Major Evangelical Leaders Are Worshiping One Gay Activist As God While He Makes Them Desecrate The Bible, And One Young Christian Is Fighting Them

By Walid Shoebat

So how far will the Evangelical movement in the United States go to please the LGBT agenda?

When Shoebat.com posted this video calling for a death penalty on four homosexual wrestlers who raped two boys it upset one blaspheming homosexual and Right Wing Watch. These in turn taunt anti-gay activists within the Evangelical movement who quickly line up to express their condemnation and to denounce Shoebat.com.

And it works. Several Evangelical leaders began hurling denunciations and articles against our infamous Theodore Shoebat. According to these, calling for the death penalty for gay rapists, gay child molesters is ‘unchristian’. The heavyweights from Calvinist John Piper, Glenn Beck to Dr. Michael BrownPeter LaBarbera (1), Matt Barber and others were irate at Theodore’s remarks that they are pumping away articles in denouncement of either Theodore or the death penalty.

One major gay activist who wraps some Evangelical scholars around his finger gives himself the blasphemous title as “Joe My God,” so that when they twitter him they would blaspheme calling him “My God” instead of calling “Christ my God”. The trick stems from when Caesar wanted the Christian world to address him as kyrios (My lord) which St. Paul denounced by stating “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:11), that is that Christ is Kyrios not Caesar.

And as it seems, this sodomite blasphemer, Joe, has become their god instead.

To please Joe the Blasphemer Peter LaBarbera who heads Americans For Truth About Homosexuality goes as far as denouncing the young Shoebat for calling for such death penalty. Shoebat.com obtained leaked emails of him arm twisting the producer calling on them to scrub and edit out Theodore’s contribution in an anti-gay documentary.

pb copy

Notice Peter LeBarbra president of the anti-gay organization Americans for Truth about Homosexuality was very quick to tweet and appease Joe the blasphemer denounce Shoebat and the death penalty for gay rapists.

Dr. Michael Brown, a messianic theologian who gives the kosher approval stamp for the infamous and weird Brownsville Revival Movement, spends his lifetime arguing against his detractors and he too lined-up to strike his pen in denunciation. He was so sure that Christ would never kill such reprobates. He accepted to debate with the young Theodore on Dr. Brown’s national radio (March 7th, 2016 2-3 PM eastern time). Under the headline “No Theodore, Jesus did not kill gays” Brown called the video “a very troubling video“:

“Theodore’s  words [Jesus killed gays] do not represent Jesus, they do not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament, and they do not represent His true followers.”

We were floored with threats from Mr. Brown to have us “marked” for condemnation unless we pull back. In several exchanges we had with Dr.Brown he argued that Evangelical leaders are not bending the knee to the homo-god hurled insults back at us: “That is just a blasphemous lie … I only bend my knees to Jesus”.

Brown doesn’t get the metaphor. In no way shape or form these are making icons of the homo-god and are worshipping it. Taking this from Ezekiel’s perspective in chapter 23, Israel was spiritually whoring around where God described them as copulating with a donkey. Where the Jews into beastiality? No. The truth is that the American anti-gay activists have sold out the farm on theological soundness that has always been the accepted norm, all for the sake of political correctness. After all “killing gay child raping pedophiles,” according to these is not what Jesus would have ever done. “I only advocate for the death penalty when a life is taken (Gen 9:6)” responds Michael to our question on the death penalty for such reprobates.

Instead of supporting Theodore, Brown went as far as claiming that he could muster Christian leaders throughout the world to denounce Theodore’s view:

“It is my privilege to work with godly leaders throughout America and around the world, a good number of whom are frontline, fearless Christians who stand firmly against homosexual activism, and every single one of them would join me in renouncing Theodore Shoebat’s words … “

Notice “around the world”. Does Brown work with the Coptic leadership in Egypt or the Orthodox  throughout the world all of whom would denounce Theodore? It is this huff-and-puff that says this: only the Evangelicals rule and sort of has a monopoly on global Christian theology since the apostolic-succession churches, according to these reprobates, has been left out by Christ. It is this type of rhetoric that should infuriate Christians worldwide. Fact is, despite such divided theological views within the American Evangelical movement, to preserve an appearance of a unified order, you find Brown sleeping with strange bedfellows like Rick Joyner, Benny Hinn, John Kilpatrick and even the anti-Trinity TD Jakes. He would never dare publicly condemn these, but Theodore according to this sell-out was “completely out of bounds”.

Harassing messages from Brown went as far as pitting Theodore against his father and father against his son (which I will post for everyone’s amusement to show how un-witty Brown really is). Dr. Brown did not realize, I raised a David, not a Goliath and he would never bend the knee to him or to the homo-god.

