordinances; and to take that honour to themselves, which did not belong to them; nor even choose to be called by such names, as would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of them, and take off of their dependence on God the Father, and himself, as these titles the Scribes and Pharisees loved to be called by, did: and who were called not only by the name of Rabbi, but Abba, "Father" ... our Lord inveighs against them, and cautions his disciples against giving or taking all such titles, in such sense. "For one is your Father, which is in heaven"; who is so, both by creation and adoption, and is possessed of all paternal authority; and is to be honoured and obeyed by all; from whom all wisdom and knowledge is derived, and who has the care and government of all in heaven and in earth. — John Gill (1696-1771), Exposition of the New Testament (English, Reformed Baptist — strict Calvinist) http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm

        " target="_blank">http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm

        While Jesus told them their father was Abraham, he also told them their father was Satan. Explain that Kevin. Use your existing Roman Catholic doctrine to handle it for us. A loving father is strict. A loving son loves his loving father's corrections.

        Blessings,

        Tom

    • Hi Tom,

      after such an in-depth conversation I almost feel foolish tagging you for a "Meme" post, but I shall do so anyway. It would provide much interesting information that might help me understand your positions better. You can see my most recent post for the rules, etc.

      Peace/Salaam/Shalom

      • Hi Michael,

        I'm no fun. Let me think about it.

        I am smiling.

        The term "Meme" caught my eye first, and I thought I'd get to address that concept, which is actually spiritual but a pejorative when called a virus.

        Tom

    • Kevin, when you wrote this:
      - who are more righteous than those already with the Lord Jesus in heaven? -
      I understood the problem I have with this. Mary is DEAD. There has as yet been no resurrection so how can she be doing anything? But I realize most people believe that.

      Also, yes I have heard people pray specifically TO Mary, not asking her to intercede for them at all. That may not be official doctrine so I understand your point. My childhood friend also told me there are all these other dead saints that can intervene in our lives and directly affect us here on earth. She prayed TO them by name asking for them to do certain things for them in their "area of specialty". Perhaps she was misunderstanding, we were young.

      The whole father issue I've never quite understood, we HAVE earthly fathers. Normally people have other names to call them and refer to them in pretty much all languages that I know of. Calling Abraham "father of the faith" is way different than calling some other man "father" in a religious sense. A biological father is the one who "started" you. A spiritual father is the one who "started" you spiritually. That would be Abraham and I don't think it's right to give that to someone else even if they're the ones who taught you about the Holy Father. They're "descendants" as well.

      Still, even that I understand, you look at someone with more knowledge and perhaps experience with heavenly things than you initially do as a sort of father. But I can't get away from Yeshua saying not to call someone father in that way.

      Even if a religion is totally wrong, a sincere adherent is better than one who knows truth and gives only lip service or ignores it. Because a sincere seeker will be shown his error, either now or in days to come. We can only do what we can, how can YHWH hold us responsible for understanding what He didn't reveal to us? We may believe and try to understand but it doesn't come from us in the first place. This is what confuses me about people who were preachers and now have decided "God" was never real. How is it that He n

      =================
      You have to be wide open to other people when the Spirit of the Holy comes in you or you'll explode.

      • Hi TMinut,

        I didn't offer up anything on your last comment right away because it was directed to Kevin. I thought I'd wait to let Kevin answer here. However, he is going to go about it via the new blog he's creating, which is fine. So, I'm going to address your comment because readers may realize some benefit. I trust you will not think it inappropriate even though your comment was directed to Kevin. It is fine with me if anyone responds to anyone else here. Individuals don't have to feel obligated to wait either. It's situational and up to the spirit as to how each will or will not be moved. Progress to the truth is my goal.

        So about Mary being dead, Jesus also said that the God of Abraham is the God of the living. As for the timing of the resurrection, Jesus also told the criminal next to him at the crucifixion that he, the criminal, would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day. Of course, Paul holds that Jesus when to Hell in the interim until his resurrection. Are these all unsolvable paradoxes? Does one have to be irrational to believe all these things simultaneously? No. It's all contextual. It's all a matter of semantics. Where is it written that Jesus cannot be in more than one place at a time? Where is it written that Einsteinian time/space pertains in Heaven? The atheists will hate this revelation. In their view, it won't be fair. Dream on.

