Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Could Pope Benedict XVI Be Put on Trial Over the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal?

Feb. 18, 2013 1:59pm Billy Hallowell

While the vast majority of discussion surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s historic voluntary exit from the Catholic Church has focused upon his next steps, some critics have spent their time pushing for the faith leader to be put on trial following his departure. With Benedict preparing to vacate the papacy in just days, victims rights advocates are open about their desire for his prosecution over the abuse scandal that continues to rock the Catholic Church.

Of course, the image of the pope sitting in a courtroom is relatively outlandish — and an unlikely development. But that hasn’t stopped some from trying to legally pin the crimes of select priests on the head of the Catholic Church. The potential scenario was apparently so troublesome that it was reportedly a factor in Benedict’s decision to continue taking up residence at the Vatican.

One Vatican official told Reuters that Benedict’s decision to live inside the compound is a necessity in order for him to be protected from legal woes.

“His continued presence in the Vatican is necessary, otherwise he might be defenseless,” the source said. “He wouldn’t have his immunity, his prerogatives, his security, if he is anywhere else.”

Will Pope Benedict XVI Be Put on Trial Over the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal?

Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges a cheering crowd of faithful and pilgrims during his second-last Angelus prayer from the window of his apartments at the Vatican, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013, before he resigns on Feb. 28, 2013. Pope Benedict XVI blessed a cheering crowd that Rome’s mayor said topped 100,000 Sunday in his first appearance from his window overlooking St. Peter’s Square since the pontiff stunned the world by announcing he was resigning. So many people flocked to the event — which doubled as a logistical trial run for the next pope’s installation — some couldn’t squeeze in or out of the vast space. Credit: AP

There were apparently intricate considerations to be made in crafting Benedict’s post-papal situation. Reuters reports that three alleged factors took precedence. Personal security was the first element, but another intriguing one was the risk of an outside residence inadvertently becoming a place of pilgrimage to commemorate Benedict.

Consider this: Say the new pope makes a controversial decision that conservatives dislike. In this scenario, some Catholics might visit Benedict’s new location to show allegiance to him rather than to the pope currently at the helm. By keeping him at the Vatican, this won’t be an issue.

The third and final consideration — one that inside sources say played a role in keeping Benedict inside the Vatican — is the aforementioned immunity from potential legal ramifications. Already, Benedict was named in a 2010 case for allegedly failing to take action after purportedly learning about an abusive priest when he was a cardinal in 1995. The case was inevitably withdrawn, but others have sought similar ramifications.

Faithful attend Pope Benedict XVI Angelus Blessing at St. Peter’s Square on February 17, 2013 in Vatican City, Vatican. The Pontiff will hold his last weekly public audience on February 27 at St Peter’s Square after announcing his resignation last week. Credit: Getty Images

In 2010, atheist scientist Richard Dawkins called for the pope’s arrest and questioning over the sex abuse scandal. And in 2011, victims abused by clergy asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the pope and three officials — a request that has gone unanswered by the ICC.

“[If he lived anywhere else] then we might have those crazies who are filing lawsuits, or some magistrate might arrest him like other [former] heads of state have been for alleged acts while he was head of state,” one source sold Reuters, with another adding, ”While this was not the main consideration, it certainly is a corollary, a natural result.”

CNN has more about potential calls for legal action against Benedict:

By remaining in the Vatican, Benedict has immunity under a 1929 agreement that was struck between Italy and the Catholic Church. The Lateran Pacts protects him while he’s inside the Vatican and even when he makes trips into Italy, as the agreement established Vatican City as a sovereign state.

Benedict has apologized profusely for the abuse that unfolded and supporters allege that he has done a great deal to address these tragic incidents.

(H/T: Huffington Post/Reuters)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (193)

Platonician
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:02pm
@Old Truckers

“Is it a good idea to quote references?opinions about an organization that is opposed to the group being discussed?”

My friend I get your point, as a matter of fact the site of that organization was created by ex- JW’s, but that’s not a reason I was referencing to them, in fact I was pointing out to that page because it has actual information on Judge Rutheford, the wealthy man that used the WTS for personal benefit.
Besides this, when they knock at my door, I always invite them to come in and talk about the Bible. The problem is that I’m old enough to know a bit of history, usually they don’t come back after a meeting, but I never insult them, and in fact I respect all Christians, I’m just trying to enlighten those who are victims of the powerful anti-christian propaganda of the MSM and the political establishment, which very often use anti-Catholicism as a twisted mean to destroy Christianity as a whole.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Old Truckers
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:45pm
  Platonician,
  
  It is not wise to pass judgement on someone you do not know. How can you or I know what the heart of a man is?
  
  Report this comment
Execmech
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:20pm
Theo,

Shouldn’t we be united? Can’t you see that it is an attack on the church? The facts say that the rate of pedofelia is minimal compared to most organizations. We need to trusting pope. We all need to pray for our leaders. Evil wants us to leave the faith and be divided.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Moliminous
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:36am
Don’t get me wrong, child molesters should be in jail. But let’s stop the logic train for a moment and look closer to home. This thinking says we should hold local, state and federal government officials accountable for the heinous abuse of kids in our own government/union schools. That report eclipses the problems of the Catholic Church by a factor of 10. Arne Duncun, Barrack Obama, state legislatures and local school officials should all stand trial for the continuing abuse in our own classrooms.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- qualityrkc
  Posted on February 25, 2013 at 8:50am
  Teaching evolution is abuse but having sex with children in church confessionals is fine by christians. Christians were raping deaf children in italy and wiscounsin for years.
  
  Report this comment
Solexander
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:36am
The first line blew it big-time: “Pope Benedict XVI’s historic voluntary exit from the Catholic Church.” That is to say, the retiring pope is no longer Catholic!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- THERAPTURCOMES
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:15am
  All popes are servants of satan and catholicism is about to be shocked by the soon to happen resurrection/rapture http://youtu.be/CBsYDhNxFlU
  
  Catholicism follows a man made idol they have named as christ but in all truth, catholicism is an interjection of satanism between man and God.
  
  Report this comment
begreen
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:20am
snooop1e They can’t answer your questions. I guarantee you either they will moat likely totally inore you or give some unrealistic illogical answer.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Execmech
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:16am
Lord protect your holy church. Help all Christians to see eye to eye. Help us to work together to defeat the evil seeking to hurt all who believe in you. Help my angry brothers and sisters to trust in your church again Amen

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:40am
  Too late. We already only trust in Christ.
  
  Report this comment
begreen
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:13am
Questions non catholic can’t answer. How many books are in the NT Douay-Rheims Bible? compose and by who?
1 What year was the NT bible put together ?
2 What happen before the printing press how were the bibles distributed ?
3 Who decided which books belong in the NT?
4 Do you believe in the Trinity? If so, why? Does the Bible mention anything about there being one God, but 3 persons in God, each of Whom is fully God?
5 How do you know the bible is inspired by God who told you?
6 Why do we have some 25,000 + Protestant denominations all over the world, many teaching doctrines that absolutely contradict one another, when they all go by the Bible alone? Isn’t the Bible easy enough for everyone to read and come to the same conclusion By the Holy spirit as you say?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
begreen
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:57am
Romans 2:6…God will render to every man according to his faith? No…according to his deeds.
James 2:12-13…God will judge without mercy those who have shown no mercy; which fits well with the next verse…
Matthew 6:15…God will not forgive you if you have not forgiven others; which fits well with the next verse…
Matthew 18:23-32…God will not forgive those who do not forgive others. In other words, we can’t be saved by faith alone…we have to forgive others to be saved. Isn’t that a work?
Matthew 25:31-46…how does God separate the sheep from the goats? By their faith? No…by what they have done.
Matthew 7:21…how do we get into Heaven, by crying Lord, Lord? By our faith alone? No…by whether or not we have done the will of God.
Rev 20:12…the dead were judged according to their faith? No…according to their works.
I could go on and on…every passage in the New Testament, that I know of, speaks of people being judged by their works, their deeds, by what they have done or by what they haven’t done. Not a single passage that I know of says that we will be judged by our faith alone.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:39am
  By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. Acts 3:16
  
  For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ Matt 9:5
  
  He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be cured of your disease.” Mk 5:34
  
  Need more?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:44am
  Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
  
  Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:00am
I still find it fascinating and instructive that the same Prhomos who scream for the Blood of the Pope allow NAMBLA to proceed unmolested. The Cognitive Dissonance is deafening.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Platonician
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:02am
  “over the abuse scandal that continues to rock the Catholic Church.”
  
  Why is the Blaze channeling notorious anti-christian Reuters and CNN?
  While at all institutions dealing with minors abuse happens, the Catholic Institutions have the lowest rate.
  
  What about the abuses committed by Jehovah Witness?
  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/paedophilia.php
  
  What about the abuses committed by gay atheist teachers on a daily basis?
  
  Report this comment
- Bearfoot
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 7:22pm
  Platonician,
  
  A man slanderous of others has no credibility with reasonable men.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 8:01pm
“COULD POPE BENEDICT XVI BE PUT ON TRIAL OVER THE CATHOLIC SEX ABUSE SCANDAL?”
LOL, if ONLY–but probably not. So long as religion continues to enjoy its undeserved air of legitimacy and respectability, theists, and particularly ecclesiastics, will continue to enjoy special treatment and arbitrary deference.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 11:42pm
  Works for me.
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:52am
  Sorry LOL Religion does not enjoy undeserved air of legitimacy. Don’t fall for the liberal lies.
  
  Report this comment
RabbiDRJerkins
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 7:08pm
Shalom,
I have no knowledge of this man’s innocence or guilt.
If there is enough evidence to call for a trial, by all means, he should be tried, and through that trial his innocence or guilt determined.
If there is not enough evindence, then a trial is pointless and he must be presumed innocent of these charges.
That said, it is extremely difficult (impossible, actually) to determine what an individual knew or thought and when that knowledge or chain of reasoning came to be.
Similarly, failure to act in what, in retrospect, would have been an appropriate manner, is also difficult to prove.
We do not know the heart or mind of another man, we can only observe his actions.
One of my favority portions of the Law is the bit concerning false accusation; in Scripture, should the accused be found innocent, the accuser is subject to whatever penalty would have accrued to the accused. (keeps this number of frivolous lawsuits to a minimum when you pay if you lose).
If you have evidence of criminal action, present it. If not, go in peace.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dano.50
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 7:07pm
If that happens, then the teacher’s union better be charged big time.

Bad as was, only about 1500 priests in TOTAL have been accused of sexual abuse. This includes charged and/or acquitted.

