What did the Catholic Church ever do to You?

This thread makes a pretty strong case for:

Please can we have the ignore button back pretty please?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most people on this site are willing to consider a compelling case made for opposing points of view in the spirit of Denying Ignorance. However when a poster authors a thread seeking genuine discourse on a topic, then consistently mocks, belittles and refuses to embrace opposing points of view supported by erudite souces and facts, I think a case can be made for bringing back the Ignore function.

Notwithstanding that going forward such a poster's integrity should be forever tarnished in the minds of those who fell prey, the Ignore function serves to filter future excercises in futility. Cloaked by the veil of internet anonymity and ignorance such is the way of on-line discussion forums. But that is why ATS stands tall above the rest because it offers the choice of responding to such idiocy.

I recently contributed to a similar incendiary type thread whereby the author proposed the decriminalization of drunk driving. Inasmuch as I disagreed with the premise, the author consistently maintained decorum and was open to considering opposing views, above all he was fierce in defending his belief yet cordial.

Somehow simply boycotting such asine shenanigans seems effective . Amen.

reply to post by kinda kurious


lol...

I agree we should get the ignore button back.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Ah, but if we have an ignore button then the ignorance on this site will explode. We should instead avoid threads like these if we do not wish to participate in them, and hop in when we feel like smacking about some ignorant types with a large fish.

most of my friends are catholic. I studied in a catholic school, but when i see the "overall behavior" of them, they decrease the respect that catholic church should deliver.

When talking of the church that Jesus build, the majority of us here, disagree. When you dont read just one chapter -as catholics usually/always do- but the WHOLE concept, the Bible, theology, and scientists have said churches were built after Christ's death. If you check, the Book of Acts, tells you how they were, congregated, etc. and the one who built a LOT of churches was Paul, not Jesus.

I dont think catholics are bad or will be burned, but the institution as itself - vatican, and high ranking members- are just there for money, conspiracies, mafia and banking stuff, etc.

A secret history of the Church
[This is an extract from a text published BY ME elsewhere and NOT plagiarism, since no one can plagiarize from himself! A note for the Moderators. If they are in doubt, contact me, since you will have my e-mail at ATS!]

Let us start with the Old Testament.

I will make it short, but this is all according to what is actually written in the Old Testament (see Bible references at the end of this text [1]). The Hebrews wanted out of Egypt and Yahweh – who I do believe is an entity (maybe an extraterrestrial) who wanted to have his own people to work for him as a split-off group (his own faction) and for a power he could gradually extend – saw an opportunity to have his own people here.

He, through Moses, offered to the Hebrews to lead them out to a Promised Land. But they could have had it easier, since the Pharaoh was willing to let them go, yet Yahweh wanted to demonstrate his power and first have all his 10 plagues come over Egypt. He was eager to show his muscles and hardened the heart of Pharaoh to provoke a fight about the issue. One of the plagues was to go through the land of Egypt and kill all firstborn of men and animals, except among the Hebrews.

As the history in the Bible shows, this wasn’t necessary, but he wanted to have his cruel game as a demonstration of his power.

When they finally came to the Promised Land, people were living there in various towns. Yahweh ordered the Hebrews to slaughter them all and not spare even an old man, a woman or a child – so that they would have (Deut. 6:11) “…houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not”.

When the inhabitants of a town wanted to negotiate, he again hardened their hearts to force the conflict he wanted to have as an excuse to make the Hebrews kill them all. Occasionally only virgins were spared and caught as booty, and it would be naïve to believe that it wouldn’t be for sexual “services”.

These murderous robbing raids were a veritable holocaust!

Now Yahweh had his people. He was cruel, selfish and revenging and severely punishing when it didn’t follow. The text in the Old Testament doesn’t indicate that he knew what real love is, but he rather loved fight and bloodshed.