        It is helpful of you to have said to Kevin, "That may not be official doctrine so I understand your point." However, let's not lose sight of the root issues between the Roman Catholic Church and the Real Liberal Christian Church. Jesus was and is a communist. We are to come to that. The church of Rome doesn't preach that here and now for the here and now. You know that, and so does Kevin. Let's get at the root of the matter. It's called being radical. I am for the radical change called for my Jesus. Kevin's church is not calling for that for all of its members. It stands being rebuked for it but refuses to turn to it.

        I too have known Roman Catholics. I too asked questions. I read (overviewed) the Catholic Catechism decades ago. My fleshly father was an Anglo-Catholic priest (Dean) who went from so-called low to high church, so I witnessed it and was made aware of the distinctions. Our prayers in church were for the "Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church." I understand the episcopacy only too well. I know about the hierarchy.

        Now Kevin may claim that there is a huge gap between Anglicanism and the Pope, but he would be overstating the case. A large portion of the Anglican Church may very well rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the only reason for the split was Henry VIII and his temporal wives and heirs. The Anglican Church was not Protestant. It struggled back and forth with Protestantism in England, but the monarchy won out returning the divine right of kings and almost popes to England for a term. At any rate, the King James Version of the Bible still stands only with slightly up-to-date spellings. The Geneva Bible of the Reformed church was replaced. That's no small matter.

        As for the veneration of saints, it does become difficult for people especially the young to differentiate on such a level. In an earlier comment/post though, I pointed out that Constantine I, the Caesar, was beatified by the Roman church. Now, Constantine I was a worldly empire builder who gained by force of arms. What church calls that saintly? What church might overlook such unrepented behavior to canonized Constantine for whatever reason? I say that that church is not the church of Jesus Christ.

        Can one pray to Constantine to make intercession with the Holy Spirit? Yes, but it won't be efficacious, not if one knows about what Constantine did.

        There are saints. Is the Roman Catholic Church the rightful body for determining who will or won't be appreciated and designated as such? I say no. I say that based upon results.

        As for Abraham being "father of the faith," I know the feeling. However, the faith existed before Abraham. Melchizedek had the faith to which you are referring and was higher than was Abraham in the usual sense people think of higher. Moses is credited with the faith. I won't go on about it.

        There is though a place of demarcation that is the crucifixion. You and I hold that Jesus continued to unfold the true faith. Many Jews in name and blood didn't go along and still haven't and have died never to be alive again in the sense Jesus terms spiritually. So, Yah is more revealed by any name though we make and keep the connection with the progression of prophecy even though we call Yah, God, Deus, the Divine One, the Most High, etc. We say they are the same name when the same heart is involved.

        We are not to call any man that one unless that man is that one. That's where Jesus enters. At what point does the son become the father? Well, Jesus says that the servant never exceeds the master but that he, Jesus, is one with the one and that his, Jesus's, disciples are his friends and not just his servants in the mundane sense-meaning. This is all mystical and readily accessible to the softhearted. It's one of the reasons why all the heresy trials and the resulting punishments, torturings, imprisonments, banishments, killings, etc. were all wrong things, wrong approaches. The people authorized to do these wicked deeds were not authorized of God but of delusional self. It's contextual. No one is allowed to do anything that God does not allow. That's inherent. This is not a false paradox here. It all must be reconciled in the mind while remaining completely rational. It can be done. I sit here.

        Now, Kevin doesn't intend that anyone call anyone father in contradiction of Jesus. So, that's not the issue. That's an issue with the splitters of hairs that don't exist — don't signify. It is the conceptualizations that matter and then what we do as in what we bring forth. Think of it this way. All the time that people have been yakking back and forth about this, when have they brought forth the Christian Commons? The only things important about this are how it has been used to put off the weightier matters. So don't call me father and think of me as the perfect one until I get there, as with Jesus. No problem, easy, solved....