Over fifteen thousand teachers a YEAR are charged with having sex with a minor student.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 11:45pm
  Book em Dano. Interesting stat.
  Can’t help but think the preception of deep pockets in the RomCathChurch is partially at work in the posse gathered around the victims.
  On the other hand the Teachers’ Union has deep pockets too. Might be something to consider there.
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:57am
  o “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests” (John E. Dougherty, “Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church,” newsmax.com, April 5, 2004). Here again, the inconsistent treatment of this issue by the press is evident, for headlines do not warn people about the grave danger of “pedophile teachers.” Tom Hoopes notes that:
  The 2002 Department of Education report estimated that from 6 percent to 10 percent of all students in public schools would be victims of abuse before graduation—a staggering statistic. . . . Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger—and ongoing—abuse scandal in public schools
  n
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 8:35am
  Sexual abuse in schools is a terrible, and on-going, problem. Those who willingly protect or refuse to report known abuses should also be fired and tried.
  
  Sexual abuse in churches (Catholic and non) is a terrible, and on-going, problem. Those who willingly protect or refuse to report known abuses should also be fired and tried.
  
  See how one does not forgive or excuse the other?
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:59pm
  Dano.50
  
  A teacher having voluntary sex with a 18 year old or 17 year old for that matter. Should be punished and not tolerated, but it is not the same as someone molesting someone 10 years old, in which case they should get the death penalty.
  
  @Locked
  I agree with you in regards to those who do not speak up. As we saw with Penn State, I think that those who protected the pedophiles, should serve a minimum of 5 years. That would send a message, and we could remove more of the perverts that are out there praying on children. We all know that most (if not all) pedophiles where themselves molested as children.
  
  Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.– —Dietrich Bonhoeffer
  
  Report this comment
Mr. T
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:55pm
The Pope is a Head of State – He enjoys diplomatic immunity…not that he needs it as you Billy Hallowell have tried to paint him out to be some kind of pedophile himself. That is just dispicable and low rent reporting. The Pope like any other Bishop in his retirement is kept in comfort at his last place of service, in the Pope’s case, as a Bishop Emeritus of Rome. It’s not for any other reason that you have stated in your article. Jeeze my 3rd grader could have done a better job on this article than you did.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mycomet123
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 5:40pm
  I have thought the same thing myself. I sometimes wonder if Mr. Hallowell is on his own crusade to trash the Catholic Church. I’m sure this would never be tolerated at the Blaze if this was referring to the Mormon Church! Everyone has an agenda including the Blaze!
  
  Report this comment
- Platonician
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:06am
  Absolutely right! Anyway Hallowel’s article reeks of anti-Catholicism. Shame on you Billy Hallowel.
  
  Report this comment
- mycomet123
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:50pm
  It’s amazing that yesterday this was the first question on page 1 & now it gets shoved down the page. If you continue to trash the Catholic Church Mr. Hallowell, I’m leaving this site for good. Seriously I have yet to see an article against the Mormon Church! Fair & Balanced my butt!
  
  Report this comment
Mr. T
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:47pm
Billy Hallowell – I am a regular reader of The Blaze, but I am really disappointed in your 3rd grade level report here on the Pope. There were so many misconceptions, errors, and borderline libelous accusations that I don’t know where to begin. Next time you do an article, why don’t you try to talk to someone inside the Catholic Church who knows what they’re talking about. If this is the level of reporting you guys at the Blaze are going to do, I’ll have to go somewhere else…you can do better and you know it! This is tantamount to an MSNBC “hit piece”. You sound like you have personal issues with the Catholic Church and I think it’s interfering with your job! Very disappointed with you guys after this article!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bam24
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 7:35pm
  Very well said!
  A few months ago Glenn asked us to open our hearts to this Mormon (Romney), because, after all, he believes… How about Glenn and Billy over here open their hearts to many Catholics reading this site and not trash our Church. I’m sure they wouldn’t want me trashing Mormonism, nor do I have it in my heart to do this to them. Seek the truth, Billy, don’t misrepresent.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 10:02pm
  The Pope, the Catholic League and Cardinal Dolan support those that abuse children and attack their defenders. Dolan paid out hush money. Its time to perp walk pope out of the vatican.
  
  Mr. T. like many, you are shameful Catholic ignoring the screams of victims and protecting monsters.
  
  Report this comment
- The Big Mick
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 11:58pm
  EncinoMom.
  I’m former Clergy myself and am all for getting to the bottom of who covered up what.
  What disturbs me most in this is that INSTITUTIONALLY there was a perception that SOMETHING was more important, and had to be protected, than what Christ calls “these little ones.”
  Theologically I simply can’t GET at that, but then I am not Roman Catholic. WHAT did they think had to be protected? Why shift these guys to a different parish? Just send em to a Monastery with a Rule of Silence. Something in the Institutional Perception and Agenda just doesn’t make sense here and I’m not sure anything anybody is doing, outside or in, is getting anywhere close to it.
  Personally I think it has less to do with Pedophilia than it does with Pederasty, and I think THAT has an Overlap with Homosexuality. At bottom I wonder if what The Vatican doesn’t really want to examine is NOT Pederasty in the Priesthood, but a Pandemic of Homosexuality in a Celibate Clergy.
  THAT would be getting at a threat to their very Theology of the Priesthood and that might prompt such a cover up. 1500 pederast (I don’t buy the pedophile, this was almost exclusively male on male)
  priests is bad. But what if the real figure is the MAJORITY of priests are ****?
  I’m not asserting that, just puzzled as to what was AT Stake here. It was MORE than money, you can be sure.
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:03am
  encinom Get a life you don,t know what the hill you are talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- Platonician
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:24am
  I agree with you. This article is a hit piece. Hallowell is channeling the anti-Catholicism that is present in the MSM.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 9:54am
  The mainstream media and The Blaze have all but ignored the recent Associated Press report that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports EACH YEAR of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships.
  Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 “credible accusations” have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not.
  The report is even more telling if we consider the plethora of independent or “store front” Protestant churches that don’t have insurance and whose numbers, therefore, certainly are not taken into account in this study.
  The problem of sexual abuse of minors is not an issue of religious affiliation because there is nothing religious about abusing children. The phenomenon of sexual abuse of minors in church settings is the story of sick human beings taking advantage of their position of moral authority to prey on the weak and vulnerable.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:01am
  Let’s be clear: the report of abuse in Protestant Churches in no way clears guilty members of the Catholic Church — neither the predators nor those who moved them from church to church and put other young people in danger. But the report does give us better perspective. The problem of sexual abuse has no denominational boundaries.
  
  John Jay Law School (a top tier LS not affiliated with the RCC) recently did a study on this very topic. Not only did they find that there was a higher rate of sexual misconduct in the BSA, schools, youth sports, and families, but a higher rate in the PROTESTANT CLERGY, some at a rate of double the RCC. Just as bad, none of the Protestant institutions have created as comprehensive a program to identify, monitor, and remove abusers as the RCC. In fact, the SBC does not even monitor what congregations that accused pastors move to.
  
  As of April 11, 2011, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has counted 5,948 clerics “not implausibly” and “credibly” accused in 1950-2010 of sexually abusing minors.
  Over the 60 year time frame, an average of 99 U.S. based Catholic priest have been credibly accused of sexual abuse (5,948/60 = 99.133)
  Currently there are approximately 100 married priests in the United States.
  People who hate the Catholic Church like to imply all Catholic priests are pedophiles; but why not say all Catholic priests are married? (equal numbers) Most will tell you no Catholic priests are married.
  
  Report this comment
wilbstal
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:36pm
Look if the guy can be proven guilty of all this molestation stuff by all means dump him . legal courts not a witch hunt

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Al J Zira
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:24pm
People always want their pound of flesh void of any rationale.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:36pm
  In his position in the Vatican before he was Pope, he was the one guy who knew bout every report of every dirty priest everywhere in the world. If he helped to cover up credible accusations and keep pervert priests in the pulpit enabling them to prey on unsuspecting congregants, then he deserves to have his butt hauled before a court of law and spend his few remaining years being punished here on Earth before the big guy downstairs consigns him to his eternal reward.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:55pm
  XYLLIAB
  
  You’re Wrong!
  
  “But wasn’t Ratzinger in charge while all this was going on? Didn’t it happen on his watch? No. From 1981 to 2001 he was in charge of a department that dealt with defrocking, but not with suspensions and penalties for paedophile priests, which were the responsibility of local bishops. A number of bishops failed to suspend the abusive priests, some of whom continued to abuse. That is the scandal. It has been exposed and dealt with, and a number of bishops have, as a result, resigned. More important, guidelines are now in place to prevent it ever happening again.”
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/15/pope-mob-benedict-misreading-abuse
  
  Report this comment
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 8:19pm
  Dudley Do-Right
  Big deal, the church now conducts more thorough internal investigations and sometimes fires people who commit crimes and deserve to be in jail. If they’re not helping to put those criminals in jail where they belong, then it’s still a cover up and they are still accessories after the fact.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:21am
  XYLLIAB
  
  I agree with you that those committing or covering up these heinous crimes against our children should be prosecuted and put in jail. The only way my church is going to heal herself from these terrible crimes is by shining a light on every evil act committed. I was only responding to your allegation that Papa Ratzi is responsible for the cover-ups. I hope at the very least you’ll consider the article I posted explaining that the bishops are the ones responsible for covering up these crimes, not the pope. I’d also like to add that there were a lot of untruths published by the media and I’m prepared to address them as I see them. I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot about our church, the pope and bishops as they prepare to choose a new pope. I’m not against any articles about the Catholic Church here on the Blaze. I say let the light shine, I only ask that it shine on the truth, not the untruths.
  
  “For example, the U.S. bishops’ norms on sexual abuse, which were revised and approved by the Vatican in 2002, stated clearly: “The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation.” In many cases, civil law mandates that church authorities report such allegations.”
  
  http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001018.htm
  
  Report this comment
Beachmastermax
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:55pm
The chances of the Pope being held liable for the actions of his employees would be about as likely as Public School administrators being held liable for protecting their pedophilic employees.

In other words…zero chance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:58pm
  What if they knew about it?
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 7:49pm
  @MAX………….1 Corinthians 5:9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators,10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside,13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.”
  
  So by covering it up and moving priest from parish to parish kind of makes them guilty too.
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:16am
  .theotherberean Mabey could of would of should of give me a break. Is any scholarly or even pseudo–scholarly work referenced? No! Here we have another example of unsubstantiated claims just being tossed out there like facts.
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:18am
  Greenwood I think you might be the guilty one.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:36pm
The pope will never be tried for anything related to the sexual abuse scandals. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JQuentinEvermann
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:44pm
  Obama is more likely to stand trial for the murders he’s committed.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:28pm
.
Yes he should and all the Baby Raping Preists right along with him……..

