it doesn’t really matter who it was. what s/he’s saying is that it seems immoral and somewhat irreconcilable with ethe assumption of a supreley-benevolant God to ‘test’ someone in this cruel way.
jesus wasn’t testing him he was teasing us 
he would neve ask you to do something bad he leaves that to his faithful servant the devil.
(just ask JOB, for god’s sake!)
HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)
Embrace, I respectfully side with Sagesound. Your knowledge of the god in the bible is suspect and your ability to reason with regards to the rules within this construct of god’s existence is faulty…
If the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists, then this god is supreme judge over all and this god decides what is moral. Hypothetically speaking, Abraham (not Moses 
) has no reason to believe that his god is immoral and no basis to impugn this god’s demands–that’s our job today.
Other points of view? The presumption that the heaven of the biblical god exists would suggest that all people are subject to the rules from god. So, if everyone must adhere to these rules or go to an actual hell; then the supreme god has decided that there is only one point of view: god’s.
In other words, your question is ridiculous. Who wouldn’t want to go to heaven if we must choose between heaven and eternal hellfire?
With proof that god exists it would actually be illogical not to obey his commands. Theoretically, god smote many of the enemies of Israel…
Of course, we should never forget that the god of the bible is only a notion based on nothing & everything.
Catholicism is right because the church was founded by Peter. It offers a living connection to the living Jesus.
so have you met this jesus fellow? I keep hearing about the living jesus but have yet to see him.
no one has seen the physical Jesus, but many have felt the Holy Spirit.
PoR,
I think your answers were perfect.
Are you going through RCIA? 
my real name
hi MRN
not yet. I am attending mass every sunday though. one day I’ll attend the rite.
Technically this is not true and seeing as you’ve converted to Catholicism I would hope that you have researched enough to know this by now… but for those who haven’t done such let me explain.
The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the pope has complete Infallibility. When shown this side of the story this would mean the Pope can do nothing wrong or be wrong ever for he is completely infallible. To be completely infallible, one must be GOD… or Jesus in this case. The pope is known as the Vicar on Earth
VIC’AR, n. [L. vicarius, from vicis]
…a substitute in office.
So here we have The Substitute of Christ on Earth… interested. I do believe I have seen the Substitute for Christ on TV before… Two actually… the Present day Pope, and the Late Pope John Paul…
Here is the declaration of such power given to the pope.
“For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.”
–CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).”
–POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302
… I ask you PoR… did you not know of such blasphemies against the biblical God before you entered into such a coversion? Perhaps you should also take note that in definition to what is known in the bible as the Anti-Christ the pope himself takes this position… Anti-Christ literally meaning posing as Christ… therefore the Vicar on Earth (Substitute of Christ on Earth) also known as the Pope would be the one to bring the end of days… NO ONE can forgive sins according to the bible except God/Jesus… but every day you shall see the pope and his priests forgiving sins based on the POWER given to them by the SUBSTITUTE of CHRIST… is this not blasphemy at its fullest according to the bible? POSING as God/Jesus… and fulfilling the prophecy of the False Prophet (Anti-Christ).
Repent!!! And Thou shall be saved
You can go more in depth on reading about this if you would like… just get out your bible and start looking up in Daniel Chapter 7, 8 i believe where it talks about the Kings dream in which Daniel much interepret by God Direction… Its all there… or for you simple folks who do not carry your Pocket Handy Bible get on google and do a search for “Anti-Christ Pope”
Lasko, as an educated Catholic, I can correct you on two main errors in your post.
“Infallability”: The Pope’s actions are not said to be infallible; but only his official statements on faith and morals when speaking in union with the Bishops as part of the teaching Magesterium of the Church. And I’m glad he does.
“Substitute”: You substituted a poor word which has a different nuance of meaning from “Vicar”. A substitute can used in place of an original: a substitute part in an engine, say. But the Vicar of Christ never replaces Christ, in who’s name he rules the Church, until the time of the Parousia.
Regards,
my real name
The Pope uses the title Vicarius Christi, meaning, the vicar of Jesus Christ.
Vicarius is the etymological root of the modern word “vicar.”
And Vicar should I be so kind to fix your mistake means to Act as a Substitute for. Now in your reference to the engine part you seem tto have made a mistake… if you replace an engine part with another engine part… that new part is apparently newer and better than the old. As for infallibility, in the 8th Century they used Vicar of St. Peter or vicarius principis apostolorum, the vicar of the chief of the apostles. Why the sudden title change? Perhaps to fulfill the prophecy of the False Prophet? Or to ensure the power of the Pope by stating he has power and authority of God over the Church therefore making himself equal to or becoming Vicar of God. Ever seen pictures of the pope during mass? Thousands of people bowing their heads, or laying flat on their stomachs before the Pope. according to the bible no man shall bow before anyone except that of the Lord Jesus Christ/God. Vicar of Christi obviously makes him quite the man if he can be above the Most High of words like the Bible and have millions of Catholics laying before him as if he were God.