        Pope Benedict XVI is not the Holy Father. He's Joe. Hi Joe. Hi brother if he will be. You see what happens there? It doesn't drop Joe down. It lifts you up if you will. That's the kind of leveling up that Jesus does. Hi Abba. That's talking about God. That's not disrespectful. That's family. God wants to be loved at least as well as we love our fleshly fathers. He wants familiarity. He wants us to relax with him. I don't mean let down our guard against sin though. Are we unworthy? Can God clean us up?

        The Muslims though for instance will have none of this. Look at the result. The Roman Catholics and the Muslims fought long and hard. How many died? The now false-Jews wanted none of this too. They murdered Jesus for even hinting at it. What they did though was attempt to retard spiritual development with which Jesus clearly came and that he did deliver, although few have grasped it that is done it.

        God is a verb as well as a noun. Do the Roman Catholics teach that? I know the Calvinist will admit it while vehemently defending capitalism. For the Calvinists, giving and sharing all spoils their material predestination.

        Even if a religion is totally wrong, a sincere adherent is better than one who knows truth and gives only lip service or ignores it. Because a sincere seeker will be shown his error, either now or in days to come. We can only do what we can, how can YHWH hold us responsible for understanding what He didn't reveal to us?

        Well felt, thought, and said.

        Love and Truth,

        Tom Usher

        • Hi All,

          If you think that Christ didn't and doesn't become exasperated, you don't know him as well as I do. I don't have endless patients with people who care more about being sappy, false-heartedly friendly than they care about people being bombed. They aren't my true friends. I'm picky that way. So is Jesus. Ask him. No matter how unfriendly the "friendly" ones are though, I won't resort to bombing them or doing any other violent or coercive things to take their fleshly lives. Neither will Jesus. They'll do that to each other though out of the real hardness in their hearts that brings forth such abominations. They get what they do. That's God's standard while God isn't the author of such sins. Figure it out. I have. It's doable.

          Blessings,

          Tom Usher

    • Tom,

      yes I meant to write, blogspot. I also meant to write, hearsay, regarding an inability to provide supporting documentation.

      I appreciate your attempts at correcting my spelling yet understand I should do my own proof-reading before posting comments.

      I'll setup the blogspot site linking the first post of this thread then I think it is appropriate I return to that initial post and continue pointing out your inaccuracies in presenting Catholic Christian practice and belief. This point by point process will not be rushed. I do not intend to cover everything in one long post.

      I'll submit the blogspot hyper-links to your comments section here for the benefit of all following the discussion at the RLCC website.

      On another note, distressing to read you intend to embrace a derogatory manner when conversing with your Catholic Christian readers (and possibly other brethren) I forgive in advance this disparaging behavior.

      Finally, in response to your new comments,

      "He won't be able to attack preexisting Protestant arguments to destroy the Real Liberal Christian Church, which is his agenda. I'm not worried."

      I thought you've already claimed not be of the Protestant "reforming" line? interestingly you embrace something 1600 years removed from Christ when you want to.

      Perhaps I'm mistaken about that adoption of, "Protestant arguments" yet you've also decided to quote to me a hyper-Calvinist John Gill? Gill is a direct descendant of this Continental[European] Separatism, which had expanded to England, he was a leader in the "Reformed Church" hmmm

      Discussion on Gill will have to wait as your initial post is calling for correction and I wouldn't want you to keep implying an avoidance of issues to your audience.

      Oh regarding, "destroy the Real Liberal Christian Church" you are doing a good job of that all on your own. My concern when first posting to the RLCC website was never with it's destruction or survival, besides, if it was truly of God's creation and promise nothing could destroy it!

      Peace to you brother and
      a Happy New Year

      • Hello Kevin and All,

        The back and forth with you, Kevin, no longer holds the possibility of debate, unless it radically alters. I can give answers and pose questions. You can do the same. Debate though is another matter. The current back and forth doesn't qualify.

        You wrote the following:

        [Quoting me] "He won't be able to attack preexisting Protestant arguments to destroy the Real Liberal Christian Church, which is his agenda. I'm not worried."

        I thought you've already claimed not be of the Protestant "reforming" line? interestingly you embrace something 1600 years removed from Christ when you want to.