Any body who knew this was going on and did nothing should be put on trial, cause they are just as Guilty…….

And after they are convicted they should suffer the Joy of being Raped Daily for the rest of their days……And then go straight to Hell…….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DivineWordRadio
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:46pm
  Pope Benedict won’t go on trial, nor should he, any more than you should. You seem to make a claim for which you have no proof–that he knew this was going on and did nothing. So your attacks are either ignorant or malicioius.
  
  And beyond that, it is clear that you have no mercy in you as well. And it is those who may find themselves going straight to hell.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:46pm
  The problem is not realizing what a problem they really and having in adequate controls to deal with deviant homosexuals in their ranks. The policy of redemption, penance, forgiveness, combined with a subservient doctrinal attitude to the organization created the perfect storm. I think there was a good degree of naive stupidity as well as a selfish desire to avoid bad press.
  
  Report this comment
- DivineWordRadio
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:54pm
  Cavallo, I agree with your assessment, but I believe that the Church has recognized this, and has been quietly changing this culture inside. They have cleaned out seminaries of this problem already. They do still have some within the organization that have permitted and covered up, but those are being addressed as well.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:01pm
  Maybe they should follow Peter’s example and allow priests to marry, which may not attract so many homosexuals to the priesthood.
  
  Report this comment
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:27pm
  .
  DIVINE
  
  I have more mercy in my Pinky Toe. than those who RAPED children, and those who covered it up….
  
  Report this comment
- antitheism
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 4:43pm
  The rape of children by supposed men of god is what happen when you attempt to remove god from the church.
  
  Oh wait.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 6:06pm
  @ANTITHEISM………………They did remove God from the Church. http://old.usccb.org/liturgy/NameOfGod.pdf
  
  Report this comment
- WhiteFang
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:44am
  Thanks Greenwood for that link,
  
  I’m wondering if anyone here is asking;
  Why would the Catholic Church refuse to acknowledge a pronunciation of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) when it occurs in the Holy Scriptures some 7,000 times?
  
  Exodus 6:3, 9:16, 20:7, Matthew 6:9, John 17:26, Do these few scriptures justify ignoring God’s Name?
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:34am
  Greenwood here’s one for you. Peter 3:16 “As also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they doe also the other Scriptures, onto their owned destruction”
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 7:52am
  Wow.
  
  Spank,
  
  You sound as if you have the job of standing in judgment on every other person, and damning some of them for eternity.
  
  Uh, Spank, I am sure that job has been taken already.
  
  But cheer up! Fortunately for you, the ONE who has that job judges with Mercy, Love, and Reason.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 8:40am
  @Spank
  
  Rapists are monsters. Child rapists are also monsters. Those in positions of authority who protected or ignored these rapists are also monsters. I think we can all agree on that.
  
  But I don’t think that means they deserve eternal raping themselves. We do not forget and we do not refuse to punish the guilty here on Earth, but we’re called to forgive and the only one who can damn is God Himself. Cast out the hate in your heart.
  
  Also, there seems to be a lot of equating pedophile with homosexual here. Quite different things (and 25% of Catholic priest rape victims are girls, by the way).
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:34am
  GREEN, WHITE, Yes, God is known by the Name Jehovah, but not ONLY by that Name. Why didn’t Jesus address the Father as Jehovah if He is known ONLY by the Name Jehovah?
  
  God is addressed many times in the Scriptures other than as Jehovah. The expression “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” is an example. The Lord’s Prayer is another example. “Our Father who art in Heaven.”
  
  The phrase “I AM,” (Gen 14) is not the same word as YHWH (Gen 15) although they are both derivatives of the verb “to be. Note that Jehovah is not the correct form here and we first learn of this name in Ex 3 when Moses asks by what Name God should be called. God replied “I AM WHO I AM… thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.” (vs 14).
  
  In Moses time names were not just labels. Knowing God’s Name was equivalent to knowing his essence, and “I AM” is a full expression of His Eternal Nature.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:13pm
  @Locked
  You are right that one should overlook the rape of women or molesting of girls in this. They are all monsters!
  Regarding people linking homosexuality with pedophilia, there is a definite link. Pure sex is only between a husband and a wife in marriage. Anything beyond that is going down the road of perversion, of which homosexuality like bestiality is a step or two above pedophilia, and a perversion. In the end it is all sin, and every human is born into sin, and fall short of the glory of God, and are in need of forgiveness. But the bible is clear on what is accepted behavior and not. Jesus calls for us to turn away from our sin and trust in him, and we will have eternal life in a place without tears.
  
  Report this comment
- WhiteFang
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:55pm
  TheOther,
  
  Exodus 6:3, 9:16, 20:7, Matthew 6:9, John 17:26;
  Do these few scriptures justify ignoring God’s Name?
  
  Yes or no?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:46pm
  @Squarehead
  
  “Regarding people linking homosexuality with pedophilia, there is a definite link.”
  
  Could you cite this? I have several scientific studies that have shown no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality; child rapists are attracted to children who are defenseless, regardless of the child’s sex.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:15pm
  @Locked
  
  The Bible, authored by God as we read in here in Romans:
  Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
  Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
  Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
  Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
  Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
  Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
  Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:58pm
  @OTHER……..”The phrase “I AM,” (Gen 14) is not the same word as YHWH (Gen 15)”
  
  First you have to get the correct chapter and verse.
  Exodus 3:14,15………………
  
  Exodus 3: 13 Nevertheless, Moses said to the [true] God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of YOUR forefathers has sent me to YOU,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?”14 At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’”15 Then God said once more to Moses:
  
  “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:13pm
  WHITE, as I said: Yes, God is known by the Name Jehovah, but not ONLY by that Name. Why didn’t Jesus address the Father as Jehovah if He is known ONLY by the Name Jehovah?
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:19pm
  @OTHER……”God is addressed many times in the Scriptures other than as Jehovah. The expression “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” is an example. The Lord’s Prayer is another example. “Our Father who art in Heaven.” [ let your name be sanctified or holy, sacred, hallow etc.
  
  All the other addressess are titles not names. He has only one Divine name.
  
  Mark 12:36 in the KJV says “The LORD said to my Lord”……………
  Without the name it really shows why Jesus would have used Jehovahs name when quotting from Psalms 110:1 Which reads in the NWT “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
  “Sit at my right hand
  Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
  
  But they sub LORD for Jehovah, and Lord for Jesus. Not a name but a title.
  
  Psalms 83:18 KJV uses the name Jehovah and it says this is my name to time indefinite.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:38pm
  GREEN, thank you. I stand corrected on the verse numbers. Sometimes my fingers leave my hands when I type… ha ha
  
  The NWT is the only translation I’m aware of that translates “I AM WHO I AM” as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.”
  
  I have demonstrated many times why the NWT is not a reliable translation, including blatantly going against literally thousands of Greek MSS and altering the text to support the dogma of the WTS.
  
  The claim that God must “always” be referred to by the Name Jehovah, is simply not supported in Scripture. The word Jehovah simply does not appear in any of the NT Greek MSS, although the WTS inserts it there wherever the text is believed to refer to the Father. Jesus “never” referred to the Father as Jehovah, and the focus in Ex 3:15 is not limited to the mere Name of God, but instead leaves us with a clear understanding of God’s true nature and being.
  
  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach that they are the only true followers of God because they are the only group to use the true name of God, Jehovah. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that assertion is false, satanical, uninspired, they say. But that is clearly unScriptural, as we can plainly see by example.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:46pm
  @OTHER……..”Jesus “never” referred to the Father as Jehovah, ”
  
  Oh! I didn’t know you were there, sorry. That is a ridiculous statement.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:47pm
  GREEN, you know exactly what I meant. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that you don’t
  
  The NT MSS simply do no use the name Jehovah. Not even once. The notion that it was removed by evil men and the WTS put it back, is the same ridiculous lie the Mormons tell.
  
  The WTS has dishonestly, and with no authority to do so, inserted that name wherever they believe the text is referring to the Father. This is done to support heretical and false teaching by the WTS.
  
  This is a huge problem for you because the WTS claims to speak for God. In fact they claim all other organizations are of the devil. But God is not a liar and we can clearly see that the WTS is a liar.
  
  Why does the WTS have to lie? Because, perhaps, it is not really God’s organization?
  
  Report this comment
- WhiteFang
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:45pm
  Theother,
  
  You are very difficult to converse with because you cannot grasp the truth that Jesus is God’s Son and that he is not Jehovah, his God and Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ had difficulty trying to reason with his opposers also.
  
  He said in John 8, starting in verse 21; Hence he said to them again: “I am going away, and YOU will look for me, and yet YOU will die in YOUR sin. Where I am going YOU cannot come.” 22 Therefore the Jews began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going YOU cannot come.’” 23 So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.” Now notice verse 25:
  
  25 Therefore they began to say to him: “Who are you?” Jesus said to them: “Why am I even speaking to YOU at all? 26 I have many things to speak concerning YOU and to pass judgment upon. As a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” 27 They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father.
  
  As long as you hold to the Catholic Trinity Doctrine, you will not be able to fully understand
  
  Report this comment
- WhiteFang
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:55pm
  TheOther,
  
  Jesus further said to them:
  John 8:42 Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth.
  
  43 Why is it YOU do not know what I am speaking? Because YOU cannot listen to my word.
  
  44 YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, YOU do not believe me. 46 Who of YOU convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it YOU do not believe me? 47 He that is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why YOU do not listen, because YOU are not from God.”
  
  I respectfully ask; do you understand what Jesus is saying here?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 8:03am
  @Square
  
  While I appreciate the Scripture, I was asking for citations from studies that show a correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. The Bible lumps things into “sin” and “not a sin” boxes, but that does not show correlation – just that one sin is as bad as any other in the eyes of God.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:20pm
  WHITE, Jesus is Jehovah. I’ve posted many Scriptures which demonstrate that the same words used to describe Jehovah in the OT are also used to describe Jesus in the NT.
  
  Who is Jesus bringing back with Him in 1 Thess 1:14? The WTS insists Abraham, Isasc and Jacob but by the WTS own decree they are not the “little flock” and can therefore never expect to see heaven in the first place.
  
  Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to speak only for God when the doctrine of the 144,000 and the “little flock” are an alleged revelation by Rutherford, a man?
  
  Why do Witnesses claim that Jehovah is God’s ONLY Divine name when that is not the ONLY Divine name by which He can be known? For example: Jesus called Him “Father.”
  
