Jim Lincoln wrote: John, I use the term, "Junior," because he is the idiot son of George Senior. I am added somewhat insulting to George I and his wife to connect that particular son to them. Your other respondent, made some good comments to you too concerning Abuse Documentary: The Shame of the Catholic Church | Retro Report | The New York Times (12.5 min YouTube). From what I've heard, many Catholics are more attached to their local bishops than even their Popes! They are the ones who have a direct hand in the sinning and the cover-up.
It is inaccurate to use the terms Senior and Junior in referring to the two Bush presidents as father and son don't have the same middle name. The father is named George Herbert Walker Bush and the son is named George Walker Bush. In order for a father and son to be called Senior and Junior they both have to have the same middle name.
One thing is for certain and that is that the prayer by Robinson that fruit cake Episcopal Bishop was not heard by God as the prayers of fruit cakes are not heard by God unless it is a prayer asking to renounce their homosexuality and to embrace Jesus as their Savior.
Jim Lincoln wrote: "... I'm more than happy to focus on Franny, Vatican- It's wrong for pope to ask forgiveness, SNAP says" what did this have to do with Bush, except one keen observation about the Pope might as well be linked to Baby-Face Bush, and Ronnie Reagan. All made the same type of stupid statement. Taking responsibility with consequences is an empty gesture. Oh, yes, Bush Jr. Bush: Terrible President, Also Not a Smart Man. I believe Ronnie sent our first ambassador to the devi's den of the Vatican, and G. Jr., made a mawkish appearance J. Paul II funeral.
Who is G. Jr.? If you are referring to George W. Bush then you made a mistake since George W. Bush is not Jr. since his name is George Walker Bush and his father's name is George Herbert Walker Bush. In order for a son to called Jr. he must have the same middle name as his father. Same thing with Reagan and his son. Reagan's son is named Ronald Prescott Reagan while Reagan was named Ronald Wilson Reagan.
And who would know about Satan's emissary more than you since you are one of Satan's emissaries with your constant insane dribble about that if one who has embraced Jesus as their Savior and trusts in Him alone for salvation doesn't leave the Catholic Church an doesn't unite with an Evangelical Protestant Church that they are not really saved. That is so unscriptural that it stagers the imagination. The Bible states that the only requirement for salvation is to become Born Again by embracing Jesus as ones Savior and trust in Him alone for salvation.
s c wrote: A lot of catholics, when asked, would say that they are "born again"...but they are just referencing their confirmation. They often speak "christianese" but most of the same phrases are 180 degrees in meaning from that which is Biblical. A one time, complete offering is totally incompatible with the whole concept of mass-which is a re-offering up of christ. It's indisputable; can't be the same jesus. ...and one cannot possibly worship Christ before they are saved. One may go through the motions but we are all children of perdition and blind/deceived until we are born again. I would be curious as to when you think that you were saved. Even the demons tremble...
I know exactly when I was saved. It was in November 1997 during an Altar Call at my brothers Non Denominational Church when I decided to heed the prompting of the Holy Spirit to embrace Jesus as my Savior and trust in Him alone for salvation. And I do trust in Jesus alone for salvation. I sure don't trust in my Catholic Baptism or the Sacraments for salvation. Luther who disliked the Catholic Church did not even believe that the Catholic Church has a different jesus. Nobody who is born again and in their right mind believes that the Catholic Church has a different jesus.
s c wrote: I wanted to comment on John Yurich's defense of catholicism's "same Jesus". Their jesus is a different jesus...the true Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father and is interceding on the Christian's behalf (without the aid of "priests", I might add) and He is not an eternal,ongoing victim being offered up in the catholic mass whose mission is incomplete. The true Christ's propitiation/Sacrifice was accomplished on the cross.."It is finished."
I have always believed in and worshipped the biblical and historical Jesus even before I became saved. Luther as much as he disliked the Catholic Church did not even believe that the Catholic Church has a different jesus because he knew that the Creed states "WE BELIEVE IN ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD" which is the biblical and historical Jesus that the Catholic Church believes in and worships.
GSTexas wrote: So the animal lovers are so concerned with the turtle suffering, that they dont mind the cattle suffering? And whats with the "first amendment zones"? I thought this whole country was a first amendment zone.
Yes, why isn't PETA the animal rights group up in arms over the killing of those calves and cattle? And yes the whole country is a First Amendment zone.
Of course moralism is not the Gospel. The Gospel message is that in order to become saved one must trust in Jesus alone for salvation. Why would any Christian think so illogically as to believe that moralism is the Gospel?
R. K. Borill wrote: John Yurich USA from USA writes: R. K. Borill wrote: Sounds like a meal fit for the Antichrist to me. Except that the Anti-Christ has not appeared yet and thus the Pope is not the Anti-Christ. R. K. responds, Keep searching John. You still can't see yet.
So you deny that the Anti-Christ has not appeared yet? And you believe that the Anti-Christ is already on the earth?
Jim Lincoln, Then you confirm what I stated that the Anti-Christ has not appeared yet and will not appear until near the Second Coming of Christ.