The Anti-Christ speaks against the free market.

[VTA]

Hebrew 8: 7-13
Jeremiah 31 31-34

"You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Cor 3:2-3)

 

[Jon88]

Austin 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!

 

[VTA]

Austin 3:16 - Sorry guys, pulled my hamstring.

 

[Jon88]

No this is Stone Cold Steve Austin.

 

[VTA]

Austin 3:17 Thou shalt not administer steroids, lest Vince McMahon smite thee with a curse. (For not sharing...)

 

[JBond]

The pope thinks that a "socioeconomic system that leaves the poor with no means to support themselves is a grave sin.", so he is doing what VTA said a good Christian should do. Speak up about it.

And yet he is proposing a system that does exactly what he claims is a sin. The great deceiver.

Matthew 7:15
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

2 Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

 

[Jon88]

The pope is a fraud who is just saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear to make the Catholic Church relevant again.

Too little, too late. I look forward to the day when no one cares what the pope has to say so I don't have to read about it because he's useless and what he says is useless.

 

[junk]

No you're not. You're conflating political and economic conditions with theological ones. I've said false teachers numerous times and never once that we're admonished to point out failures of political/economic systems. We can, but Jesus never charged anyone with taking a political stand. Even when tested he gave the famous line of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's....

Yes, you did. Want me to quote it one more time? Why do you say something and back track on it?

The Pope is doing exactly what you said you should do

Like in any aspect of life, you're basically not doing well if you see someone wrongly led and keep your trap shut. It's more hateful to watch and stay silent than it is to open your mouth and at least give them your viewpoint to consider. Be it faith, vocation, economy whatever.

A sin to allow a political system? No. Christians aren't called to political office and positions of power. They're perfectly within their rights to do so and should get involved civilly, but it's not a sin to be helpless against it. It is however disingenuous for the so-called vicar of Christ to propagate one system of man over another.

Ah, I see. So allowing a political party like the Nazis wouldn't be a sin?

Certain Christians do believe they are called to political office and positions of power. See Christine O'Donnell, George W. Bush and Michelle Bachman.

The bible is very clear, but to those who do not read it. You just admitted most don't know the bible so how can anyone claim it's not clear? Citing ambiguity is an excuse to avoid what it say's. There's entire unanimity in the bible and it's meanings, based on it's historicity, it's impact and realized with simply taking the time to study it.

What does that mean?

Can you cite a specific example concerning Christians practicing Levitcal traditions? Anyone making such claims about it's pertinence to Christianity will probably be more like a congregant of Benny Hin or some other charlatan, (though I'm fairly sure even he doesn't go that far). Can you cite any bible scholar struggling with Matthew Ch 5:17? Or any particular verse?

Seventh Day Adventists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

There's a whole slew of religious history that debates whether the coming of Jesus rejected the Old Testament. You can research almost any Bible verse and find debate on its meaning.

 

[junk]

And yet he is proposing a system that does exactly what he claims is a sin. The great deceiver.

Matthew 7:15
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

2 Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

So, the Pope is Satan now?

I'm not saying his view of the world is right. I'm just saying he is doing exactly what VTA says you should do as a Christian. Yet, both of you are tearing him down for doing so.

 

[JBond]

So, the Pope is Satan now?

I'm not saying his view of the world is right. I'm just saying he is doing exactly what VTA says you should do as a Christian. Yet, both of you are tearing him down for doing so.

I doubt he is Satan. What I am suggesting is that he, like many fallible men do not really have others best interests at heart. I am leery of men that are supposed to be infallible. Only one was perfect. The Catholics have chosen to ignore many of the teachings of Jesus and have developed a system of idol worship, praying to the dead, and drinking blood that is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. The elevate the Pope and call him perfect in matters of the church. I guess the perfect Pope endorses pedophilia.