  Why does the WTS translate John 8:58 “I have been” when all other translations render “ego eimi “”I AM?” Greek scholars agree there is no justification for attempting to classify “eimi” as a perfect indefinite tense because any beginning Greek grammar will show there is no perfect indefinite tense in Greek. “Eimi” is clearly a “present active indicative” form. The same is true of “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” rendered by the WTS In Ex 3:14. All other translations render “I AM WHO I AM.”
  
  More…
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:25pm
  LOCKED what about blasphemy?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:27pm
  WHITE
  Note that the WTS correctly translates “ego eimi” as “I AM” throughout the Book of John, EXCEPT for 8:58 where they render it “I have been.” This is done to support the doctrine that Jesus is preexistent but not ETERNALLY preexistent, disguising His true identity as the same “I AM” that God refers to Himself in Ex 3:14.
  
  I have demonstrated with many Scriptures that positionally Jesus is subordinate to the Father, since He, Eternal God, took on human nature, but He is equal in substance to the Father. The phrase “from of old” in Habakkuk 1:12 refers to Jehovah-God’s Eternal nature. To be consistent, shouldn’t we conclude that the identical phrase in Micah 5:2 refers to Christ’s Eternal Nature?
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:27pm
May God forgive him his State loving ways. The Beast he supported via attacks on capitalism, and a twisted desire for State control of weapons will turn on him and devour him.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DivineWordRadio
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:51pm
  God will certainly forgive him. And may God forgive you for your blantant attacks against a good man. He has cited the evils of socialism, and of capitalism. If you think that there are no evils, then perhaps your love is in Mammon.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:04pm
  “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. Mk 10:18.
  
  One of the reasons there is so much error in the RCC is because you place your man-made traditions ahead of the Word of God.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 5:21pm
  THEOTHER……..”One of the reasons there is so much error in the RCC is because you place your man-made traditions ahead of the Word of God.”
  
  I’m curious OTHER what traditions do you follow? Do you celabrate Christmas or Easter or maybe Valentine’s day perhaps or the 4th of July, Memorial Day maybe? All traditions of men. You seem so perfect when reading your other posts. Tell us something about yourself OTHER.
  
  There is only one thing that Jesus commanded us to celabrate that was the Lord’s Evening Meal the Memorial of his death which is on Nisan 14 on the Hebrew calendar. It falls on March 26th this year. In obedience to Christ’s instructions, “Keep doing this in remembrance of me” The 14th day of Nisan continues to be observed by his followers to this day as the time for memorializing Christ’s death. Luke 22:19,20
  
  Report this comment
- begreen
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:45am
  theotherberean” man-made traditions ” What? Where does the bible say to avoid traditions? On Church Authority:
  18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
  How does the Bible say we are to decide the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of error”? Do you know? Is it by individually reading scripture? No! 1 John 4:6 tells us how we are to discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error…by listening to the leaders of the Church. “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error
  1 Timothy 3:15 hmm it reads the pillar and ground of the truth.” is what the Bible? NOPE. ” But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” So the Bible says, the word of God says it’s the Church not scripture. Therefore, the final authority is God’s Church. So the Church founded by Jesus Christ is an singular visible authoritative church. Think about this, for the Bible to have authority the Church has to have authority. How do we know the Bible has no errors? How do we know which books are suppose to be in the Bible? Because the church tell us that’s how.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:09pm
  BEGREEN Some of the RCC traditions are fine, as long as they are in full and total agreement with all of the Scriptures.
  
  There are over 60 verses in which you find “it is written…” used by Jesus and the apostles to support their teachings.
  
  Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice.
  
  “The church” is pointed to the Scriptures to thwart the forthcoming errors. (Acts 20:32).
  
  it is seen that duly appointed religious leaders could cause the people of God to err (1 Samuel 2:27-36; Matthew 15:14; 23:1-7; John 7:48; Acts 20:30; Galatians 2:11-16). Both Testaments exhort people to study the Scriptures to determine what is true and what is false (Psalm 19; 119; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). While Jesus taught respect toward religious leaders (Matthew 23:3), an admonition which the apostles followed, we have the apostles’ example of breaking from the authority of their religious leaders when it was in opposition to what Jesus had commanded (Acts 4:19).
  
  For a more in-depth explanation, look here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:13pm
  @OTHER………..BEGREEN Some of the RCC traditions are fine, as long as they are in full and total agreement with all of the Scriptures. ”
  
  name one
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:53pm
  GREEN The doctrine of the Trinity.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:38pm
  @OTHER…………”The doctrine of the Trinity.”
  One of the many traditions of men.
  Tradition = The handing down orally of customs, beliefs, story etc. from generation to generation. A long- established custom that has the effect of an unwritten law.
  
  Acts 20: 30 “men will rise and speak twisted things”
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 12:24pm
  GREEN, I have shown you many Scriptures which either allude to or leave no conclusion other than Jesus is Jehovah.
  
  I have also demonstrated where the WTS has blatantly altered the text of God’s Holy Word to support heretical doctrines.
  
  I would prefer that you address these issues point by point rather then stepping over them to parrot the teachings of the WTS.
  
  It may behoove you to think for yourself rather than allowing someone else to do that for you. This is what the Scriptures teach and with good reason. Your salvation could depend on it.
  
  Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:25pm
Wouldn’t staying at the Vatican to avoid prosecution make him an international fugitive from justice?

And Obama has drones.

I’m just sayin…
Log in to ReplyReply
- DivineWordRadio
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:55pm
  No, and ridiculous comment.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:05pm
  Why not?
  
  Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:17pm
Blaze why do you use CNN as a source…http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/02/breaking-news-the-obama-administration-pays-for-cnn-content-2455230.html

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:00am
  Because CNN is the new FOX,
  
  Report this comment
SciPro
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:07pm
Well, chickens coming home to roost? … Any head of a church has some responsibility for their disciples, and doctrine that would bring about abuse of children … just saying … ahhh .. are we seeing a demise of the Catholic Church? … ooops .. some-one will take me to task for that one …

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:23pm
  Who are you CRAPPIN’?
  
  Report this comment
- Schteveo
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 10:18pm
  SCIPRO,
  while I agree, even as a Catholic who went to Parochial Schools, that the Pope is the head of the church worldwide, I don’t see the legal connection.
  
  By all reports, some of the abuse cases go back as much as 70 years. That would be before His Holiness was a even Priest, much less the Pope. And as he didn’t personally order the abuse, nor did he help hide it, under American Law, he’s not responsible. Part of the problem is that many people think the Catholic Church has a worldwide problem of child abuse, because WE have this problem in America.
  
  It’s not so.
  
  I’m not sure how it is now, but a few years ago I read that the Church in Africa was having a problem with Priests having families. They weren’t marrying the women, but they were doing everything else husbands and wives do. And guess what, some Catholics saw that as the Pope’s fault too.
  
  Here’s the problem with all this SCIPRO, and I have no idea who you work for. But if YOU break the law, any law, with child molestation being the most heinous IMO, and your Regional Manager transfers you to the other end of his territory and tells you if you do it again, he won’t cover for. Then he leaves, you do it again, new RM transfers you, rinse and repeat. Even to the point that your RM trades you to another RM, and you do it yet again.
  
  Le’s go so far as to say that some of the RMs break this law and they don’t want to do time either, so it just keeps being buried. It gets buried for decade
  
  Report this comment
- Schteveo
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 10:41pm
  Until it gets buried so long that 2 or 3 CEOs come and go, so now the current CEO is supposed to be ‘responsible’ WHY? Is that how it works, where YOU work? And I ask you that if you’re a janitor OR the CEO of SCIPRO Inc.
  
  As to ‘doctrine’ being the cause of this, that’s the silliest accusation I’ve heard on this issue. But I think I know why you say this, is it because the Priests can’t get married? I’ve heard this before too, but let me ask you this.
  
  If being married kept pedophiles and molesters from doing that, if having access to an adult female would ‘solve’ this drive for child sex, then WHY do we hear about men who rape their own children, both male and female? Why do married men, with wives in their homes, abuse friends of their kids? Or abuse their nieces, nephews or grandkids? Or kids in their Sunday School Class? Or kids on the 9 to 11 soccer team they coach for their kids?
  
  It’s because pedophiles aren’t interested in ‘straight sex’ SCIPRO. They are sick puppies driven to want children, even IF they have access to grown women.
  
  Personally SCIPRO, I think this crime is unforgivable. It should carry a death penalty just like murder. Anyone low enough to do this to children should have their time in court. If found guilty, one retrial, then lop off their heads with a dull spoon!
  
  I’m in no way willing to let this slide, but let’s prosecute the people who DID or HID it. Not the person(s) they worked for. I’d hate to be respon
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 8:48am
  @Schtevo
  
  “And as he didn’t personally order the abuse, nor did he help hide it, under American Law, he’s not responsible.”
  
  He did help hide it though.
  
  As Archbishop of Munich, Ratzinger approved plans for a priest to move to a different German parish and return to pastoral work only days after the priest began therapy for pedophilia. The priest was later convicted of sexually abusing boys.
  
  In 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger became head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the office once known as the Inquisition — making him responsible for upholding church doctrine, and for investigating claims of sexual abuse against clergy. Thousands of letters detailing allegations of abuse were forwarded to Ratzinger’s office. Ratzinger wrote a letter asserting the church’s authority to investigate claims of abuse and emphasizing that church investigators had the right to keep evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the alleged victims reached adulthood.
  
  In 1996, Ratzinger didn’t respond to letters from Milwaukee’s archbishop about a priest accused of abusing students at a Wisconsin school for the deaf. An assistant to Ratzinger began a secret trial of the priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, but halted the process after Murphy wrote a personal appeal to Ratzinger complaining of ill health.
  
  I agree he’s made a lot of apologies and changes recently, but that doesn’t erase his past (in)actions.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:31pm
  LOCKED
  
  While it’s true that then Archbishop of Munich, Ratzinger, approved a request from a bishop in Essen to have a priest moved to Munich for treatment by a psychiatrist, it’s also important to remember that in 1980, it was thought people could be “cured” of pedophilia. So he’s under supervision in a Munich parish and then in 1981, Ratzinger was elected head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. In 1982, after Ratzinger left Munich, the vicar general, Father Gruber, assigns Hullermann to a parish against the objections of the psychiatrist, Dr. Huth.
  
  http://radioblogger.townhall.com/talkradio/medved/transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=bf729acb-9c19-44c4-9666-c763f6e0dd9d&comments=true
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:56pm
  @Dudley
  
  “While it’s true that then Archbishop of Munich, Ratzinger, approved a request from a bishop in Essen to have a priest moved to Munich for treatment by a psychiatrist, it’s also important to remember that in 1980, it was thought people could be “cured” of pedophilia.”
  