And please next time… do not believe because I myself am not a Catholic… does not mean I am not a WELL EDUCATED person.
Lasko,
Vicarius is the etymological root of the modern word “vicar.”
vicârius , a, um, adj. [vicis],
I. that supplies the place of a person or thing, substituted, delegated, vicarious.
I. Adj.: vicaria fides amicorum supponitur, Cic. Rosc. Am. 38, 111 : manus, Quint. Decl. 6, 21 : corpus, id. ib. 16, 7 : mors, Hyg. Fab. 243 ; Quint. Decl. 9 fin.–
II. Substt.
A. vicârius , ii, m., a substitute, deputy, proxy, a locum tenens, vicegerent, vicar: succedam ego vicarius tuo muneri, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 37, § 81 ; 2, 3, 38, § 86; id. Mur. 37, 80; id. Sull. 9, 26; id. Fam. 16, 22, 2; Liv. 29, 1, 8; Hor. C. 3, 24, 16; Dig. 26, 7, 39, § 16: diligentiae meae, Col. 11, 1, 5 .–Esp., an adjutant or lieutenant to a military commander, Cod. Just. 12, 51, 9: tribuni, a vice - tribune, Treb. Pol. Trig. Tyr. 10, 4 .–An under-servant, underslave kept by another slave, Plaut. As. 2, 4, 28; Hor. S. 2, 7, 79; Mart. 2, 18, 7; Dig. 9, 4, 19; 15, 1, 17; Inscr. Marin. Fratr. Arv. 687; cf. of the vicarii of such vicarii, ib. 775 .–
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary
Dunamis
Thanks, Dunamis.
Lasko,
You must reeeealy hate Episcopalians; lots of "Vicar"s in that branch of Christianity.
As for “vicar of the chief of apostles”, could you give some context so I know what cases to look for in translating it? * What is wrong with saying the Pope is the vicar of the chief of the apostles (Peter)? (Jesus said: “…you are Petros and on this Petros I will build my Church.”) The phrase was probably born out of conflict with the Eastern Churches, asserting the Primacy of Peter('s office).
And, hate to say it but, if you don’t understand the Church’s place in history, maybe you are not as well educated as you should be. Don’t be like the Protestant student one Theology teacher of mine met, who said he hated Catholics because they made Luther eat a diet of worms!
- (I only pulled a B in Latin. Obviously I’m not as well educated as I should be.)
mrn
I congradualate you MRN you done your homework well. I will admit I am not as educated on Catholicism as I should be (Catholicism is up next in school study), and I wish to withdraw my previous statements on the Vicar of Christ, but not the statement on Infallibility. Though I do have one thing to say about the Vicar of Christ.
Let me explain one thing before I go more in depth, I am in no way religious. I love the study of religion and symbology within the church but am in no way religious in the aspect of believing in any doctrine of a God.
(John 14:6 NIV) Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
This statement is a powerful one and makes me question the total authority that the catholic church says it has by being the only way to Heaven.
Logically speaking, could you explain how such contraditions can occur and with explaination?
"Call no man on earth your father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven’'! (Matt. 23:9).
This one also makes me doubt such authority, Yet everyday you shall find priests being called father. Explaination on this can be easily moved aside as just “Taking on the faithful role just as the Pope does” but that statement would still be going against the WORD of GOD.
No where does it certainly proclaim that I have seen does it state St. Peter would be the Pope and head of the Church, not only is Christ silent on this point, but so little does He think of giving a head to the church, that when He promises to His apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28), He promises them twelve thrones, one for each, without saying that among those thrones one shall be higher than the others - which shall belong to Peter. Certainly, if He had wished that is should be so, He would have said it. What do we conclude from this sentence? Logic tells us that Christ did not wish to make St. Peter the head of the apostolic college. When Christ sent the apostles to conquer the world, to all He gave the promise of the Holy Spirit. Permit me to repeat it: if He had wished to constitute Peter His vicar, He would have given him the chief command over His spiritual army. Christ - so says the Holy Scripture - forbade Peter and his colleagues to reign or to exercise lordship, or to have authority over the faithful like the kings of the Gentiles (St. Luke 22:25). If St. Peter had been elected pope, Jesus would not have spoken thus; but according to our tradition, the papacy holds in its hands two swords, symbols of spiritual and temporal power.
One thing has suprised me very much. Turning it over in my mind, I said to myself, If Peter had been elected Pope, would his colleagues have been permitted to send him with St. John to Samaria to announce the gospel of the Son of God? What do you think, venerable brethren, if at this moment we permitted ourselves to send his holiness Pius IX. and his Excellency Mons. Plantier to go to the Patriarch of Constantinople, to pledge him to put an end to the Eastern schism?