Now we jump to the time 2000 years ago. Jesus was born, an incarnation of Christ. Christ is actually not a name but a designation, but we don’t know a real name for him. Jesus was the name he was given after incarnating. He began teaching and preaching in the Promised Land and with time attracted lots of people. What he said and did was upsetting Yahweh, since he told things that Yahweh’s people shouldn’t know.

His message was revolutionary and he revealed secrets. Slowly, bit by bit. He talked about a love that Yahweh despised. He talked about his “Father” in terms which gave a picture very different from the one of Yahweh.

The “Father” is loving, caring, benevolent, forgiving, contrary to the qualities of Yahweh. So the one Jesus talked about clearly wasn’t Yahweh.

John 8:31-44 reflects this in Jesus’ speech to the Jews:

8:38 - “I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.”

8:42 - “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.”

8:44 - “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

So Jesus actually was an agent provocateur, against Yahweh!

Yahweh felt threatened by this man and wanted him killed. He influenced the mind of the high priest Caiaphas to have Jesus crucified like a criminal, hoping that the new teachings would after his death become forgotten. But the contrary occurred. The murder of Jesus gave more power to the movement he had started and it continued growing. Yahweh was very concerned about this.

The first Christians were what theology calls “Christian Jews”, a bit depreciatingly, as if they would not have been real Christians. But they were, of course, the most Christian Christians that have ever been, since they were the closest to Jesus himself. Out of them grew the Gnostic Christianity.

The latter declared that Yahweh (who they also called Yaldabaoth) wasn’t a real god, but a demiurge, a secondary god, himself created by the highest God and prime creator – a fact that Yahweh didn’t want to be known. He wanted to be regarded as the prime creator himself.

In this situation Yahweh developed a sinister but clever plan. He wanted to infiltrate this new movement and twist it his own ways so that it would instead serve his own purposes. One of his agents was Paul, who first as Saul had persecuted Christians. Which Christians? Obviously the Christian Jews and the Gnostic Christians, since there yet were almost no other. Yahweh gave him a vision and made him believe to experience Christ, and Saul became Paul, who converted and began to preach Christianity.

But what Christianity? Not the one he had before fought against, but his own modified and falsified version the way Yahweh wanted to have it.

In the year 325 AD the emperor Constantine with the council of Nicaea created the foundation for the Church as it is to day. His intention was to selfishly use this Church as a tool for his power and he obviously was an unknowing agent of Yahweh. At the council, the Gnostic Christians were muzzled and were not allowed to speak.

The emperor gave their petitions unopened to the fire. They were at the end declared to be heretics. This was the beginning of the end of Gnostic Christianity. Instead a yahwistic Church was formed, which claimed to adhere to Jesus Christ, but not the true one. We since have two Christs: the false one of the Church and the true one who had once incarnated as Jesus.

So who is Christ? I believe that he is a kind of personification of the love of the prime creator and that he was sent by those who intend to save the Earth from the grip of negative entities.

And who, then, is Yahweh? In the latter decades remarkably interesting discoveries were made in the research into the history of religions, based on archeological findings in Israel. In the original Hebrew religion (or Pre-Hebrew religion), the highest god was ’El Elyon [2]. He had 70 sons and one of them was Yahweh.

Yahweh had a consort ’Asherah, a goddess. Her name is found around 40 times in the Hebrew text of the Bible, but it is always translated as “tree” or “grove” in order to obscure the real meaning, since her symbol is a vertical pole or a tree. At about the time of the exodus from Egypt, and still more during the time of the Babylonian captivity, the religion was made monotheistic and one shouldn’t know of the others, not even of ’Asherah.

When the Bible states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of Yahweh (Deut. 16:21), the real meaning is that it is forbidden to put a symbol (or maybe even image) of ’Asherah at the altar (and what sense would it have to forbid planting a tree there?).

Yahweh was considered a warrior and weather god from Sinai, where certain entities had their center…

The polytheistic origin is reflected in the Bible’s creation story, which will no doubt have its origin in the one given in the texts on the clay plates of Sumeria and Babylon.