        Perhaps I'm mistaken about that adoption of, "Protestant arguments" yet you've also decided to quote to me a hyper-Calvinist John Gill? Gill is a direct descendant of this Continental[European] Separatism, which had expanded to England, he was a leader in the "Reformed Church" hmmm

        It isn't a debate when the other side or party can't follow or pick up on the level of intelligence involved. To even consider what you've suggested, you would have to think me a moron. If I were as dull as your consideration suggests, why in the world would you be worried about any readers in terms of the Roman Catholic dogma? Anyone on that level will not handle the minutia (it's actually not refined to me) of your apologetics in any case. I'm not going to cut you the slack you require, not when you've come here making as bold as you have for war, greed, and yes, even sexual depravity (as indirect as you may think the link to sexual depravity may be or even not at all). Your church allows for homosexual priests just so long as they don't act out. My Church requires conversion. A homosexual may inquire to be healed, but giving up all homosexual temptations is required. It's a high standard. Few there be that find it. The Roman Catholic Church is narrow about some things but very wide about others (big tent; too big; wide path).

        Kevin, when you read me, pick on each word choice even. "He won't be able to attack preexisting Protestant arguments to destroy the Real Liberal Christian Church." Now look at that. Slow down, which you want to do anyway, and focus on the words and what they say. "He won't be able to attack preexisting Protestant arguments." Kevin, you have been here attacking preexisting Protestant arguments. Doing that doesn't attack the RLCC. It doesn't touch the RLCC. As I once told a laissez-faire neoconservative (a walking contradiction) who was here ripping Stalin to destroy me, "You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm over here."
        This is why this back and forth with you does not rise to the level of debate. This is not to say that I don't choose words here or there that in hind sight should have been substituted with a better word or words, but really....

        Now, in a reverse sense of course, that's an insult if you take it that way. I prefer to think of it as an opportunity for you to reflect and to grow.

        I have clearly stated that I am not a Protestant. I have also clearly stated that in order for you to refute my Church, you'll have to refute that for which my Church (I) stands and not refute that for which it doesn't stand, which is Calvinism, etc. The same held with the capitalist concerning Marxism. He gave up claiming he hadn't lost and didn't convert. He held he was a Christian and that Jesus would rebuke me for not going to war to take men's lives. When I was firm with him, others thought I was rude — very telling about what is important to them versus truth. They bomb people to death but call me rude, as they called Jesus rude in one way or another.

        Furthermore, when I offer food for thought, it is just that. This is part of exercising care. Your mind runs to the reckless. If I quote Karl Marx or even Karl Rove and say "food for thought," wherein does that say "thoughts to endorse"? It doesn't.

        Hold me to a much higher standard in your head. Chris did. (For readers, a post on this particular Chris's blog is where Kevin and I began this back and forth.) Chris couldn't quite follow (he may yet), but he was irritated that I wasn't already at what he considers the highest level of understanding. Of course, how may one see more than one is given to see? TMinut made the same observation earlier in this comment thread by posing, "how can YHWH hold us responsible for understanding what He didn't reveal to us?" Well, I'm revealing what has been revealed. I don't say that it is all there is. Jesus is where he knows more than I know. I know though that Jesus is revealing himself to me in ways that he hasn't revealed himself to Benedict XVI but is through me if Benedict will hear the truth.

        You though are coming at me with the view that I'm really not worthy of all the attention you're giving to me in your mind, hopefully turning people from my spell or however your College of Cardinals would vote to term it, if you were privy to that, which I don't think you are necessarily.

        There are more things Roman Catholic than you know. You do know that don't you? You do know that you don't speak for Roman Catholicism but that Benedict XVI does, whether or not you may or may not conclude that he's one of those anti-popes you've admitted existed — You know, one of the ones the College of Cardinals, guided by all the dogma, tradition, etc., elected to be the supreme authority on the planet in matters of faith but turned out to be an anti-pope, sort of how the Americans elected George W. Bush to be the anti-President so to speak.

