₦airaland Forum

honeychild: The Catholics compiled the Bible, true. But the Catholic church will be the first to admit that more than 80% of their doctrines and beliefs are not founded on Scripture. The Catholic church did a lot of borrowing of false doctrines from the Pagans around them.

Examples of Catholic practices and belief that have no biblical basis:

1. use of the rosary - Catholics have this in common with Muslims and some eastern religion.

2. the teaching that Mary did not die but ascended bodily into heaven.

3. Using a wafer for Mass instead of bread and wine.

etc

Boomark: ^^My advice to you is whenever you see the truth, consider it carefully and follow it. We are in the vanguard of propagating the truth.

Are you asking me to learn about God and what He wants us to do from catholic when i have the bible?

If what catholics do is the opposite, the bible shows it. See a perfect analogy here: you are an engineer(Christian), am an engineer(Christian). If you engage in wrong practices(idol worship), i will go to engineering handbook(bible) and show you that it is wrong to use filing machine to file fufu.

All truth is in the bible. Better debunk the truth in my analogies cos you can't get anything about me without proving me wrong from the scriptures.

greatgenius: you still have refused to get it/remember ....but I will try one more time...why and how in God's name would you differentiate the thoughts from the expression .. it is the same thing .. you are your thoughts.. God is thought..God is Energy. Thought is energy come together. Form/word is thought expressed.. is the thought and the form it takes shapes In not one and the same?

Put another way since you correctly understand God to be energy...when energy takes on form and becomes matter has it has the energy stopped existing?.. is matter and energy really not the same thing? Matter is coalesced energy..elements come together vibrating at a lower speed.. energy in " slow motion".. it is energy in-formation ( energy information)..nothing has changed except energy taking on a form..

[b]Now on you analogy yes the plane is YOU.. you are what you create..[/b]but since you still living in the illusion and see the need to differentiate and separate yourself from All That Is, I will explain..

God is all there is. There is Nothing else. Energy is all there is.. everything both seen and unseen is the totality of God..it is not possible for God to create anything outside of itself. There is nothing else outside of itself..to create the plane God would have to use a part of himself to create the new expression/plane...

If you were all there was and no one or anything else but you, you would have to "create" your plane from a part of you..Thus the Creator becomes the created..I hope you now understand the saying everything that exists has existed and will exist ..That's why it is also said that you are an expression of God.. the father and the son are one and the same.. these are all very advanced concept so I would understand if you still don't get it. believe me I made the right observation about you. You truly don't understand what or who God is..
lol how do you differentiate you thoughts from your expression.. your expressions are your thoughts. You are what you think and express. Thoughts are energy and your " being " is energy expressed.. it doesn't matter if you were expressed during time as you know it or prior to time, you have always existed as thought/energy/God and will always exist as such irrespective of current form. well good.. we getting somewhere
why can't you agree.. and what is what I wrote anything to do with idolatry. Why must you or feel the need to worship another.. that's ignorance because you know not who you really are..

hahaha back at cha .. you obviously have a while to go. What do you think something and nothing are ? But no need to repeat myself here.. I asked you to think about my simple question deeply and its obvious you didn't get deep enough..go back read my question, understand it and from everything I have uttered so far, try again

striktlymi: Good evening Dextra,

I am really glad that you have inspired a lot of people with this thread.

As part of my lenten obseravnce I decided to stop a bad habit I picked up while I was in my teens. This habit has been with me for some time now and its time to put a stop to it.

This is what I have decided to give to God this lent. I really felt like going back to this habit just today but I remembered my resolve and stopped. This thread would be a good way of keeping track of my progress.

My goal is to be steadfast this lent and also substitute this bad habit with the opposite virtue which I intend to carry on after the lent and hopefully by God's grace it will be a permanent feature in my life.

Thank you!

honeychild: @ musKeeto

That is why I posted the links so you could do some research....or you could google 'parable of Lazarus.'