The young man needs to be destroyed by any means, not just by the sodomites but by the Evangelical clergy as well United Against Theodore.

swimming-against-tide-9820855

However, had this controversy been in Russia, Egypt’s Copts, Serbian Christians, Polish Christians … and they will join Theodore not Brown and his ilk. Christianity in the view of these has a monopoly where only the Evangelical mega industry sets the rules on biblical interpretation. The Church, the Gospel, the nation … everything, to these now exists to defend the rights of sodomites from legalizing punishments against them. This is the whole crux of the matter, that is, American brand of modern evangelicalism is the gospel.

It is not. American Evangelicalism, unlike the apostolic-succession Christianity, is such a divided group with scores of hair-splitting arguments that runs deep with so many sub-denominations that if one takes one sheep to a journey in the time tunnel, and compares to the times of the patristic fathers, this sheep  would be viewed as a complete alien.

With the explosion of homosexuality in America, the Evangelical response have two extremes where some  call for putting all gays in concentration camps while the “Jesus is love” side says that Jesus forbade capital punishment for sodomites. This is also another extreme.

Did Jesus kill gays? Nothing was ever said in this silly half-baked article that in the Bible it is as clear as the sun, Jesus killed the sodomites. Yet these intentionally overlook and refuse to disclose that some of the best passages of scripture ever used regarding the Trinity and the Theophany is within the context when Christ completely annihilated the sodomites.

Anyone who denies this ask them: was it Christ Who met with Abraham and announced the destruction of Sodom? In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and Who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17).

No sane theologian would argue that this person wasn’t Christ. After much feasting, Christ and the other two men left Abraham to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:21-22). Christ even referred to His meeting with Abraham in the New Testament when He said:“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56, also see St. Gregory as recorded by St. Aquinas, Catena Aurea). It was so clear in scripture that it was Christ Who killed ‘the gays’:

“Then the LORD [the Son] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [the Father] out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)”

All of this scripture was completely ignored and is rarely if ever used by these losers. Why do I say that they are “losers”? It is because the sodomites (and unlike in the east) they have won and the American church completely lost for not trusting in God’s judgment and for favoring American politics.

wjkg copy

Yes Michael Brown, Jesus had killed gays

Yet this poorly written article which represents these leaders stance is from a man who touts himself “a scholar” was unable to see this?

Brown like the others concluded that executing sodomites “does not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament”.

Really?

It was the Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul in Romans 1 which taught that sodomites are “worthy of death” and Paul was basing this on what we discussed so far when the Theophany of Christ rained fire and brimstone from His Father.

The American brand of Evangelicals and even some of the Catholic Novus Ordo seminarians’ are not Orthodox and they do not like the methods used to combat the LGBT-agenda in Russia or Poland or in the nation of Georgia where success is accomplished. They always describe them as harsh. But at the same time, they ‘discretely’ wish to have certain laws passed in the United States to halt the LGBT agenda. The difference between the two spheres is that Evangelicals are spreading an American brand of the Gospel which many times isolates New Testament from Old Testament in areas that they should not.

For example, what happens to: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

CARM, an Evangelical website gives the typical argument one hears in the American brand of Evangelical Christianity which sounds like this:

“There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death and that God has deemed it to be an “abomination” to Him. Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come, and we are not under a theocratic governmental system. Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals. We are to pray for them and their repentance, so they might find salvation in Christ.

Yet such modern Christians always argue for the death penalty, but only for murder.

But arguing for the death penalty as “a life for a life” could be argued as “an eye for an eye”. This would debunk the notion that all Levitical laws are obsolete. How could these re-explain “vengeance is mine” along with their support of the death penalty and that we should not uproot the tares lest we also uproot the wheat?

This is the crux of the whole issue.

But one can’t have it both ways.

It is these types of arguments they use to defend against capital punishments for the sodomites while they would rummage using the same arguments we use to finding theological solutions for their support of the death penalty.

And how do we reconcile such issues?

The solution to this is simple, uproot the tare only if it harms not the wheat, and do not uproot the eye for vengeance (2) and punish by passing laws to apply justice.

To argue against any death penalty for all sorts of evils, we ask: is the life of the victim and of the criminal put on the same level? Obviously, to go against this argument that the life of the victim is to be put on the same level of the criminal would mean that we do away with all the laws.

This would be absurd. This also proves beyond doubt that these who advocate that we cannot have an allowance for the death penalty for certain homosexuals are not using proper interpretation.

To go against the principle that the two (just and unjust) are equal because Christ requires us to forgive each and every infraction would mean no prison is necessary and all lawless be let on the loose to consume more victims. The LGBT agenda is the process of corrupting the innocent in order to go against the natural order.

Yet this modern mentality stated this “Why do we follow some Levitical laws and not others regarding things like [punishing] homosexuality and eating shellfish?” In other words, they state that Levitical “civil laws” are completely done with, except of course the current law of death penalty for murder. In other words, the biblical laws had to match American civil laws and anti-homosexual laws were lumped up with Kosher laws.

Romans is clearly stating that homosexuals are “worthy of death” (see Romans 1:26-32) and it is impossible to refute Romans 13 which clearly justifies the death penalty “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil …  if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he [the ruler] is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:1-4).