        Many people say it wasn't the fault of the American system of government that George W. Bush became President of the United States. He cheated to get elected afterall. Well, whose spirit was governing the nation that chose to let him stay on? Ah, well that's not the fault of the electorate. Congress refused to do the will of the people. However, the people can force Congress. The Biblical point is that the people get what they create. The innocent are harmed, but that's why the Bible works so hard to explain the fallen, guilty condition. At the same time though, scripture becomes ambiguous on the subject in that it makes clear that the sins of the fathers will stop being passed on to the succeeding generations. So what was right before? TMinut touched on that in considering that wiping out the guilty back then (under Moses and Joshua/Jesus, meaning Yahoshua) may actually have been "right" given what was known/revealed at the time.

        No, I'm what I said I am. I'm not here defending Protestantism. I don't need to. I'm not a separatist from Jesus. I never have been. I was never a Roman Catholic either.

        I've seen for some time now that you point out that something such as the term Roman Catholic came from Protestants in a way that suggests that that is sufficient to restore your church. It isn't. Those who are not of your persuasion, myself included, deliberately refer to you by that name "Roman Catholic" to differentiate ourselves from your doctrines. Many Protestants do that while upholding doctrines with which I do not hold. Take care to work from this point. Otherwise, you're harming your potential.

        Also, you have a preoccupation with saying that you want to point out my inaccuracies about Roman Catholic practices and beliefs. Here's the pattern you've shown.

        If I were to say that iconography is wrong. You would argue that what I am saying is iconography isn't prohibited by scripture. You would seek to justify what the Roman Catholic Church does in that regard by defining away any notion of iconography with which the Roman Catholic Church thinks in its own circular way does not wish to be considered Roman Catholic. You are faced with being frustrated by anyone who thinks you're just masking what is plainly iconography that that one holds to be idol worship.

        However, that whole train or method doesn't suit the Real Liberal Christian Church (RLCC). The RLCC says that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not the way because the RCC, not the RLCC, holds with the concept called "just war" including in a way that it admits officially. The RCC, not the RLCC, also holds with capitalism. Read my recent post, "THE INHERENT TREACHERY OF AVARICE (CAPITALISM)."http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2008/12/28/the-inherent-treachery-of-avarice-capitalism.html Then, explain why I am the one writing this rather than the Pope? Who is right on the subject in your view, the Pope or I?

        The Roman Catholic Church officially allows capitalism to stay and employs it without hyper-revulsion (forced by Satan being the god of this world, which he is, for lack of throwing off capitalism, among other things). Now, to defeat the RLCC, you must show that Jesus Christ holds with this "just war" concept and that he holds with teaching that capitalism is at least acceptable as a consequence of having brought forth after whenever the church of Rome took it upon itself to claim global supremacy in the worldly so-called Christian Empire. Don't say that your church didn't do that or that it doesn't hold that position officially.

        It most certainly does. It's a really, really long time (too long, much, much too long) to still not have gotten around to denouncing capitalism in no uncertain terms and replacing it within the church body and displacing it within the world.

        So there's your challenge. Defend the just war and capitalism and not against Calvin, whose positions I destroy more than does your own church. You have more in common with Calvin than do I. You have more in common with all of the Protestants than do I because they are all post-Nicene, whereas I'm still ante. You see, I don't hold with the coercion that was used concerning the whole Council of Nicaea. I don't hold with Arianism either. The whole thing was a non-starter in my book. So what if Arius believed what he believed. No one had any business violently coercing others about such things. Jesus didn't do it, so no real Christian believes he or she can either.

        Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the heretic. Debate that. Do you ever ask God in the name of Jesus?

        On another of your "points," what do you think disparagement means? You are here disparaging the Real Liberal Christian Church. You are in my house doing that. You've been doing that since you arrived. When I said that you are here attempting to destroy this Church, you didn't take exception to that. What do think, you're going to destroy me but not disparage me? It's this kind of weak dung that won't even grow weeds. Jesus disparages them. He calls them serpents. It was Peter who was afraid of offending them, not Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus paid his unrighteous taxes to Satan from the mouth of the first fish of God.

        Read my post about Rick Warren, "RICK WARREN'S VIDEO MESSAGE: SADDLEBACK CHURCH: MISLED AND MISLEADING." Where do you stand on this, with me or against me?