TV01: A gay union is de facto infertile. No supposedly “in love” gay couple can procreate and be blessed with “one flesh“ offspring.
Gays simply cannot “go forth and multiply, or be “fruitful”. It’s an abomination to the divine creational order and undeniably against nature.

Speaking of procreation in a fuller sense viz; “the raising and nurture of children”; by its very nature, it pre-empts the possibility of a child being raised in a loving union of both natural parents and always means that one is missing. To knowingly deny a child the presence of either of its natural parents is simply cruel.

Key developmental indictors are triggered and behaviours catalysed by the presence and appropriate nurture of both – different gender - parents. Oddly enough, compromising this in some respects can often trigger gay inclinations.

Back to the point about being “in love”, three things; 1. No amount of being in love can change the divine creation or natural order. 2. Marriage is not primarily predicated on love, although for a joyous union it is essentially that love is mutually given.

I did say 3 things. Point 3 is worthy of its “own show”, hence I’ll hive it off. This is not actually about love, it’s about deviant sex, it’s about forcing – legally - those who rightly consider it unnatural and abhorrent to accept and endorse it. Activism – no matter how strenuous - does not alter divine, natural and obvious truth.

The blanket, uncompromising – and quite frankly deceitful - use of the word love is to disguise the above and shift focus away from the consequences of gay sex. What the Bible calls the penalty of their error.

I won’t go into the absolutely stomach turning detail about the ramifications of gay sex here, rather I would urge everyone too search it out for themselves via the net. Numerous studies detail all too graphically the resultant pathologies of the unnatural act of gay sex and the gay lifestyle. Read it for yourselves. I suggest you start with “Gay Bowel Syndrome”.

I don’t promote real discrimination against those with gay inclinations, neither do I condemn them. I simply don’t want the gay lifestyle promulgated in society or taught to my children as an equally valid and healthy alternative to the male & female union.

I would be the first to acknowledge that marriage as an institution has suffered terrible abuse at the hands of so called heterosexuals. However, the response to that is not to pervert it, but to re-affirm it, champion it and celebrate it in the proper form and context.

In many aspects it’s something that I would simply consider further evidence of mans continued post-fall descent and evidence of a turning away from their Creator and glorifying the creation (themselves and their desires).

However, in this case I simply cannot “waka pass”. Once promulgated legally by state fiat, it follows that it will be equally endorsed and championed by every state-sponsored or affiliated organisation and by extension their employees and citizens– whether they agree with it or not.

The gay lobby has done a good job of building a straw-man of “love” and falsely making it about civil rights. Of getting it de-listed as a psychiatric condition – which it was merely a generation ago and undeniably is, even if only in part. Of erasing any pejorative medical terms regarding the pathologies and keeping the epidemiological health studies quieted. Of stilling dissenting voices with accusations of bigotry. Of using the media and entertainment industries to make it appear normal and acceptable, whilst placing high profile gays in strategically sensitive and influencing positions. The truth holds sure. It is simply wrong, unnatural and against Divine order to act on, promote, celebrate or champion gay inclinations and lifestyle.

Biblically, both testaments portray homosexual activity as an abomination in the clearest and most emphatic terms. Romans 1 alone is unequivocal in terming it unnatural, unhealthy, a direct challenge to Gods glory and ultimately rejection of God himself. That is why its considered particularly profane. That is why it is, and should be, resisted with such fervour.

If one does not agree with the Bible fine, reject it. But please spare us the feeble attempts – especially by so called clergy - to re-interpret it to fit the times. I personally shake my head at all such efforts, no matter how seemingly heartfelt. Because like marriage , it’s not about what you feel, it’s about Gods intent, Gods design and Gods purpose.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out”

MostHigh: FLUID26 CONTRARY TO THE INTERPRETATION YOU HAVE GIVEN PLEASE OBSERVE THAT
1.WE CAN CONFIRM FROM SCRIPTURE PETER WAS ACCOUNTABLE AND NOT INFALLIBLE SO WHERE DO YOU AND YOUR BRETHREN GETS THIS LOGIC FROM

2. THE TRANSLITERATION FOR THE WORDS PETRA AND PETROS IN THE VERSE YOU QUOTED WETHER IN GREEK OR ARAMAIC REFER TO 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, ONE BEING MASCULINE AND THE OTHER FEMININE.