But here is another still more important fact. An Ecumenical Council is assembled at Jerusalem to decide on the questions which divide the faithful. Who would have called together this Council if St. Peter had been pope? St. Peter. Well, nothing of this occurred. The apostle assisted at the Council as all the others did, yet it was not he who summed up, but St. James; and when the decrees were promulgated, it was in the name of the apostles, the elders, and the brethren (Acts 15). Is it thus what we do in our church? The more I examine, O venerable brethren, the more I am convinced that in the scriptures the son of Jonas does not appear to be first.
Now, while I know the Cholic Church teaches that the church is built upon St. Peter. St. Paul (whose authority cannot be doubted) says, in his epistle to the Ephesians 2:20, it is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. And the same apostle believes so little in the supremacy of St. Peter, that he openly blames those who would say, We are of Paul, We are of Apollos (I Cor. 1:12), as those who say, We are of Peter.
If therefore this last apostle had been the vicar of Christ, St. Paul would have taken great care not to censure so violently those who belonged to his own colleagues.
Please further my knowledge of the Catholic ways so that I might understand how such blasphemies are Unblasphemistic?..
Lasko
Why should I argue with someone only takes an academic and not an (actual) “existential” interest in religion?
What’s the contradition?
Answer a question for me: How can Jesus say not to call your progenitor “father” when it says in the Law “Honor your father and your mother” and He himself approves of this law when the young rich man asks what is he to go to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
The other points you bring up are long to explain. The Papacy is a primacy among bishops, and even an Emperor has called a Church Council. I don’t see how they are terribly blasphemous; do you see something there I don’t?
Vale,
mrn
You should argue with someone who takes an academic interest in religion because I may not be religious but I am agnostic, in the sense that I believe we go somewhere after we die but I do not believe we have yet found out where it is we go. My interest in religion is of my own personal gain of knowledge and enlightenment. And the things I post have a purpose not to just argue but to learn as well.
The contradiction in there is that the Catholic Church is not the way to GOD… Read it again it says NO one COMES to the FATHER except through ME. The ME in that statement is Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church who claim they are the only way to find salvation and gain entrance to heaven. The mere fact that the Pope himself plays Vicarius of Christi is a high contradiction for it in no ways states in the bible that Peter (the supposed orignator of Papacy and founder of the church) was the OTHER mediator in which to Find Jesus. Finding Jesus Christ as your own personal savior is a persuit of your own… In the instance of the Catholic church if seems like you must go Through 1. Catholic Church. 2 then Jesus. 3. then God 4. then Heaev. This is not how it was meant to be. The bible clearly states in it that you must Go through JESUS to Get to God and through GOD you shall find true salvation and gain entrance into the Gates of Heaven.
The Bible is also clear that Jesus established the Church to bring people to Himself and thereby to the Father.
I dont think your understanding my point. The point being Only through Jesus, not the Pope, or some priest, can you find redemption… This is the key to christianity, Only Jesus can be the mediator between Heaven and Earth not some guy elected by Cardinals who can be a temp in place of Jesus.
The Very fact that the Church claims infallibility of all morals handed down to them by God is laughable considering the molestation charges it has had recently. Next the priest who screwed those little boys is going to say his infallibility of morals was tainted by that of the Devil, whom made him have sex with those little boys.
Does the Catholic Church have infallibility of all things Moral and Faithful? The Answer is… NO. The answer is No regardless of anything you say, because the thought of infallibility of morals and faith within anyone is impossible, simply because there is enough evidence to disprove such infallibility.
Its all a big sham to get people into the churches, because the radicals of the church have decided that they were handed completeness from God. That they were handed perfect morals by god. This my friends… is Crap. And it is people like you MRN that turn me off to the Christian religion. It is people like you MRN that make people like me hate the fact that if there is a God…Were all going to Hell… Because there is enough judgement in a single day, and enough hate in a single day… and enough lust in a single day that the World is Damned to Hell based on the Christian doctrine. Soon the rarity of actually getting into Heaven will hopefully end this World, and that day my friend is the day I shall truely be happy.
Lasko
Lasko, stay cool, man. You sound like you’re really frustrated with religion and there’s no need you should be. I kind of already answered these problems in my post of Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:33 am, but i seem to need to give further clarification.
Just because we have the assurance that the official Church teaches the right thing (for thought) does not mean we all do the right thing (in action). God will not take away our free will to accept or reject Him.
If you really want to argue against infallability, you should find a papal encyclical, read it, then appreciate its principled thought.
Lasko, for goodness sake, “[He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and] what doth the LORD require of thee, but [to do justly, and] to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic 6: 8 )
Vale bene,
my real name
[edited full quote]
Sorry, got a little frustrated there not because of what you said but because of someone elses message they sent me (PM), please excuse my outbreak, but its not religion that frustrates me, its more or less my issues with the people who practice religion… most say they are religious but tend to do the opposite of what there religion says… Sorry once again
lasko