Francis is not proposing a system that would lift the world up. In fact he is proposing a system that would do the opposite. This is nothing new for the Catholics. They have been harping on the one world order and new monetary system for generations. If he were truly interested in making the world a better place he would start by cleaning up the deviant behavior his religion mandates and bring to justice all the pedophiles his church has protected for decades. His desire to abolish capitalism and replace it with a socialist centralized government indicates that he has little understanding of economics. The most evil men in history have desired the same thing. The results were disastrous. The system Francis endorses has led to more misery and death than any other invention in the history of mankind. There is nothing remotely Christian about that.

 

[VTA]

Yes, you did. Want me to quote it one more time? Why do you say something and back track on it?

The Pope is doing exactly what you said you should do

You're right I did state what you're quoting, qualifying it with 'like with any aspect of life'. A general model of life is to try to get someone off the wrong track when misled. But Jesus did not admonish, nor call anyone to get involved in political debate and governmental positions. It's neither a necessity to, nor a sin to refrain from getting involved in politics.

Pointing out a false teacher is not what the pope is doing. You're mixing an matching to avoid admitting you're wrong. He's not doing what I'm doing or stating what the bible calls us to do and his actions are only biblical in that Jesus said, the anti-Christ would do this. He can and should highlight the world's woe's. What he shouldn't do is propagate political system's for men to live by. I'm not really sure how this can be any clearer.

Ah, I see. So allowing a political party like the Nazis wouldn't be a sin?

Certain Christians do believe they are called to political office and positions of power. See Christine O'Donnell, George W. Bush and Michelle Bachman.

How can allowing a political party be a sin? I don't think you understand God's views on world governments. He allows them, good and bad and never calls us to revolt against them. Everything is in God's control, not ours. Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars' dream covers world governments and God's hand in them.

The example is made clear throughout Israel's captivities and in Jesus' example in Rome. We're to abide in the worlds systems, making any and every attempt to affect men's hearts, through example and living and evangelism. No where does Jesus call on political or economic change. It's part of the reasons his followers rejected Him after a while; because he wasn't going to get rid of the Romans, as they expected from Messiah.

I can't speak for Bachmann, Bush or any others. I have no idea what called them and if they say its God, they can point it out in scripture, but I'm not called to answer for them.

What does that mean?

It simply means the bible is crystal clear to someone who takes the time to study it, versus putting faith in some guy in a frock and allowing him to tell you what it means. Or worse, relying on a non-believers' higher criticism of something they don't even believe in. Someone putting forth the idea that the bible is something to be debated doesn't make it valid as a debate. All that's required for many is just a drop of doubt and a good deceiver knows this.

Seventh Day Adventists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

There's a whole slew of religious history that debates whether the coming of Jesus rejected the Old Testament. You can research almost any Bible verse and find debate on its meaning.

I wouldn't worry about adventists. I'm sure you know the error of Harold Camping; well Miller is the first Harold Camping, though in a softer sense, in at least he repented. It again turns to congregants not reading their bibles. Acts Ch 10 squashes any debate about dietary laws, and Galatians 3 on all matters of the law, but as we've said, people will not read the bible. Knowing this any man can make himself a church 'leader'' and control the people with laws and trips.

Again, the existence of something does not make it genuine. A whole slew of people looking to muddy the waters and cloud the truth doesn't mean anything but what God said would happen. In the Olivet discourse, Jesus warned of wars once, famines and pestilence once. He warned of falls teachers 3 times

Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. v. 4-5

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. v. 11

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. v. 24

If God has something in the bible once, it's important. If He emphasizes it with a second mention, it's even more important. If He say's it three times, you'd better believe He's giving you the keys to understanding of what is going to happen.

If people are arising and teaching things that contradict the bible to a non-bible reading bunch of people, you can a) pretend there's some ambiguity in the word of God, as though He were an imbecilic author of confusion or b) take God at his word and realize they're what He say's they are. False Teachers.

 

[junk]

You're right I did state what you're quoting, qualifying it with 'like with any aspect of life'. A general model of life is to try to get someone off the wrong track when misled. But Jesus did not admonish, nor call anyone to get involved in political debate and governmental positions. It's neither a necessity to, nor a sin to refrain from getting involved in politics.