The first sentence in the Bible (Gen. 1:1) reads: “Bereshiyt bara ’Elohim et ha shamayim v-et ha arez”, translated as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.” [Remark: I spell “bereshiyt” this way, but it should normally be spelled without the “y”. But if I leave the “y” out, a ridiculous filter makes “#” of the four remaining last letters! Even though this has nothing whatsoever to do with the English word composed by these four letters…]

Now it has always been a problem swept under the carpet that ’Elohim is plural and literally means “gods”.

Therefore, some want to understand it as: “In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the Earth”, which doesn’t fit grammatically, since the verb bara is in singular.

However, the first word bereshiyt can not only be translated as “beginning”, but also as “the first one” – the one who was in the beginning.

Now we can correctly (no grammatical problem anymore) translate as “The First One created the gods, the heavens and the Earth”! (Shamajim is also plural and actually means “heavens” – or other cosmic worlds?)

Yahweh is in the Hebrew Bible text usually mentioned as “Yahweh Elohim”, which seems to indicate that he is one of the created ’Elohim. The plural repeats in other passages: “WE will create humans in OUR image” and so on, still swept under the carpet and declared to be pluralis majestatis, a white lie in a dilemma…

Conclusion: The Catholic Church is a power tool for a certain not very positive force (entity) to exercise power of the Earth humans!

References:
[1] A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament: Gen.: 34,25-29; Ex.: 12,12; 12,29-30; 15,3; 32,26-28; Lev.: 26,7-8; 26,21-22; 26,26-29; Num.: 15,32-36; 16,29-35; 16,46-49; 21,3-6; 21,24-25; 21,33-35; 31,7-10; 31,14-18; 31,31-32; 31,35; Deut: 2,32-34;. 3,1-6; 7,2-3; 9,35 13,9-10; 13,14-16; 20,10-17; 21,11-14; Joshua: 6,20-25; 8,2; 8,21-25; 8,29; 10,10-11; 10,17-40; 11,6-22 ; Judges: 1,4-11; 1,17; 1,25; 3,29-31; 4,14-16; 7,15-25; 8,17; 9,4-5; 9,43-45; 9,49-52; 11,30-40; 15,15-16; 18,27; 19,22-29; 20,2; 20,31-37; 20,41-48; 1 Samuel: 5,8-9; 6,19; 11,6-11; 15,3-9; 15,33; 18,7; 30,17; 2 Samuel: 5,8; 5,25; 8,1-5; 10,18; 12,31; 18,6-7; 24,10-16; 1 Kings: 20,28-30; 2 Kings: 1,9-14; 2,23-25; 5,25-27; 6,18; 10,13-25; 14,5-7; 15,16; 19,35; 1 Chron.: 20,2-3; Psalms: 137,9; Isaiah: 13,15-18; 45,5-7; 49,25-26; Jeremiah 16,3-5; Lament.: 4,9-11; Ezekiel: 6,12-13; 9,3-6; Hosea: 13,15; 14,1.

[2] Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, 13th Colloquium of the Swiss Academy of Religious and Social Sciences, ed. by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, Universitätsverlag, Freiburg (Switzerland), 1994 (several contributions in this valuable book are in English).

I love how oliveoil is asking for official evidence of history presented by other users in this thread... And if official documentation is given then it MUST be UNTRUE.

Seriously, 99 % of all you posters out there seem to have beef with the catholic church.

Also seen as Oliveoil LOVES official documentation and statistic evidence then could you....:
Please provide some evidence that 99% of members on ATS hate the Catholic Church.
I know this is pedantic BUT you ask for evidence of the claims of other members on these forums therefore I would like to see some evidence of your claim of this 99%
You can't start a debate and demand evidence when your initial argument is completely wrong.