  If you find out someone you employ murders folks during his time off, it’s not your place as an employer to treat his homicidal impulses by recommending a psychologist. It’s your duty to contact the police and say “Holy moley, this guy kills dudes!” Or in this case, “Holy moley, this guy rapes kids!” It’s up to the legal system to decide what punishment or therapy is appropriate.
  
  Hullermann was raping children since at least 1979 – what’s more, he admitted four cases of sexual assault upon children to church officials in Essen; the church knew about it (the diocese of Essen told Munich about it), but still reassigned him. And yes, Ratzinger was aware of it, being the head of Munich at the time. He approved the transfer and the therapy in 1980 after speaking to Hullermann personally.
  
  As I said elsewhere, the pope won’t ever stand trial for it, but just because the church has put some effort into reform in the past few years does not forgive the (in)actions from the past several decades.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:33pm
  LOCKED
  
  Here’s the original article from the New York Times. Please note that there is no evidence cited anywhere in the article proving that Ratzinger knew or approved of Hullermann being sent back to another parish where he could continue abusing children. Matter of fact, the article confirms that it was Ratzinger’s deputy at the time, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, who said he was to blame for that personnel decision, not Ratzinger. Again, I’m not trying to claim the church is innocent. Those who are guilty should pay and pay dearly. All I’m trying to say that at least as of this moment, there isn’t any proof that Pope Benedict covered up these crimes.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.html?pagewanted=all
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 8:06am
  @Dudley
  
  The article confirms what I said: Ratzinger knew about the sexual abuse and did not report it to the police. Saying “Well, he wasn’t in favor of relocating the abuser” ignores the problem that he was expressly told (by the abuser himself) that children had been molested. If you see an employee in your company beating someone to death, but he’s from a different department, you still call the police!
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 3:45pm
  @OTHER…………..“I tell you that many will come from the east and the west, and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven,”
  
  Matthew 6:10 “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon the earth.
  
  The Kingdom of Heaven is also a government ruled by a King over a “realm”, “domain”. ( territory under one government or ruler.) I’m sure the earth is under that jurisdiction.
  
  And as far as the anointed there will still be those alive until the great tribulation. So relax and in the mean time just pour yourself a great big glass of milk and maybe I’ll catch up with you on another artical. This one has run its course.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 5:01pm
  GREEN I don’t know why you’re commenting in this thread, but according to WT doctrine, Abraham, Isasc and Jacob are not members of the “little flock.” How did they get into heaven? And even so, who or what are they if they are going back with Jesus to be reunited with their bodies? 1 Thess 4:14. What am I missing? Or is it you who is missing something?
  
  You’re reading into the text of Matt 6:10. Nothing there about a government. In context, may God’s Will be done in heaven, and on earth.
  
  I commented in the other thread about Rutherford’s alleged revelation concerning the choosing of the anointed class being completed by 1935, and that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not members of the “little flock.”
  
  No one else is reading most like but I have this bookmarked and if you reply I will respond.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 5:34pm
  @OTHER……..”Matt 6:10. Nothing there about a government”
  
  What do you think a KINGDOM is? Maybe you should drink that milk right out of the gallon jug.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:07pm
  Green, I don’t think “kingdom” here is referring to an “earthly government.” The word “kingdom” here means “reign.” Note, Matthew 3:2, which refers to the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:23pm
  @OTHER………”The word “kingdom” here means “reign.””
  
  reign = royal power or rule. the period of a sovereign’s rule. to rule as a king.
  Isaiah 9:6 (government)
  Dude maybe you should buy a COW ……………see other comment below back on the other thread
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:39pm
  GREEN yes, reign. Is 9:6 is speaking of Christ’s earthly reign. For to “us” a child is born. To “us” a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. (emphasis mine) Earthly government.
  
  Mat 10:6 is speaking of the heavenly kingdom -. “YOUR” kingdom come. (emphasis mine)
  
  Didn’t see anything about a cow.
  
  Report this comment
davisgarvey
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:06pm
God Bless the Pope. Wishing him peace inthe days ahead.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
term limits for congress
Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:04pm
To answer the question, No.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SciPro
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:22pm
  We will have to keep our eyes open … strange things are forecasted … It’s not something I would wish on anyone … We are in a period when men are losing heart, because of our leadership in Gov and church and men are turning away from christian values in droves … there just has to be a consequence … history seems to prove that .. just saying .. of course I could be out-to-lunch …
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:27pm
  All the more reason to put your faith in Jesus Christ.
  
  Report this comment
- DivineWordRadio
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:49pm
  Theotherbean, I do, put my faith in Jesus Christ by following His Church and His Vicar, Pope Benedict.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 2:58pm
  DIVINE, I should have said Jesus Christ alone. As the Scriptures teach.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:10pm
  Jesus said “no one comes to the Father except through me.”
  
  He didn’t say no one comes to the Father except through my vicar, then my church, and then finally after you’ve been through everyone else in your lineup, then maybe me, but only if Mary is busy in the soap bubbles or mold on the wall — you can just forget about Jesus and go right through her.
  
  Oh, and I didn’t post the verse because Catholics don’t spend much time with their Bibles so I figured some quality time with the Lord rather than a statue of some dead person might benefit you.
  
  I’m just sayin…
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 3:23pm
  @ Devine
  
  The church, or the “Bride of Christ”, is made up of believers. If you believe you are “the church”. You are also a Priest. You now have direct access to God and do not have to have a priestly intermediary such as it was in the age of Israel.
  
  1 Peter 2:9 NAS
  But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light ;
  
  In fact, all believers are the new temple and each of us are described as an individual stone:
  
  1 Peter 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture : “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
  
  As for who you are to follow?
  
  John 21:22 NAS
  Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You FOLLOW ME!”
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 6:34pm
  @OTHER…………”I should have said Jesus Christ alone. As the Scriptures teach.”
  
  Genesis 15:6 And he [Abram before he was named Abraham] put faith in Jehovah; and he proceeded to count it to him as righteousness.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 18, 2013 at 7:13pm
  @OTHER……..”Jesus said “no one comes to the Father except through me.”
  
  Jesus also said ; “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him; and I will resurrect him in the last day. John 6:44
  
  So the Father [Jehovah] sent him [Jesus].
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:59am
  @ Greenwood
  
  The only person of the Godhead that has been seen by man is the son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the burning bush (seen), the Angel of the Lord (seen), the rock (seen),:
  
  John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
  
  Christ is part of the godhead and co-equal with the father, the only revealed member of the Godhead to man:
  
  John 14:9 NAS
  Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip ? He who has seen Me has seen the Father ; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father ‘?
  
  Jesus Christ Jehovah, the Angel of the Lord, also was with Moses in the desert:
  
  1 Corinthians 10:4 NAS
  and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
  
  He was this rock:
  
  Numbers 20:11 NAS
  Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod ; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank.
  
  Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH.
  
  Report this comment
- WhiteFang
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:34am
  Beachmastermax,
  
  If Jesus, the Christ, is Jehovah, then why is Jesus called the Christ ?
  If Jesus is GOD, then who was Jesus praying to in John chapter 17 ?
  Why did Jesus say “the FATHER is greater than I am”? John 14:28
  If Jesus is Jehovah, the how should we understand John 3:16-17 ?
  Why did Jesus need someone to save him? Hebrews 5:7
  
  There are so many questions like these, that when asked, leave us having to admit that Jesus is just as the scriptures say: Jesus is the Son of God. He is the Christ of God, the Son who was sent by Jehovah God to be a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.
  
  Report this comment
- snooop1e
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:53am
  The extra-biblical teaching of the TRINITY is not found anywhere in scripture, neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor any Prophet ever taught of a TRINITY or that God is 3 separate persons. So the question then becomes, why do “BIBLE ONLY”,”SCRIPTURE ALONE” Christians accept an extra biblical public revelation that is not found anywhere in scripture that was introduced almost 300 years AFTER the Apostles died? Where did this teaching coming from, when was the word “TRINITY” first introduced and who introduced it? Also, I find it rather odd that “SCRIPTURE ALONE” Christians rely on extra biblical, non inspired, non scriptural writings of men found at http://www.gotquestions.org in order to “understand” the TRUE meaning of scripture as if scripture alone is not sufficient? If scripture alone is sufficient for all Christians why are “SCRIPTURE ALONE” Christians relying on a non inspired non scriptural source other than Gods Holy Word as if scripture alone is not sufficient? These ”SCRIPTURE ONLY” Christians rely on websites containing teachings of men who never met or learned from any of the Apostles. Men who do not speak Greek or Hebrew as their native tongue yet at the same time they reject the writings of men who actually did speak Greek and Hebrew and actually lived with and learned directly from the Apostles or their disciples such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Iraneaus, Agustine and Clement. How is relying on http://www.gotquestions.org any different then relying
  
  Report this comment
- snooop1e
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:12am
  on a Catechism? Why do “BIBLE ONLY” Christians refer to non-scriptural, non-inspired writings of men in order to understand what is written by the Holy Spirit in the Bible? Also why did Jesus appear to the Apostles AFTER His resurrection and tell them “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained”? Why did anyone need the Apostles to forgive their sins AFTER Jesus paid the price for all sin? What was the point of Jesus saying that? Also why did Paul say “Anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup without recognizing the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ eats and drinks condemnation on themselves”? Also if Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6 why did He say “My Body is REAL FOOD and My Blood is REAL drink”? Why didn’t Jesus say “My Body is Symbolic Food and My Blood is Symbolic drink”? Also if we are saved by Faith Alone why is it that the ONLY Place we find the words FAITH and ALONE in scripture is James 2:24 where it says “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” Also if we are saved by FAITH ALONE why does Romans 2:6 say “He will render to each one according to his works” Also if we are saved by FAITH ALONE why does Jesus in MATT 7:21 say “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”
  
  PAX CHRISTI
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:40am
  Revelations 20:13
  “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”
  
  What? Not judged by faith alone?
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:24am
  The concept of the trinity is an exhaustive study. It is definitely not the milk of scripture but the meat. It is best learned from a pastor/teacher that excegetes from the Greek and Hebrew. That is not me, but I do sit at the feet of one.
  
  However, here is some of the scriptures regarding the Diety of Christ , “which are not in the bible”.
  