Pointing out a false teacher is not what the pope is doing. You're mixing an matching to avoid admitting you're wrong. He's not doing what I'm doing or stating what the bible calls us to do and his actions are only biblical in that Jesus said, the anti-Christ would do this. He can and should highlight the world's woe's. What he shouldn't do is propagate political system's for men to live by. I'm not really sure how this can be any clearer.

I'm not mixing and matching anything. I'm applying exactly what you said to the situation. Now you're backtracking because I applied it to the very situation you wanted to get bent out of shape about. It's cute actually.

How can allowing a political party be a sin? I don't think you understand God's views on world governments. He allows them, good and bad and never calls us to revolt against them. Everything is in God's control, not ours. Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars' dream covers world governments and God's hand in them.

You're continuing to speak out of both sides of your mouth. So, you're saying it is God's plan to sit idly by while something like the Holocaust occurs? However, earlier you said, and I'll repeat it once again:

Like in any aspect of life, you're basically not doing well if you see someone wrongly led and keep your trap shut. It's more hateful to watch and stay silent than it is to open your mouth and at least give them your viewpoint to consider. Be it faith, vocation, economy whatever.

Why would you say this if you don't mean it and refuse to apply it to any real world situation? Or do you just apply it to situations that align with your particular beliefs? Did we just find another example of hypocrisy? :thumbsup

The example is made clear throughout Israel's captivities and in Jesus' example in Rome. We're to abide in the worlds systems, making any and every attempt to affect men's hearts, through example and living and evangelism. No where does Jesus call on political or economic change. It's part of the reasons his followers rejected Him after a while; because he wasn't going to get rid of the Romans, as they expected from Messiah.

Interesting that you should bring this up. Turns out the translation of the Pope's speech may have been misinterpreted. I suppose anything that gets written down can be misinterpreted no matter how obvious it may seem. Whether it is the Pope's speech, the Bible or VTA's comments about how when you should and shouldn't speak out.

It seems so. A blogging priest, Father John Zuhlsdorf, points out a problem with the English translation of maybe the most contentious passage in the pope’s first apostolic exhortation (via Jim Pethokoukis and Ryan Ellis):

Let us assume that the original composition was Spanish:

54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

Official English…

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

Over at the other post a commentator pointed out that the official English rendering of EG 54 makes Spanish “por si’ mismo” into “inevitably”, but that it really means “by itself”.

Let’s swap in the “by itself” and read it again.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories ["trickle down economics"] which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

There is a big difference between “inevitably” and “by itself”! . . .

But the real point here is that in EG 54 the author says that “trickle down” economics cannot by itself produce the desired result.

That is, of course, correct.

No economic plan will solve the problems of the poor by itself. Economic plans must be carried out by people who have good, solid morals and values.

I submit that these morals and values must be rooted in religion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-down-economics-mistranslated-patrick-brennan

Actually seems to line up quite well with the points I think you are trying to make.

I can't speak for Bachmann, Bush or any others. I have no idea what called them and if they say its God, they can point it out in scripture, but I'm not called to answer for them.

Interesting. Why aren't you called to answer for them, but you are for the Pope? You had an opportunity here and chose not to? Why? Is this another case of hypocrisy? Might be, this thread seems to be filled with them.

Maybe the Pope can point out in scripture his beliefs from his speech?

 

[VTA]

I'm not mixing and matching anything. I'm applying exactly what you said to the situation. Now you're backtracking because I applied it to the very situation you wanted to get bent out of shape about. It's cute actually.

Eh, no. I started a thread concerning the pope and his comments concerning political and economic affairs. You called it hypocrisy for me to do so. I told you it's not, based on biblical principles concerning false teachers. You asked if it were a sin to tolerate Catholicism and I answered what you're quoting again below. Mentioning aspects of life where giving in to the principle of apathy is never right. I didn't state that we are called to do that biblically, just that it's not generally right. I have, however, repeated ad nauseam that we are to point out false teachers, by biblical principle. And I'm pointing to Catholicism for more than just this one instance.

I'm not sure how you think me, in line with what the bible states, pointing out false teachers is the same as the pope calling on systemic change in political and economic situations. You're mixing and matching two separate areas of human life. Theology and politics.