Also I will repeat what I said in my last post. Oliveoil obviously has some agenda here. Most people don't hate the Catholic Church. The terrible things that have happened in history by some Catholics end up being grouped with all other Catholics and the Catholic Church as a whole.
This happens with EVERYTHING in the world.

reply to post by oliveoil
If they live by what is written in the Scripture it won't be a problem. Take for an example the catholic priests. The Scripture said nothing about celibasy,, priest that day in the Scripture where normally married. The hat they wear has nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ, but with the fishgod.

A story out of His story. Peter and john went to the city near and see a man sitting there who cannot walk, had never walk.. the look upon him he thought he will get money.. no, all what peter did was, said silver no gold we have and raised him up his legs in the Name Jesus Christ.

Look at the pope, you might kiss his feet, his ring, he is loaded with gold and loads of properties, he won't lifted you up and all you can get is a slice of somewhat they called bread.. but is so thin that it even't can fill a hollow tooth.

Sorry for my English, most I learned form the Easyriders Magazine .. and some what from school. off-topic: how could i could put my avatar next to this?

reply to post by Rosha

I did..that is the *original document*, photocopied for distribution yes, but it is the original document handed out to Bishops of the roman catholic church! The latin version is there for you to read as well.

Well, Ive searched up and down the internet , guess what? no original document at all.However this is what I did find straight from the horses mouth. www.vatican.va... Also you had mentioned that this was a Bull issued by the pope.

and this document was handed only to Bishops at the time it was printed and given out under strict papal bull.

Here is a full list of Papal bulls, and guess what. Its not there.en.wikipedia.org...

I do not have access to the vatican library..it is secreted even from all but a few external scholars and even then they are permited only certain documents, small time limits and no free access.

Oh, well I seemed to find it online, here you go,www.vaticanlibrary.va...

The bottom line is that no such document exists. Now as far as abuse cover ups. There is no doubt that certain members of the Catholic church committed crimes, However, The catholic church Is in no way harboring these criminals, or "covering up" the crimes they committed. Actually, the opposite is true. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by oliveoil


You provided absolutely nothing with these links. A link to the front page of the Vatican Library is not proof that 'no such document exists.' And your wiki links doesn't prove that the Vatican is prosecuting sex criminals in its ranks. It says the opposite.

In addition to cases of actual abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities and who, in many cases, reassigned the offenders to other locations where the alleged predators continued to have contact with minors and had opportunities to continue to sexually abuse children

That is right in the top section of the article. Now, it also says that the Pope denounced these actions. This is not the same thing as providing proof that the Church has gotten rid of priests who rape children.

Now, I want to know. What would be proof that the Church has committed crimes? When individual church members and priests and bishops are implicated in pedophilia and rape, you say that individuals do not represent the Church. When the entire Church organization is exposed as protecting child rapists, you say that it does not represent the entire Church. When a Pope is exposed as a murderer and a rapist, you deny the charges originating from a fellow Bishop. When the murderous commands of the Pope are based on the murderous demands of the entire college of Bishops, you deny that the Church is responsible for any deaths at all. How can we prove to you that the Church is corrupt?

If you say that it is impossible for us to prove that statement to you, then you are admitting that this entire thread has been a huge waste of time. You ask "What did the Church ever do to you" and you knew the entire time that you would never, ever accept any answer, at all, period.

Originally posted by oliveoil

Oh, well I seemed to find it online, here you go,www.vaticanlibrary.va...

Oh boy, are you that ignorant? Just because something has a website doesn't mean ALL information is on said website.
For example any regular library may have a website but if a book you are looking for isn't on it, it doesn't mean this book doesnt exist... simply that they haven't placed it on the site.
Everyoneee knows that the Vatican has libraries of documents that barely anyone can see.......... they wouldn't exactly catalogue everything on the website lol.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

That is right in the top section of the article. Now, it also says that the Pope denounced these actions. This is not the same thing as providing proof that the Church has gotten rid of priests who rape children.

Apperently you did not read the whole artical.The Vatican is in no way "protecting" child rapists, And no one that has responded to my thread has PROVED to me otherwise.