3. IN 1PETER 2:4-9 THE APOSTLE CONSTANLY REFERS TO YASHUA AS THE STONE UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT (1ST CONTRADICTION)

4. IN THE GOSPEL OF MATHEW CHAPTER 19:28 WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT ALL THE APOSTLES SHARED EQUAL DESCIPLESHIP UNDER CHRIST AND NOT PETER. 12 THRONES 12 ELDERS OVER ISREAL WITH YASHUA ON TOP

5. AND FINALLY EVEN IF ONE WAS TO PERCIVE A SENSE OF ONE APOSTLE SPEAKING FOR ALL IN JUDGMENT JAMES THE JUST WOULD BE THEM MAN. PLEASE NOTE ACTS 15:19 (MY SENTENCE IS THUS)

LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE YASHUA HAS NO VICE (VICAR) OR SSISTANT AND NONE OF HIS APOSTLES EVER CLAIMED THIS TITLE

AND ANYONE THAT CLAIMS TO BE SUCH IS THE LAWLESS MAN (SATAN)
PEACE LOVE AND JOY!!

fluid26: Matthew 16:18
''And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.''
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. And in that context, he is deemed infallible...even in the face of glaring errors. Leave church leadership for it's appointed leaders. Don't align yourself with those who make attempt at ridiculing the church, lest you declare yourself an enemy of Christ.

wiegraf: No, they aren't. They've at least sued as many as they could catch. That's the point, there may be bigger fish here to fry, culpable, but because religion is involved it seems they may be above the law.

Main issue here to investigate, just like with any other organization: WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY?

Edits

MostHigh: KEEP ON JUSTIFYING RITIUALISTIC SEX ABUSE AND TORTURE

MostHigh: WHAT ABOUT THE BILLIONS PAYED OUT TO VICTIMS IN COURTS IN IRELAND AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA IS THIS ALSO FABRICATION
SINCE THIS ISSUE IS ADDRESSING A PARTICULAR FAITH (ONE CLOTH) ITS EITHER A QUESTION OF BEING COMPLICIT OR OF YOU CONFESSING THE CRIMES ARE HEDIOUSE AND THE VICTIMS DESERVE JUSTICE (MINUS THE CASH BENEFITS).
THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.
ALL ELSE NA JUST LONG TALK
PEACE LOVE AND JOY!!

kmcutez: Yes I said all of them. Some priests sodomize little boys and male babies and the remaining priests cheer them on. I'm sure all of them priests go to the vatican several times a year to review techniques on how best they can sodomize little boys and male babies. The authorities should look for pamphlets printed by the catholic church and the pope, on how best to abuse little boys and male babies and ways and techniques in keeping their victims quiet. There is their evidence.

Bunch of paedophilic bastards.

kmcutez: You my friend are a paedophile supporting your fellow paedophiles priests. Catholic priests my foot. I'm sure one of the requirements to being a pope and a priest is the ability to be able to f.uuck little boys and male babies. Mumu catholic.

kmcutez: The catholic church is an evil and criminal organization and should be disbanded. Bunch of p.edophiles, abusing innocent children.

All their priests, including the pope should be rounded up and placed in maximum security prison, and they should be given out free to other prisoners with large diicks to be b.utt fuucked daily.

plaetton: C'mon man.
You guys are seriously out of touch with reality.
Can you not see that most of the victims only had the courage to come forward and speak up in their adulthood, after several decades?.
Do you know what it take for an adult to sum up courage to open up about sexual abuse , talk less of children?
Even the victims of ordinary rape and sexual abuse cases hardly have enough courage to report to their families, talk less of a young adolescent parishioner reporting to his parents or the police that he just had bottom intimacy with his highly respected and reverend priest.
Do you know the guilt, shame, fear, confusion and trauma accompanies such evil?
What kind of perverse la la land are you guys living in?.
Next thing you, will be telling us that it was consentual, or that the youths seduced or tempted your holy priests.
Like I said before, all of you should shut up in shame and stop doing more damage to your so-called hallowed institution.
Let the spin pros do their diplomatic face-saving and fence mending with the public.
You guys are bringing more embarrassment to the catholic church.