Pointing out false teachers: Biblically correct.

Appealing to man concerning his systems: not biblically necessary.

I don't know how answering your every question equates to me being bent. If I recall I haven't inserted anything ad-hominem at all. You're trying too hard to see things that aren't there.

You're continuing to speak out of both sides of your mouth. So, you're saying it is God's plan to sit idly by while something like the Holocaust occurs? However, earlier you said, and I'll repeat it once again:

Is God sinning? Is that the implication here? God allows man's autonomy. Allows it, suffers it and gives every man ample opportunity to repent. From kings to peasants. He's in control and He's not the God of what-ifs. Guilty people are judged.

Why would you say this if you don't mean it and refuse to apply it to any real world situation? Or do you just apply it to situations that align with your particular beliefs? Did we just find another example of hypocrisy? :thumbsup

You're mixing and matching again. That quote is in reference to us and our responsibility concerning false teachers, not to God. Mixing and matching.

Interesting that you should bring this up. Turns out the translation of the Pope's speech may have been misinterpreted. I suppose anything that gets written down can be misinterpreted no matter how obvious it may seem. Whether it is the Pope's speech, the Bible or VTA's comments about how when you should and shouldn't speak out.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-down-economics-mistranslated-patrick-brennan

Actually seems to line up quite well with the points I think you are trying to make.

I've already read this and am not interested. Talking semantics about the trickle down theory is not what I'm concerned with. I'm sure the Vatican reads it's own press and recognize when it has to 'clarify' it's remarks after the fact. I might think otherwise if it weren't a common occurrence that seems to be repeated among the popes:

Pope Benny on three separate occasions:

Link

Link

Link

His predecessor:

Link

No Christian is called to create a new world order, we're to call others to repentance and Jesus Christ and await His kingdom.

Interesting. Why aren't you called to answer for them, but you are for the Pope? You had an opportunity here and chose not to? Why? Is this another case of hypocrisy? Might be, this thread seems to be filled with them.

Maybe the Pope can point out in scripture his beliefs from his speech?

As far as I can tell, and you can tell me if I missed it, but they didn't call for a single world power or system of economy. I don't think Jesus warned me about them, but who knows? They're not dead yet and can say anything before it all washes out.

At some point a salient point has to be made: I study the bible. I read it every day and use any and all resources available to learn even more. Whether it's from personal experiences with smarter men than myself, studying the history of the church or simply listening to sermons, I'm in it everyday and I read anything and everything in the news pertaining to to it.

Do you?

 

[JBond]

Time Person of the Year 2013

Pope Francis, The People’s Pope

http://poy.time.com/2013/12/11/person-of-the-year-pope-francis-the-peoples-pope/

 

[VTA]

Interesting that I was just reading an article regarding the cover of that issue and the artist that did it... Link

Nice work of art.

 

[junk]

Eh, no. I started a thread concerning the pope and his comments concerning political and economic affairs. You called it hypocrisy for me to do so. I told you it's not, based on biblical principles concerning false teachers. You asked if it were a sin to tolerate Catholicism and I answered what you're quoting again below. Mentioning aspects of life where giving in to the principle of apathy is never right. I didn't state that we are called to do that biblically, just that it's not generally right. I have, however, repeated ad nauseam that we are to point out false teachers, by biblical principle. And I'm pointing to Catholicism for more than just this one instance.

I think you're still confused on what I find hypocritical. There is plenty I find hypocritical in this thread, but have been primarily focused on the following comment: "Like in any aspect of life, you're basically not doing well if you see someone wrongly led and keep your trap shut. It's more hateful to watch and stay silent than it is to open your mouth and at least give them your viewpoint to consider. Be it faith, vocation, economy whatever."

Why? Because that is exactly what the Pope is doing. I find it odd you'd say that is the behavior that Christians should have and then turn around and criticize one for behaving that way.

We could have went a bunch of different ways in this thread. I just followed your line of discussion and pointed out hypocrisy when I saw it.