When individual church members and priests and bishops are implicated in pedophilia and rape, you say that individuals do not represent the Church. When the entire Church organization is exposed as protecting child rapists, you say that it does not represent the entire Church.

Individuals are responsible for there own actions.

When a Pope is exposed as a murderer and a rapist, you deny the charges originating from a fellow Bishop. How can we prove to you that the Church is corrupt?

No Pope has ever murdered or raped anyone! Nor has any pope ever authorized or condone rape and murder.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Rosha

 

And again, a personal attack, not proof, no answering of questions posed you, not a word as regards the *real* origins of the pontificate either? No righteous anger from you as regards the lies the pontificate has told you of their origins in order to get you to be a pleb for them, of their usurping of the words of Christ to maniplate you?
Are you in shock or did you already know? Dont care?

Yet you attack me and the results of honest research that has taken a lifetime, not two minutes spent on google!
My real name appears not once on the net anywhwere..in any form...it doesnt mean I dont exist!

It's not me that is suffering in light of the truth.
Not me using Gods name to rape and murder...to sanction rape and murder..to protect criminals and puting barriers between Christ and the people.
Not me lying to an entire body of people, maniplating their faith and sorrows.
Not me making cheap shots and avoiding questions.
Not me living in denial of reality which is the root hold of truth.
Not me who has shown themselves in greater need of Christs whip and His mercy.
Not me who is deluded into thinking I am doing Gods work while in breech of all his laws - to LOVE one another.
Sex is NOT love. Lying is NOT love. Deception is NOT love.

It is me, just me now though, who shakes the dust from my feet and moves on, leaving you to the results of your conscious choices.
I dont know much..but I do know enough to recognize that only Christ can break down the barriers Satan erects in the hearts of those who reject His message.
He knocked those barriers right down in me..he can ad will in you too if you so choose.

Olive..please do keep in mind that Christ sent His apostles out from Himself to HEAL people to raise them...not to rape them into fearful submission to a false god head.
It remains, that rather than healing, the self entitled "apostolic" church of the RCC has not acted as apostles and have instead permitted or directly created nothing but spiritual starvation and physical and psychological suffering and death for billions.

Know that God doesnt tempt..God isnt tempted. So whatever is 'tempting' the men of the RCC to such gross acts of indecency and murder of spirit, to such evil and depraved actions....isnt of God. Whatever Gods plans for the RCC....at least know that.



Rosha.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Apperently you did not read the whole artical.

Quoted for posterity.

I am wordless.

well..my father went to trinity catholic schoo, back int he 50's here in my city, stamford CT. a nun ran the class. one day, a kid in his school was out of lline..the nun had him walk to front of the class, and used a ruler over his knuckles till they bled, and kept him for detention 3 days..
Few years ago, i was online, and a teen IMD me, seeing me in a public chatroom. apparently he thought i wa gya for wahtever reason( im as starighta s an arrow) and wanted to hookup* after telling him i was straight, he babbled on his IM screen, how he was 17, and has had many sexual enounters with a preist at a local catholic church : X modstly him giving oral sex, saying the preist was hung as a bull as that. i asked him dont yuo think thats wrong? he swore an oth of celevecy! and being another male..god wouldnt like that.
his answer....he started it(the priest) when he wouldgo to communion, at age 13 :X jsut all fell into place i guess. preists need love too...and he signed off*
so its not me anything happened..but the one story at last above.....geesh!its effin spooky and wrong

The Catholic Church, A Holy Mafia that all money flows from. The Church has kept their dirty laundry out of the press for a couple of thousand years... and not all at once did the earth find out about those transgressions against children. about 10 years after we prosecuted a few priests here... I noticed it was a brand new story for Australians... as they began prosecuting those priests.... "something really strange" it's like they wanted the press if you know what I mean... and from England I have learned the Vatican controls England. interesting...
and then I started probing - if every country is in debt and fixing to go bankrupt.... well thats impossible...
there must be a winner and a loser .... guess who is making money hand over fist.... you guessed it...
start digging on this and you will discover ... Lucifer

reply to post by Rosha


You clearly stated that the document you provided was indeed a Papal Bull. It is not. You lied.
Not a good way to prove your self.
Here it is again . And I quote

and this document was handed only to Bishops at the time it was printed and given out under strict papal bull.