  The Deity of Jesus Christ
  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  
  The Word Made Flesh
  John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  
  Christ in the greek means messiah in the hebrew which meens “the annointed one” or the one who saves (redeemer).
  
  Titus 1:3 but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of GOD OUR SAVIOR, 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith : Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus OUR SAVIOR.
  
  1 Tim 2: 5 For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
  
  Titus 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind APPEARED,
  
  This is but a few. You have to be a polytheist not to believe the trinity.
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:34am
  @ By faith
  
  Revelations 20 is the Great White Throne judgement where all UNBELIEVERS are judged. These are people who are trying to explain to Jesus why their works (the better translation is deeds) which are recorded in the many books, should be enough to get them into heaven.
  
  Jesus describes the GWT judgement here:
  
  Matthew 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
  
  So yes, this means the exact opposite of your understanding. All their good works were of no avail, only belief in JC will put you in the Book of Life.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:26pm
  SNOOP, we don’t “rely” on the words of other men, such as the WTS demands of you. Quite frankly you are not even supposed to be participating here because you might hear and consequently believe something the WTS didn’t teach you. You’re not allowed to think for yourself. You must only parrot what you have been instructed to believe.
  
  But some of us choose to follow the Scriptures and be “more noble” like the Bereans, (huh?) who examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. They didn’t just blindly accept what Paul was telling them, as you do with the WTS.
  
  I mentioned before that I like that site because it offers in-depth explanations of the Scriptures, many of which I agree with. But that site claims no “authority” to speak for God, such as the WTS, nor do I claim that it is the absolute truth, as the WTS demands that you must believe of it.
  
  As for works vs faith, check out my comments in this blaze article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/16/vatican-says-conclave-to-elect-the-next-pope-could-be-moved-up/#comment-4915795
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:28pm
  “Revelations 20 is the Great White Throne judgement where all UNBELIEVERS are judged.”
  I guess the Baptist minister who quoted that at the funeral I attended was mistaken.
  
  James 2: 14-18
  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
  Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
  and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ” but you do not give them the
  necessities of the body, what good is it?
  So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
  Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.”
  Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
  
  Man made teaching – Luther was so relieved when he “discovered” Sola Fide (Faith Alone) while he was sitting on the privy in the monastery tower. He had only to believe, he said, and that relieved his tortured conscience.
  
  James 2:24
  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:32pm
  I guess that’s why Luther wanted to have the book of James removed from the Bible
  (you do know he edited or deleated 11 books)
  
  What does the Bible say about adding to or subtracting from scripture?
  What about following the teachings of men? Or was Luther more than Jesus?
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:03pm
  @ faith
  
  Maybe Luther was reading this while on the John:
  
  Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  
  Pretty emphatic and straight to the point. Unless you are a Boaster I guess.
  
  Hope you don’t come up short on those works you think you need to be saved. Who do you check with to make sure you are making your quota?
  
  I will go the way of the Thief (bad person) who was pinned to the cross (not able to move, let alone do good works) and believed. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:25pm
  Yes, you are justified by works, but saved by faith.
  
  Eph 2:8 for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, that no one would boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before that we would walk in them.
  
  God expects good works from those who are saved.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:25pm
  For the record, You, Me anyone is saved by the grace of God ALONE.
  
  We are not saved by faith alone (good luck with that)
  Catholics do not believe we are saved by our works. There is no quota
  
  We are all undeserving and flawed.
  
  Have you ever met anyone who had faith, but did not do good works?
  You can cherry pick scripture to believe whatever you like, Luther did.
  
  Justified by faith and works…the Bible is clear on this.
  Saved by the unmeritted grace of God Alone
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:52pm
  Luther was a troubled, surly, intemperate — and occasionally even blasphemous — man. Hardly the picture of a Spirit-led leader of the faith.
  read his own words, his nature is undeniable:
  ‘Be A Sinner’ “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
  Luther is actually saying that our actions — even the most sinful actions imaginable — don’t matter
  “Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning?
  Paul makes eminently clear in Rom. 2: 5-11, “…the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works.” And again in 2 Cor. 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat… so that each one may receive recompense , according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” Luther and you are utterly and monumentally wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:55pm
  Luther Said: There Is No Free Will
  “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
  “…we do everything of necessity, and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil…”
  “Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”
  All these passages come from a tract Luther penned, titled, ‘De Servo Arbitrio ,’ or ‘Bondage of the Will,’
  Luther: The Individual Christian Is Subject To No Authority
  “…every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, by virtue of a spiritual power, he is lord of all things without exception, so that nothing can do him any harm. As a matter of fact, all things are made subject to him and are compelled to serve him in obtaining salvation.”
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:01pm
  Reading these words of Luther, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could he have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture? In doing so, he quite clearly set himself up as judge over God himself.
  Luther Said: Persecute The Jewish People
  “Jews are young devils damned to hell.”
  “Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.”
  How is it so many people have followed the author of these dark, bleak teachings? There is only one explanation: They don’t realize what Luther — the real Luther — actually taught. If they did, they’d would see that many of the ideas of the Reformation father run counter to both Scripture and good sense.
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:17pm
  “Catholics do not believe we are saved by our works. There is no quota”.
  
  So then we are agreed.
  
  Who is this Luther guy you keep bringing up?
  
  Report this comment
- Platonician
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:28pm
  “I find it rather odd that “SCRIPTURE ALONE” Christians rely on extra biblical, non inspired, non scriptural writings of men found at http://www.gotquestions.org in order to “understand” the TRUE meaning of scripture”
  
  Your observation is quite relevant. In fact this is one of the many lies crafted by the reformers, the monsters that divided the Church for personal gain: Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII. They wanted to attract the hordes of ignorant and hateful, pretty much like Obama does now. They invented the shallow dogma of “sola scriptura” while they themselves authored books of exegesis. Other protestants like the Jehovah Witness continue this hypocritical fallacy publishing hundreds of books….
  The main problem with this error is that it leaves the honest man who adheres to it, without defense and without answers. That’s the reason protestantism will and do devolve into atheism. Also the reason why hateful atheists find in protestants easy preys. Profiteers of all kinds also use this to enrich themselves, exploiting the naivity of protestants. Check out story about judge Rutheford, a lawyer that was head of the JW’s that man lead a life of opulence paid by his organization http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bethsarim.php and these very same people accuse catholic priests that live and work among poor people of hypocrisy.
  
  themselves
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:29pm
  “Who is this Luther guy you keep bringing up?”
  You are betting your soul on teachings this man invented; yet you don’t know who he is?
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:25pm
  Little joke there. He was a “Heretic” that the Cathoics wanted to burn at the stake, along with all others who did not stay in line, because he was mucking up the scam of having the peasants pay the church hard cash to be absolved of their sins. I know who he is.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:33pm
  @WHITEFANG…………”There are so many questions like these, that when asked, leave us having to admit that Jesus is just as the scriptures say: Jesus is the Son of God.”
  
  They don’t see it because (2 Corinthians 4:4)
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:43pm
  BEASTMASTER…….”Christ is part of the godhead and co-equal with the father, the only revealed member of the Godhead to man:”
  
  Philippians 2:9 “God exalted him [Jesus ] to a superior position………..
  But if Jesus was equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God? How could anyone be superior to God?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:45pm
  BYFAITH, I agree that we are saved by grace, through faith, but the Scriptures I posted clearly do say we are saved by faith with no mention of grace. I’m not arguing that point, just saying….
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:56pm
  Platonician,
  
  Is it a good idea to quote references?opinions about an organization that is opposed to the group being discussed?
  
  Would it not be better to examine the group or organization first hand, by going directly to them for accurate information? Why should we listen to a prejudiced opinion. Or you?
  
  For example, if I want to learn about Catholics, I would go to them. I would not go to the Baptists, as I am sure I would not get accurate information from them.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:57pm
  “They don’t see it because (2 Corinthians 4:4)”
  
  You don’t see it because the NWT is an unreliable translation.
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:06pm
  theotherberean,
  
  Don’t be childish.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:21pm
  OLD, just the facts.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:33pm
  GREEN “But if Jesus was equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God? How could anyone be superior to God?”
  
  He isn’t equal to God in position, just nature. God raised Him back up to the position He held prior to taking on flesh.
  
  Heb 2:7 You made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet. 9 But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:34pm
  @OTHER………”the NWT is an unreliable translation.”
  
  Then tell me OTHER what is it that you consider the “Gold Standard” then? Textus Receptus?
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:46pm
  theotherberean
  My post about grace was not a response to you.
  
  We are saved by the grace God. The Bible says Faith and Works are part of the equation, but God can save even those without both faith and works if it pleases Him.
  For example in the case of invincible ignorance, like in the case of a brain damaged person who is incapable of faith or works.
  
  Report this comment
- Platonician
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:05pm
  @Beachmastermax
  “Little joke there. He was a “Heretic” that the Cathoics wanted to burn at the stake, along with all others who did not stay in line, because he was mucking up the scam of having the peasants pay the church hard cash to be absolved of their sins. I know who he is.”
  
  That’s another lie created by the dividers. In fact even today in Europe people are freely to voluntarily divert a small proportion (0,7%) of their tax to charity or to the Catholic Church, of course during the XVI tax legislation was different, but this hasn’t necessarily to do with the Church as the myth assumes.
  
  And in fact, had Luther been burned, many lives would have been saved, all the wars that his ignorance and ambition caused avoided. His pride caused millions of deaths and other atrocities.Starting by the sack of Rome when his crazed degenerate followers raped, killed, and ransacked the city.
  Secular historians see him as the father of anti-antisemitism in Germany, and his call to to exterminate the Jews inspired and the Nazis!
  
  You can verify all this claims before non catholic historical sources, all the information is out there, of course neither the anti-christian public schools nor the media will tell you a word about it.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 6:16pm
  @OTHER……..BEGREEN Some of the RCC traditions are fine, as long as they are in full and total agreement with all of the Scriptures.
  
  Name One
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 7:02pm
  GREEN, I prefer the Farstad, Hodges NKJV Greek Interlinear. When you read the Bible in the original languages, it just pops.
  
  For students I recommend the John F. MacArthur study Bible.
  
  I would not use the NWT for even a doorstop. Someone might accidentally pick it up and try to read it…
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 7:57pm
  This has been a great discussion. I have enjoyed it. You guys have been good to converse with. Thanks
  
  As for me, I put my full trust in the WORK that Christ performed on the cross for my Eternal salvation:
  
  1 Peter 3:18 NAS
  For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit ;
  
  Since Christ died ONCE for all our sins we are assured. It is no longer a Sin question, but a Son question..”What do you believe in Jesus Christ.”
  