I'm not sure how you think me, in line with what the bible states, pointing out false teachers is the same as the pope calling on systemic change in political and economic situations. You're mixing and matching two separate areas of human life. Theology and politics.

I'm not mixing anything. I really don't care about the false teachers thing. I was more focused on the line that followed: "Christianity isn't all preaching, we're supposed to point out error. You're called to it or held accountable for tolerating it and allowing others to be wrongly led."

That led to this whole line of discussion which exposed additional things I found hypocritical.

Is God sinning? Is that the implication here? God allows man's autonomy. Allows it, suffers it and gives every man ample opportunity to repent. From kings to peasants. He's in control and He's not the God of what-ifs. Guilty people are judged.

No, I'm not implying God is sinning. There seemed to be a mixed message in your statement. God doesn't call you to revolt....ok, but you also say "Everything is in God's control, not ours". So what does that mean? If there is bad government/leadership, we should just sit idly by and trust in God to take care of it? But we're supposed to speak up when you see someone being wrongly led? So what is the Christian stance on governments exactly?

I've already read this and am not interested. Talking semantics about the trickle down theory is not what I'm concerned with. I'm sure the Vatican reads it's own press and recognize when it has to 'clarify' it's remarks after the fact. I might think otherwise if it weren't a common occurrence that seems to be repeated among the popes:

Like some of your posts in this thread! :thumbsup

As far as I can tell, and you can tell me if I missed it, but they didn't call for a single world power or system of economy. I don't think Jesus warned me about them, but who knows? They're not dead yet and can say anything before it all washes out.

Wait, I thought Christians weren't supposed to revolt against governments and it is in God's control. Why do you care what happens? Isn't that in God's control?

At some point a salient point has to be made: I study the bible. I read it every day and use any and all resources available to learn even more. Whether it's from personal experiences with smarter men than myself, studying the history of the church or simply listening to sermons, I'm in it everyday and I read anything and everything in the news pertaining to to it.

Do you?

No. I don't think I need a book, a person, a church or a particular faith telling me how I should live my life. That's my choice. I'm glad you've found something that brings you peace and helps you live your life in, what you believe, to be the best possible way. That's your choice. I'm glad the Pope can make his personal choices as well.

I do find it odd when people are eager to push their particular flavor of faith on the world, but then get annoyed when other faiths do the exact same thing.

 

[junk]

I doubt he is Satan. What I am suggesting is that he, like many fallible men do not really have others best interests at heart. I am leery of men that are supposed to be infallible. Only one was perfect. The Catholics have chosen to ignore many of the teachings of Jesus and have developed a system of idol worship, praying to the dead, and drinking blood that is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. The elevate the Pope and call him perfect in matters of the church. I guess the perfect Pope endorses pedophilia.

C'mon, JBond. You know that isn't accurate. They aren't vampires.

The whole Eucharist thing actually has a basis in the Bible anyway, doesn't it?

"The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. ' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me'

I think it is more than Catholics that do this anyway. Shouldn't you be doing it since Jesus said it? How is that in the direct opposition of the teachings of Christ?

 

[JBond]

C'mon, JBond. You know that isn't accurate. They aren't vampires.

The whole Eucharist thing actually has a basis in the Bible anyway, doesn't it?

I think it is more than Catholics that do this anyway. Shouldn't you be doing it since Jesus said it? How is that in the direct opposition of the teachings of Christ?

I appreciate that you have decided to continue this discussion and I am thankful the mods have left it open. You are correct that the Catholics are not the only sect that believe in drinking blood. There are several groups that believe drinking blood is the correct thing to do. The elements of Communion are only representative of the flesh and blood of Christ, participation in the Lord’s Supper is nevertheless an actual communion with the risen Christ, who indwells every believer, and so is present, fellowshipping with His people.


Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.

 

[VTA]

I think you're still confused on what I find hypocritical. There is plenty I find hypocritical in this thread, but have been primarily focused on the following comment: "Like in any aspect of life, you're basically not doing well if you see someone wrongly led and keep your trap shut. It's more hateful to watch and stay silent than it is to open your mouth and at least give them your viewpoint to consider. Be it faith, vocation, economy whatever."