Quite simply....lie and deceive!!
That's enough for me!

reply to post by Rosha

Yet you attack me and the results of honest research that has taken a lifetime

Perhaps your resources are not that reliable.

Originally posted by oliveoil
No Pope has ever murdered or raped anyone! Nor has any pope ever authorized or condone rape and murder.

Which group did Pope Clement V order the arrest and burning at the stake in 1307 in order to end the crusades?

Go research:

Giovanni Montini. Pedro Arrupe. The society of Jesuits. Don Francis Borgia
Research the war between the 'white' popes and 'black popes'.

Murder..paedophillia, sex, lies, deciet, assaination, crime, money.SATANISM.
Its all there!



Try some BOOKS:

Herman, Edward S. & Brodhead, Frank. The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection. Sheridan Square Press, New York, 1986.

Martin, Malachi. The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989.

Manhattan Avro. Murder in the Vatican, American, Russian and Papal Plots. Ozark Books, Springfield, MO. 1985.

Manhattan, Avro. The Vatican Moscow Washington Alliance. Chick Pub. Chino, CAlifornia, 1982.

Tarpley, Webster Griffin, & Chaitkin Anton. George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. ProgressivePress.com.

Yallop, David A. In God's Name: An Investigation into the Death of Pope John Paul I. Bantam Books, New York, 1984.


---

Read the books by Malachi Martin. Now dead.


From 1958 until 1964, Malachi Martin served in Rome as a Jesuit priest, where he was a close associate of, and carried out many sensitive missions for, the renowned Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Released afterwards from his vows of poverty and obedience at his own request (but still a priest), he ultimately moved to New York and became a best-selling writer of fiction and non-fiction.

Martin had first made explicit reference to a diabolic rite held in Rome in his 1990 non-fiction best-seller about geopolitics and the Vatican, The Keys of This Blood, in which he wrote:

Most frighteningly for [Pope] John Paul [II], he had come up against the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and in certain bishops’ chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen called the ‘superforce.’ Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophilia — rites and practices — was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites.
(p. 632. Emphasis added)



These are YOUR people! If you wont listen to truth or reason, listen and read their stories!

This is relevant to this thread, I promise.

When I was young, my older sister had a boyfriend. Everyone that met him got a bad feeling. At first people were polite, who knows how long it might last. Then he did some things or was associated with some things or some bad things happened and his name was there, let's go with that. So, our mother finally said something about this boy maybe not being all the best. Of course my sister just got mad at my mom. Over the next few weeks, more people said things. Now my sister could not back down from her original stance against mom, that would be defeat. So now that a friend says the same thing she has to defend her man. She just has to!

It did not take long before everyone my sister knew was telling her this man was a scumbag and she needed to let him go before he made her a scumbag too or worse. At this point, she is mad at mom, stuck defending him, and now really stressed. The only person making her feel good is this guy so she just sticks with him while rejecting all these other people she has known and loved, because arguments and passion confuse people.

When he was finally caught stealing money from our mother's purse, my sister was so far polarized over the issue that she could only see it one way. Why did her poor boyfriend need money so bad that he had to do something desperate. He must be in real trouble and really needs help. Yes, he stole from our mom so my sister ran off with him.

It ended quite well not long after. Once all my sister had left was him, he could no longer hide what he was really like and she saw it herself and came crawling back home. Everything is fine and we all look back on that as such a silly naive time.

Oliveoil, please take this with all respect and best wishes. This guy in the dress with all the gold bling on, he is not doing you any favors. Jesus wont like the bling anyway and you want him to like your boyfriend, I promise.