  Acts 16:31 NAS
  [The Jailer Converted] They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,
  
  I do not trust in my own works. However, if I recieve rewards in heaven for works that happened to glorify God, well that will just be iceing on the cake.
  
  Report this comment
- snooop1e
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 8:40pm
  @THEOTHERBEREAN – I cant help but think if you follow scripture the same way that you follow these posts it’s no wonder you are confused. For the second time I am Catholic not JW. Why do SCRIPTURE ALONE Christians worship on Sunday when nothing in scripture says that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday? Also why do SCRIPTURE ALONE Chrisitians believe in the TRINITY when neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught about a TRINITY and the teaching of the TRINITY is not mentioned anywhere in scripture and wasn’t even introduced until 300 years AFTER the last Apostle died? Also why do SCRIPTURE ALONE Chrsitians rely on non-scriptural, non-inspired teachings of men found on websites like http://www.gotquestions.org? Is SCRIPTURE ALONE not sufficient? Why do SCRIPTURE ALONE Christians need non-scriptural, non-inspired writings of men in order to understand the teachings found in scripture? Also why did Jesus return AFTER His death and resurrection and tell the Apostles “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained? Why did anyone need the Apostles to forgive their sins AFTER Jesus rose from the dead? Also why did Paul write “any man who eats the bread and drinks the cup without recognizing the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ eats and drinks CONDEMNATION upon himself? Also why did Martin Luther have to INTRODUCE the teaching of being saved by FAITH ALONE if this belief already existed? JAMES 2:24. Simple questions.
  
  PAX CHRISTI
  
  Report this comment
- snooop1e
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 9:17pm
  THEOTHERBEREAN wrote “we are Justified by works but saved by faith” This statement is totally unbiblical.
  
  Romans 5:1 “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith …”
  
  The only way for FAITH ALONE to work is by changing the biblical definition of JUSTIFICATION. THEOTHERBEREAN is slowly painting himself into a corner just as Martin Luther did. Martin Luther invented the idea of being JUSTIFIED by FAITH ALONE. This is the reason he added the word ALONE to his translation of Romans 3:28 and wanted the Epistle of James removed from the Bible. Romans 3:28, James 2:24 and writings in the Apocrypha contradict the teaching of being saved by FAITH ALONE. The Apocrypha were in the original 1611 King James Bible but Protestants later had them removed.
  
  The Greek word for JUSTIFIED is DIKAIOUTAI
  
  Cognate: 1344 dikaióō (from dikē, “right, judicial-approval”) – properly, approved, especially in a legal, authoritative sense; to show what is right, i.e. conformed to a proper standard (i.e. “upright”).
  
  The believer is “made righteous/justified” (1344 /dikaióō) by the Lord, cleared of all charges (punishment) related to their sins. Moreover, they are justified (1344 /dikaióō, “made right, righteous”) by God’s grace each time they receive (obey) faith
  
  JUSTIFIED means SAVED.
  
  The unbiblical man made traditions FAITH ALONE and SCRIPTURE ALONE are not found ANYWHERE in scripture and the only way to make them work is to change definitions
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:06pm
  @OTHER………”God raised Him back up to the position He held prior to taking on flesh.”
  
  No, that is not true. By his entire life course of integrity to God, including his sacrifice, Jesus Christ accomplished the “one act of justification” that proved him to qualifed to serve as God’s anointed King-Priest in heaven, (Ro.5:17,18) By his resurrection from the dead to life as a heavenly Son of God, he was declared righteous in spirit. (1 Ti 3:16) Heavenly creatures proclaimed him worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing,” as one who was both lionlike in behalf of justice and judgement and also lamblike in giving himself as a sacrafice for the saving of others. (RE 5:5-13) He had accomplished his primary purpose of sanctifying his Fathers name. (Mt 6:9; 22:36-38) This he did, not just by using that name, but by revealing the Person it represents, displaying his Fathers qualities love, wisdom, justice, and power – enabling persons to know or experience what God’s name stands for. (Mt 11:27; Joh 1:4,18; 17:6-12) And above all he did it by upholding Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, showing that his own Kingdom government would be based solidly on that Supreme Source of authority.
  The Lord Jesus Christ is thus “the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith,”
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:30pm
  @OTHER………….NKJV …….These verses are kind of confusing, who is who? or is someone talking to themself? At least the KJV separated the two by putting Jehovah as LORD and Jesus as Lord.
  This is why the NWT when quotting the Hebrew scriptures in the Greek scriptures uses God’s name.
  It only makes sense to reason that way. The earlier manuscripts would have had the tetragrammaton.
  
  1.Psalm 110:1
  [ Announcement of the Messiah’s Reign ] [ A Psalm of David. ] The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
  Psalm 110:1-3 (in Context) Psalm 110 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
  2.Matthew 22:44
  ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
  Matthew 22:43-45 (in Context) Matthew 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
  3.Mark 12:36
  For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
  Mark 12:35-37 (in Context) Mark 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
  4.Luke 20:42
  Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms:‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
  Luke 20:41-43 (in Context) Luke 20 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
  5.Acts 2:34
  “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
  Acts 2:33-35 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 11:40am
  SNOOP You argue like a JW or a Mormon. Sorry I missed that you are RC. Pseudo-Christian cultists have a lot in common and it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the other.
  
  The Bible indicates that sometimes worship did take place on the Sabbath, but nothing in the Scriptures indicate that the Sabbath is a God-ordained day of corporate worship. It is a day of rest. There is no explicit biblical command that either Saturday or Sunday be the day of worship. Scriptures such as Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 give Christians freedom to observe a special day, or to observe every day as special. Jesus is our “Sabbath rest.” (do a search)
  
  You keep bleating “SCRIPTURE ALONE Christians rely on non-scriptural, non-inspired teachings of men” and then you site a web site that I like to point to that I mostly agree with when it comes to clarification on some doctrinal issues. Rather than just bashing Christians for pointing to the Bible as their only source of doctrinal truth, or a web site for offering their thoughts and reasonable explanations, why not pick out something on that site and mount an argument against it rather than just complaining about it? I’ve said (at leat twice now) I don’t consider anything on that site “inspired,” and if you feel something is in error, why not attempt to correct the error rather than just crapping your pants about it?
  
  More…
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 11:43am
  You asked: “Why did anyone need the Apostles to forgive their sins AFTER Jesus rose from the dead?” Answer: they didn’t. The Catholic teaching of absolution is not Scriptural. God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). None of the Apostles ever assumed to have such authority, nor did any pretend to exercise it. That would be usurping God’s Authority and the “authority” the RCC gives it’s priests is in my opinion blasphemy. Note in John 20:23 Jesus is speaking to everyone. The Bible is clear: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
  
  You asked: “why did Paul write “any man who eats the bread and drinks the cup without recognizing the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ eats and drinks CONDEMNATION upon himself?” Vincent’s Word Studies says: See on Mark 16:16; see on John 9:39. This false and horrible rendering has destroyed the peace of more sincere and earnest souls than any other misread passage in the New Testament. It has kept hundreds from the Lord’s table. krisis is a temporary judgment, and so is distinguished from condemnation, from which this temporary judgment is intended to save the participant. The distinction appears in 1 Corinthians 11:32 (see note). The A.V. of the whole passage, 1 Corinthians 11:28-34, is marked by a confusion of the renderings of to judge and its compounds.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 11:44am
  You asked: “why did Martin Luther have to INTRODUCE the teaching of being saved by FAITH ALONE if this belief already existed?” Luther was concerned about heretical practices and teachings in the RCC, and indulgences were a great concern to him. “As soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].” He was considered a heretic and a death warrant was issued for speaking against your beloved RCC. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith plus nothing. I’ve already made my arguments and if you disagree then please address them point by point as I do with yours. Merely posting Scriptures that we disagree on the meaning of and claiming a doctrinal victory is neither debate nor discussion.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 11:59am
  GREEN You don’t seem to want to answer my question concerning 1 Thess 4:13.
  
  If humans do not nave a soul, separate and distinct from their bodies, who or what is Jesus bringing back with Him to be reunited with those human bodies?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 1:17pm
  GREEN
  
  This is the WT description of Jesus: “The Lord Jesus Christ is thus “the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith,”
  
  This is the Bible description of Jesus Christ: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Heb 1:3
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:05pm
  @OTHER………..”You don’t seem to want to answer my question concerning 1 Thess 4:13. ”
  
  I have answered your question on the same subject that verse is referring to,you just can’t accept the answer. We seem to be going around in circles here.
  
  1Thess 4:13. Moreover, Brothers, we do not want to be ignorant concerning those who are sleeping in death; that you may not sorrow just as the rest also do who have no hope. (1 Thess 4:1 – 5:28)
  
  First of all it starts out, Brothers so Paul is speaking in a letter to his fellow “spirit anointed brothers” after losing one of their number in death and the continued persecution in the congregation being brought to bear was very much a concern because of the mob violence. He was writting to encourage comfort and counsel one another with the hope that at Christ’s presence spirit-begotten believers who have died will be raised first and united with Christ, afterward those still living will join him and the resurrected ones. I explained this to you forward and back. They are the anointed, holy ones, little flock, 144,000 , joint heirs with Christ, kings and priests, or like the Catholics say saints. hey have a havenly hope. Then you also have the other sheep,(John 10:16) the great crowd,(Revelation 7:9 and 19:6) those with an earthly hope of being resurrected and living on a paradise earth with everlasting life.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:41pm
  @THEOTHER……..”If humans do not nave a soul, separate and distinct from their bodies, who or what is Jesus bringing back with Him to be reunited with those human bodies?
  
  The soul is you the physical body that is you. people, person, being, ceature, man became a living soul. As it says in Genesis: created from the dust of the earth and God’s Spirit or “active force”. Maybe you should go back and start all over from Genesis through Revelation.
  
  Hebrews 5:11 Concerning him we have much to say and hard to be explained, since YOU have become dull in YOUR hearing.12 For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time, YOU again need someone to teach YOU from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God; and YOU have become such as need milk, not solid food.13 For everyone that partakes of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
  
  Do I need to say more? That pretty much sums it up in Hebrews 5
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:32pm
  GREEN I understand your doctrines. They’re too complicated to expound on here so I’ll try and be brief.
  
  You’re probably not one of the “little flock” the “Anointed Class,” the required number – 144,000 – was reached in 1935. The WT 1 Feb 82 p28 says “the heavenly hope was held out, highlighted, and stressed until about the year 1935. Then ‘as light flashed up’ to reveal clearly the identity of the ‘great crowd’ of Rev 7:9, the emphasis began to be placed on the earthly hope.”
  