Why? Because that is exactly what the Pope is doing. I find it odd you'd say that is the behavior that Christians should have and then turn around and criticize one for behaving that way.

We could have went a bunch of different ways in this thread. I just followed your line of discussion and pointed out hypocrisy when I saw it.

This thread went the way it went because you asked questions and I answered them. Either way I'm fine with it. I dont get easily offended and I like talking matters surrounding faith and God.

***The Pope isn't highlighting wrongly led people, nor is he highlighting suffering. He's faulting a political system, ignoring a salient truth: systems are only as good or virtuous as the men who wield power over them. Changing the system doesn't change hearts of men. Anyone who studies the bible knows this and well, he should be studying the bible. Or more Christians should be and calling him out concerning it.

But what can be said of a man who heads an autocratic religion? He exists in such a system, which is antithetical to what the early church was and what faith is. Faith is not a religion with a supreme ruler in robes. He's wrongly leading people.

If he wants to highlight suffering he can make a greater case for focusing on the extinction of Christians in the Middle East. The very people he supposedly represents are being sytematically wiped out and while he has mentioned it, I'd think people being fucking slaughtered for the belief he supposedly espouses would be far more urgent that worrying about a free economic system. In his evangelii-gaudium he 'humbly entreated' Middle East nations to allow religious freedom. So let's be straight, an economic system exists and so do poor people; this gets criticism. Animals are murdering Chrisitians and he humble entreats them for religious tolerance? Laughable. Sorry Junk, my criticism of this man and his reigious organization is anything but hypocritical.

With the pattern of the vatican calling for a global order, and with him focusing on the free-est economic system, it fits in perfectly well with my pointing it out as a condition set forth in prophecy.***

I'm not mixing anything. I really don't care about the false teachers thing. I was more focused on the line that followed: "Christianity isn't all preaching, we're supposed to point out error. You're called to it or held accountable for tolerating it and allowing others to be wrongly led."

That led to this whole line of discussion which exposed additional things I found hypocritical.

That doesn't make much sense. That quote is in specific regard to false teaching. It's what I'm talking about. It's mixing and matching because you are trying to apply a Christian admonition to a political situation. Yes, it is lousy to watch others suffer and be misled, but it's not a biblical admonition to try and change political structure

No, I'm not implying God is sinning. There seemed to be a mixed message in your statement. God doesn't call you to revolt....ok, but you also say "Everything is in God's control, not ours". So what does that mean? If there is bad government/leadership, we should just sit idly by and trust in God to take care of it? But we're supposed to speak up when you see someone being wrongly led? So what is the Christian stance on governments exactly?

We exist in the conditions that are generally beyond our control and we're called to act according to Christ's teachings. Being involved in the system through voting and other civic duties are fine, as long as they don't cause you to compromise your walk with God. If you're asking should anyone speak out against persecution I'd say of course we should. But this is still not the same thing as what the pope is doing as explained above between '***'

Wait, I thought Christians weren't supposed to revolt against governments and it is in God's control. Why do you care what happens? Isn't that in God's control?

Ths goes back to false teaching. They're not to my knowledge doing that and I am supposed to point that out when people do.

No. I don't think I need a book, a person, a church or a particular faith telling me how I should live my life. That's my choice. I'm glad you've found something that brings you peace and helps you live your life in, what you believe, to be the best possible way. That's your choice. I'm glad the Pope can make his personal choices as well.

I do find it odd when people are eager to push their particular flavor of faith on the world, but then get annoyed when other faiths do the exact same thing.

That's really not my point. My point is, you're calling me a hypocrite but basing it on what? What makes me a hypocrite? That I'm a professing Chrsitian? Well if you don't know the bible how can you tell if someone isn't acting in accord with it's teachings? You're also claiming that what I say is my interpretation. Based on what? You haven't read the bible yet you can say I'm wrong or simply being subjective? How if you don't know the bible and what it states? How can you find it odd when you have no idea what the true flavor of the thing is in the first place?

 

[Jon88]