plaetton: Still yapping like a drunken parrot.
Are you for real?
I just can't believe you guys.
I thought religion was supposed to be about the refinement of one's soul.
How are you so soulless?
Do you really understand the issues involved in these molestation cases or you just too eager to show off your ignorance and bellicosity?
Your arguments are sooooo infantile, that I dont know whether to laugh at your ignorance or cry for your lack of empathy for the young victims of these heinous crimes.

Please read your own post again and again, and see if a little common sense may strike you, even if by accident.


Are you completely ignorant of the fact that these victims were children and adolescents?
Young Children, some of whom were in orphanages and group homes under the stewardship of these priests?
Do you understand the respect,power and awe that a priest enjoys from his parishioners, especially the young?
Do you, at all, have any understanding of the psychology and trauma of se.xual abuse by authority figures?

So, in your wicked and perverse catholic mind, you think it is the duty of the child victims of the se.xual molestation to report the matters to the police, and not bishops or church authorities?

YOU are F*****ing Stu.pi.d.
.. and probably a child molester yourself.

Lovethywilbedon: Honestly with this you have not made any point. Why are you becoming too emotional? If you get tired, why don't you go and have a break and take some Kit Kat. If you become angry, why don't go and hug a nearby Transfomer ? Besides you have not answered my questions. If you can't answer my question, why don't you stop qouting my comment. For the last time let me repeat my questions. A priest is not above the law, we both agree on this. Now if a priest molested someone and the victim reported to the police, what stops the police from arresting the priest? Are you expecting the Bishop to take handcuffs and AK47 to go and arrest the priest? (thereby doing the work of the Police) or are you expecting him to go and report a Crime he did not witness?(thereby repeating the work of the victim). Finaly by not doing the work of the police or repeating the work of the Victim, how is he covering up the case? Please just answer my questions and stop manifesting your FRUSTRATIONS.

Evil Brain: Omar Al Basheer is a serving head if state and yet he has an arrest warrant on hisbhead. The moment he sets foot in any sensible, law-abiding country he's going to be arrested and flown to the Hague. I don't see why the pope should be any different.
Nobody is above the law. Let him defend himself in court.

ijawkid: So the pope now becomes the leader of an independent state??...is that what peter was??....let's not go there sha.......

If the pope has got so much immunity so as not to be free for arrest then I think something is really wrong........has he now become a political ruler or just a servant of Christ??...........this scenario is worse than that of the G.O's in nigeria who walk about with armed security men..........I can't believe that the pope is above the law.................


If the pope is found wanting of some crimes let him be arrested and tried............chikena.....

ijawkid: So the pope now becomes the leader of an independent state??...is that what peter was??....let's not go there sha.......

If the pope has got so much immunity so as not to be free for arrest then I think something is really wrong........has he now become a political ruler or just a servant of Christ??...........this scenario is worse than that of the G.O's in nigeria who walk about with armed security men..........I can't believe that the pope is above the law.................

If the pope is found wanting of some crimes let him be arrested and tried............chikena.....

wiegraf: I give you the case of Assange. Even many americans are screaming bloody murder at the attempts to extradite him, on what grounds do the US govt want him? Really, on what possible grounds could they prosecute him were he to show up on their shores? He's just a publisher, freedom of speech. Is the publisher responsible for the actions of the whistleblower? No. Even worse, he isn't even American, he isn't bound to their laws. However, in this case, they could charge him as a spy, as he seemingly encouraged bradley manning to perform treason. It seems he was actively involved in the process of acquiring the documents, encouraging manning to go through with it rather than just publishing. Likewise, Ratzinger seems to have been actively involved in cover ups. He may not have broken a law in his own country but he did so in many, many others, including EU ones. They have every right to prosecute him should he show up in one of these countries where he broke laws. They also have the right attempt to extradite him, etc him. Yes? It's then left to the diplomats and governments to haggle.