  The “earthly hope,” instead of heaven, is for you and all JW’s since – as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the OT prophets who have died and are the “other sheep” who will experience a “resurrection of life” and earthly blessings but not heaven. But read Matt 8:11 “I tell you that many will come from the east and the west, and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven,”
  
  In no way is Luke 12:32 speaking of a group of 144,00 members of an anointed class that would develop from Biblical times until 1935. Where is there any specific indication in Luke 12:32 that these are the 144,000 spoken of in Rev 7 and 14? Where do the Scriptures indicate this “little flock” will only accept members until 1935?
  
  The WTS claims to be the only group on earth that follows the Bible, but this doctrine was an alleged revelation given to J.F. Rutherford – a man.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 5:59pm
  @OTHER……..”GREEN I don’t know why you’re commenting in this thread”
  
  I must have hit the wrong reply tab
  
  Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
  Unto us a Son is given;
  And the government will be upon His shoulder.
  And His name will be called
  Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
  Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NKJV)
  
  Notice it says government and Mighty God, not Almighty
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:04pm
  @OTHER…….”http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209:6&version=NKJV
  
  A kingdom is a government.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:17pm
  GREEN It also says “EVERLASTING FATHER.” Isn’t that blasphemy according to WT doctrine? And I thought Jesus was not “eternal?”
  
  A kingdom can mean a government, but Matt 6:10 is not speaking of an “earthly government.”
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 7:05pm
  OTHER……”GREEN It also says “EVERLASTING FATHER.” Isn’t that blasphemy according to WT doctrine? And I thought Jesus was not “eternal?”
  
  I knew that would be your next post. You are really getting predictable but still dull in your hearing.
  
  In a sense Jesus will be a Father because he is the last Adam. We are sons of Adam now. Luke 3:38
  1Corinthians 15:45 the last Adam. …….a spirit of adoption as sons.
  Jesus is eternal, while he did have a beginning he will have no end. “life everlasting”
  
  I have to say this is getting kind of boring now. I sometimes wonder why people can’t see what is so obvious. You keep believing in the trinity if you want. Good luck with that.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 7:16pm
  Didn’t see anything about a cow.
  
  I was referring to the milk again from Hebrews 5:11-14
  Do you see why this is getting boring? You either are dull in your hearing or maybe short term memory loss. It was fun for a while but time to move on to another story.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 7:35pm
  I don’t think “kingdom” here is referring to an “earthly government.” The word “kingdom” here means “reign.” Note, Matthew 3:2, which refers to the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.
  
  So you don’t think God’s kingdom will rule over the earth?
  Daniel 2:44 1Corinthians 15:24-28 and Revelation 5:9,10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will rule as kings over the earth.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 7:52pm
  GREEN again, much theological wrangling on your part. It’s difficult to discuss the Bible with a JW using common sense and logic because you are trained bigots.
  
  I am neither dull of hearing nor short on memory, and to say so is a lie. To intimate that your arguments have been Biblically sound while mine are wrought with error, is laughable. You have not established that at all. You ignore the GLARING FACTS on so many points I present, which prove the WTS is a false prophet, a false teacher, and has clearly altered the text of the Scriptures to support false doctrines. The NWT is not a reliable source and you have failed to prove differently. You are intellectually dishonest and in denial.
  
  And, you are wrong again about Jesus. I will leave you with this…
  
  e·ter·nal
  adjective
  1.
  without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
  2.
  perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
  3.
  enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
  4.
  Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
  noun
  5.
  something that is eternal.
  6.
  the Eternal, God.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 8:02pm
  OTHER……..The context of the Bible has a pretty consistent theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation. God has a purpose for the earth and he will achieve that purpose.
  
  Isaiah 55:11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.
  John 17:17 ……..”your word is truth”
  Isaiah 40:26 …………Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he is also vigorous in power,
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 8:27pm
  OTHER……..”trained bigots”?
  
  I show you the evidence from the scriptures and you just come back with insults. You can check the link to the biblegateway site and see all the translations pretty much say the same thing, just some are written in archaic language that as in the KJV was outdated before it went to print. I see you are consistent with your insults with other posts on this site. Not very christian of you.
  
  As for BIGOT – Matthew 7:3 Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye?4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye?5 Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 11:11pm
  GREEN yes, God’s kingdom will rule over the earth. But it’s still God’s Kingdom that will rule, and Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36.
  
  I have no idea why you replied to my comment concerning consistent use of the phrase “I AM” throughout the Bible, by quoting Is 55:11. Or John 17:17 or Is 40:26. What is your point?
  
  I didn’t insult you. Facts are facts. It’s your way or the highway when it comes to doctrine, right? Guess what? That’s the definition of a bigot. No one else’s view is valid, and you arrogantly demonstrated this with the cow comments you keep repeating. Then you use the beam in the eye Scriptures when you are guilty of that yourself. So yes, you are a self righteous bigot, and you are intellectually dishonest. I’ve give you sufficient evidence and you have ignored it. You have not rebutted or denied even one of my arguments concerning the altered text by the WTS or the bias written into the text of the NWT to support heretical doctrines, or the fact that you rely on the teachings of men. You just keep posting Scripture and expect me to get it. So teacher, teach thyself. If you don’t like insults then don’t toss them around. They might get picked up and tossed right back at you.
  
  You are selectively reading into Rom 5:12 what you want it to say and ignoring the part that justifies my argument concerning babies. Sinners are judged “because they had all sinned.”
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:29pm
  OTHER……..”My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36.”
  
  His kingdom is no part of this world [ the ungodly world] but you knew that right? Just as it also says in John 17:11,14-16
  Jesus says verse 11 “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world.”
  verse 14 ……….”the world hated them because they are no part of the world.”
  vs 15 says “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one.
  So Jesus is speaking about Satan’s world or system of things. Which is why Satan was able to tempt Jesus with all the “kingdoms” of the world. This world is under the control of Satan but not for long.
  But you knew that right? Luke 4:1-13
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:42pm
  OTHER……”And, you are wrong again about Jesus. I will leave you with this… ”
  
  begotten > beget = 1 to become the father of; sire 2 to cause; produce.
  
  be = 1 to exist; live 2 to happen or occur 3 to remain or continue 4 to come to; belong
  
  get = to come into the state of having (anything) “life” 2 to reach; arrive at 8 to cause to be 11 to give birth to; beget
  
  (the firstborn of creation ) Colossians 1:15 ( the firstborn of the dead) Colossians 1:18
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:01pm
  OTHER……”You have not rebutted or denied even one of my arguments concerning the altered text ”
  
  The original copy of the scriptures written by Moses to the Apostle John in their own hand is the only text not altered. Like I said some time earlier, we now have the dead sea scrolls and you can clearly see the tetragrammaton in all the text that survived. The (NKJV) is altered from the (KJV) of 1611 is it not? Textus Receptus very flawed and altered as well, with hundreds or was it thousands of errors.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:26pm
  GREEN I keep posting Scriptures with explanations as to why the Scriptures you post do not support the doctrines you imply that they do. But you just keep posting those same Scriptures, chiding me for not “getting it.”
  
  I get it. I understand exactly where and why the WTS has altered the text in a manner that is totally agenda driven, dishonest and inconsistent with accepted scholarly standards. Not to mention the Bible and even where the WTS disagrees with itself.
  
  The WTS agenda attempts to prove that Jesus is not God Almighty and that only 144.000 Jehovah’s Witnesses will go to heaven. i have very accurately demonstrated to you that the NWT is not a reliable translation and I have demonstrated where and why with accurate and reasonable expectations. When I point to the facts – that the WTS has altered the text – you argue that everyone has altered the text. But even if that were true, two wrongs don’t make a right and especially in the case of the WTS who claims perfection – God’s only organization and the only one which teaches the “Bible only.” I have presented facts that cannot be disputed and they clearly prove that the WTS is a false prophet with a false gospel teaching false doctrines of men. If you can’t see that by now then you don’t want to.
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 6:38pm
  OTHER……”Jesus is not God Almighty” That is true and the reason you don’t believe that is because of your false and twisted idea of a “trinity god” which is pagan in origin. The concept of the trinity was adopted by the Catholic Church in the forth century under Constantine. It is obvious that many of your beliefs are rooted in the false Catholic doctrine you so often criticize. I’m sure you also celebrate Christmas and Easter, Valentine’s day, St. Patrick’s day etc.
  
  You are wrong that “only 144.000 Jehovah’s Witnesses will go to heaven.” That calling has gone out since Pentecost 33ce (Acts 2:5-11) from every nation of those under heaven.
  
  You have very accurately demonstrated that you are inaccurate in almost everything you post. First of all the WTS never claimed perfection like yourself. You really have never shown where the NWT is incorrect only that it is different than the antiquated translation of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
  
  YOU have presented a false gospel teaching; false doctrines of men. The trinity, hell fire,the immortal soul and I don’t know what other Catholic doctrine you believe maybe purgatory, limbo, the rapture or all good dogs go to heaven. If YOU can’t see that by now then you don’t want to.
  And all your name calling on many of the other stories like the O’Reilly “Killing Jesus” You remind me of the progressive left when they can’t win the argument resort to name calling. What was it “twerps” That’s not very m
  
  Report this comment
- Greenwood
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 6:45pm
  “twerps” That’s not very mature. Hebrews 5: 11-14 comes to mind again.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:46pm
  GREEN, If Jesus is not God Almighty, then why do the Scriptures give Him the same attributes as the Father, even referring to Him as the Eternal Father?
  
  The Bible clearly says that, and the Bible is not of pagan origin. So your argument is empty rhetoric.
  
  To deny that the WTS teaches that ONLY 144,000 (the little flock) go to heaven is a blatant lie.
  
  You have most certainly not corrected any alleged inaccuracies, if for no other reason than, according to literally ALL reputable Greek scholars, you use a flawed translation of the Bible – the NWT.
  
  Who are the scholars who translated the NWT?
  
  I have demonstrated with a properly translated Bible that it is in fact “you” who teaches the doctrines of men and not me. You are intellectually dishonest and in denial.
  
  As the Mormons do, JW’s will use any excuse to attack the character of someone such as myself, who is knowledgeable enough to point out the problems with WTS teachings. And then use that alleged “failed” character to argue that such a person should not be believed. (regardless of the facts) This is intellectually dishonest. It is also a straw man argument. It is also blatantly lying to hide the hypocrisy and heresy taught by the WTS, at the expense of Jesus’ Word. And you can ignore that truth if you like, but not all Christians are as naive and unlearned as you.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.