        So more/same questions for you, why haven't you answered about whether or not you're a member of Opus Dei or the Freemasons? Are you ever going to do that? Are you going to wait until no one here is bothering to discuss anything with you any further because you haven't answered and then claim, see, I answered? You've complained about being overwhelmed here. How long would it have taken to write, "I'm a member of Opus Dei," or "I'm not a member of Opus Dei"?

        You say you're going to go back through the thread to/and answer every question but not necessarily in one post. Will you give us an idea of how long you think it will take you to at least give even the shortest answer to cover each question. If you say that yes you are in Opus Dei or were or are working on it or whatever, no one here can preclude your then going on to wax about Opus Dei. We can all read the Opus Dei front page and dig in as far as they provide whatever they want out there as their front though.

        Anyway, I sincerely hope you can rise to the occasion and focus on the difference between the RLCC and the RCC rather than falsely imagining that you've come here to defend the RCC against the Protestants. Hello, as the kids say.

        So, it isn't your practices and beliefs as held out there and defined by you within your chosen worldview that signifies in Heaven here. It is the fruit, the results, the consequences of your system. If you are going to defend the RCC against the RLCC, you must show that the RLCC way is inferior — that were it to be followed, it would not result in better than what has resulted from the RCC after all the centuries. Impossible!

        You allow in warmongers to stay warmongers. I allow warmongers to come and convert from being warmongers to total pacifists. You allow in rabid capitalist to stay rabid capitalists. I allow capitalists to enter to convert to communists (Christians). Those who revert are rebuked. Those who don't conform after the progressive verbal discipline are treated as what they are, which are heathens. If you don't understand here, I'm calling you a heathen by Jesus's standards. It's happening in public because you are not in the Church. You are not in the Church for the purposes of the verbal progressive discipline because you have never joined the Church. You have never committed to the real, liberal, Christian standard, which is pacifism and the giving and sharing all economy, among other things, all consistent with Jesus's progressive requirements. Your church started wrong and stands there. It is not Jesus's church.

        Okay? So that's what is at stake here, not a papal bull here or there. It's called getting to the heart of the matter versus beating around the bush. If you are going to continue beating around the bush or claiming that you need time to say whether or not you hold with war, the system of the unrighteous mammon, or unconverted homosexuality, etc., you are wasting everyone's time. To use the expression of Harry Truman, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't stand the baptism of fire, be prepared to stay with the un-purged.

        I thank you though for coming here (the Holy Spirit for sending you) to make it possible for me (by the Holy Spirit) to show where right and wrong lie, which is definitely not where the wishy-washy Pope Benedict XVI, your infallible one in matters of faith, says it is.

        In his public prayer "ringing in" the new year (2009), he couldn't bring himself to say, we need to dump capitalism. He just dished out a bunch of warm and fuzzy language carefully crafted so as not to offend and to give him plenty of wiggle room. You can let him know that this is what I've said about him too, bless his heart.

        Peace to you too, as in though may God give you the truth that I'm telling you the truth here, but we can't call each other brothers in Christ because your Christ and mine aren't the same personalities. Yours is a war maker. Mine is a peacemaker only and always, even though he's so rude. I love his rudeness. It's just right. There's no peace in capitalism.

        By the way, is the unrepentant Tony Blair your spiritual brother? He's not mine. He's my fleshly brother at best who I wish could see the light. He's not finding it in his new church. Of course, he wasn't finding it in his old church either. They can't decide that homosexuality is wrong in Jesus eyes as Jesus clearly stated against the fornicators which every homosexual is and will remain regardless of any secular laws to the contrary or any so-called Christian church that imagines it is marrying homosexuals.

        When your Pope took a walk in the White House garden holding hands with George W. Bush, he should have slapped him down hard — rebuked him verbally with the truth him hard as a loving father would and should. Bush should have taken it as a loving embrace and not a slap (context; semantical understanding required). Benedict didn't do that though — tolerant? — condoning while being wishy-washy — your Cardinals' choice. Do you stand there too? Watch out. You better turn them or move away.

        Consistency, Kevin. That's the ticket.

        Bless you,

        For the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons
        Tom Usher

    • TMinut,

      I'll create a separate post-thread for discussion on usage of "father" at blogspot keep your eye out for the link would love to continue talking with you.

      Peace of Christ