He may be the law in his country, he certainly isn't in others.

So could he if he, they're superior, was aware of the happenings and did not report them or even worse, encouraged or ordered them.

They do seem to be so, even if you removed direct contact. Did he instruct the Bishops hide these offenses? Did he order they just be reassigned rather than their being prosecuted?

Consider this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Catholic_archdiocese_of_Milwaukee

On another note, rather bizaarly, clergy are still not mandated to report child abuse cases everywhere, only in countries where it is illegal to not report them. Seems like they are willing to do anything possible to keep this hush hush. Na wah...

wiegraf: First off, you seem confused about the nature of these accusations. He isn't accused of pedophilia, he's accused of covering up pedophilia. If he knows of any cases, in most countries he is bound by law to report them. Instead, it seems he actually went out of his way to even cover them up. You say otherwise though.

So, if he's innocent, then you should have no problem with facing the charges in say the hague, or any other similar court, yes?
Bound to secrecy does not override your duty to report certain crimes in most countries. If you witness a murder for instance, you're usually bound by law to report. Pedophilia? Definitely, in many countries yes.

If you cannot see the relevance then we are well and truly lost. The point is potus is responsible for his employees of that nature, they are his direct representatives. They speak for him, etc, are even hand picked by he himself (the ambassadors ie). If security fails, it's him they look at. Likewise if one them stumbles, it is him they look at. Why was he not in control? They were his responsibility
Another way to look at, he is the leader of the team, yes? Directly responsible for their actions, like say a platoon leader. If the team gets ambushed, the leader is the first person queried as to how he let that happen. If they succeed, his leadership skills are recognized. Likewise if one of his members screws up, the leader is questioned as well. Let alone a member of his team doing something egregious then the leader actually covering it up. He will definitely be court-marshaled. Do you see now?

Nothing. Potus is not related to that case, however the coach's superiors were very much so. It seems they knew about this, but decided to keep it hush. Needless to say they were all forced to resign, head coach, dean, etc. Their team's titles stripped, opprobrium and ignominy of stellar levels heaped upon them. In fact, there is the likelyhood that the head coach, chief behind the conspiracy to bury the case, could have faced jail time as well were it not for his death. This situation and that of ratzinger are highly similar from what I understand.

Richfella: It's hot and it's cold. It's black, and it's white.

Hello big bro .

greatgenius: well he is wise man then.. outside of time cause and effect are simultaneous. Inside of it is not or so it seems...most times the truth lies In the apparent contradiction..

For instance Imagine yourself to be rocketing UPWARD to get to outer space, only to find when YOU get there that that you are looking UP at the Earth. Or are you... Maybe you were looking down at the Earth! But then, where would be the the sun?.. Up? Down? ...No! ..Over there, to the left. So now, suddenly, a thing was neither up nor down...it was sideways. . .and all your definitions of reality as you know it thus disappears .. And you would have to come up with new definitions.

It never occurs to people (except to the finest and wise minds among us) that a thing could be both right and wrong..that only in the relative world are things one or the other. In the world of the absolute, of time-no time, all things are everything...

Boomark: As a non-denominational Christian, neither catholic nor protestant, let me give you an unbiased reply.

Note that Christ might have knelt before a rock or leaned on it while he prayed. Little little grasses must have grown before or around him while he prayed to his God.

He did not use any of these as a point of contact neither did he use them to remember God while he prayed. He worshiped God in spirit and in truth, the same way he instructed us to.

The protestants that revere and use bible as a point of contact are very wrong. Also the Catholics that fiercely worship idol by making image of things in heaven and using it as a point of contact are very wrong.

Lovethywilbedon: Your Protestant brother said that "Kneeling" before a bible, is not Wrong but rather, it is a Posture or Position for Prayer. Personaly, I think he makes sence. Don't you think he is Right?