If only the death penalty is to be applied strictly to “murder” how then can one respond, that despite this being pretty straightforward (3) the very New Testament (which Brown demands we exclusively use), in Romans 1:32 clearly teaches not just that the wicked deserve death but also the promoters deserve death too: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

Imagine, it is not only murderers or homosexuals, but the promoters of such evil acts also deserve death.

John Piper wastes much time in his article to show how scripture did away with the “Ceremonial precepts” (the ceremonial law). While we all agree that dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary. But this never excluded the use of civil laws by either Orthodox or even Protestant theologians. While the judicial laws ceased to bind with the advent of Christ, it was not a mortal sin to enforce them either. Thomas Aquinas for example says, “if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin.”

Yet only Theodore sinned for calling for the death penalty?

Although Aquinas believed the specifics of the Old Testament judicial laws were no longer binding, he taught that the judicial precepts contained universal principles of justice that reflected natural law. Thus some scholars refer to his views on government as “General Equity Theonomy”.

This is far from our modern Americanized application, where they call for, and completely make obsolete  Old Testament’s “civil law”. Such laws were in use in Christendom from time immemorial from when Constantine established Christian governance. Christianity is not how some Evangelical websites assert which is more of a Waldensian interpretation where these denounced the death penalty as being wrong in all times. CARM for example asserts that such laws are “for Israel only”.

Were only Jews allowed to punish sodomy while the Christian only needs to keep the Levitical 10% tithing,  since this is necessary for the Evangelical mega industry? Nice.

If Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword, does this mean “no swords are ever allowed”? This also would be an extreme.

It is also an extreme to think that “Jesus would never whip gays” had they been in the Temple.

Insisting (as Michael does) that Jesus whipped only the animals and is how He drove the money changers is also rather a stretch.

Did the money changers simply flee running after the sheep and pigeons? To say that Jesus would never whip the sodomites begs another question: instead of using a leather whip He used a Fire whip and added some Brimstone and killed each and every one of the evil sodomites at Sodom and Gomorrah.

And to what level are these so-called scholars going to silence free speech?

Brown was irate and is calling on all scholars to join him in his denunciation of Theodore Shoebat for saying that Jesus, had he seen sodomites in the Temple, He would have killed them.

Brown says he is not on a “vendetta” mission against Theodore after making claims we had been attacking him, even though he had expressed anger suspecting we have written articles against him. When asked to show proof, he was empty handed. We spoke and he apologized. Whether he was on a vendetta or not you decide (4).

“Jesus” argues Brown would not even whip such reprobates since He never committed any acts of violence according to Isaiah 53:9. “The prophet Isaiah tells us explicitly that Jesus did not get violent” says Brown.

The method these modern seminarians use is always the same: “Theodore’s words do not represent the New Testament”.

The problem with many of today’s theologians is that they strike a line with a pen and it takes ten pages to fix it. First of all, a serious scholar should never isolate everything based on the New Testament while we throw out the entire Old Testament. Did Jesus strictly want us to follow the New Testament?

Or did Jesus want us to follow the Old Testament as well, but in light of the New Testament?

To use only the New Testament is the tricks used by cults. Why then restrict all theological arguments to only the New Testament?

It is to promote a specific theological bent for a political purpose.

Angling oneself under the modern motto ‘Jesus loves gays and He would never advocate the death penalty for gays’ not even for aggressive sodomites who rape, is today’s motto. To make his argument stick, that Jesus would never use the whip on men, Mr. Brown referenced a prophecy in Isaiah 53:9 that “no violence is found in Him (the Messiah”.

It is easy to just jot such nonsense, but again, it takes more to refute it. The Hebrew word for “violence” in this verse is “Hamas” which is ‘unjust’ or ‘malicious violence’ as evidenced in every single verse that used “Hamas” in the entire Scripture. Yet Michael argued:

If Jesus had whipped people bloody, that would have been violence. Instead, He overthrew tables and drove out the vendors, using a whip on the cattle. So, I’ll take Isaiah’s word for this rather than Theodore’s.

In Brown’s poorly written article, the whole essence of Jesus driving the moneychangers is missed.

Just as Christ was the one who poured fire and brimstone on Sodom, here it was Christ Who used His miraculous power in driving such a number of men before him, with so small and insignificant a weapon “scourge of small cords” to cleanse the Temple.

Michael belabors ridiculous issues while ignoring the significant.

I ask every evangelical: had an LGBT parade dancing in the nude, came into their church, would the ushers not drive them out of their temple? So how about if it was Christ with an LGBT parade coming to the Temple, while He threw the moneychangers, would He or any Levite for that matter stand by idle?

Should we not draw conclusions from Scripture on how to deal with sodomites?

This is the world we live in where everyone asks “show me in scripture” as to discount any reasonable argument. Show me in scripture where in a baptismal you had crazies jolting?

Michael has a neo-charismatic approach to everything and speaks with such authority that when he says something, that it is God who says it. Followers who are not apt to using biblical scrutiny usually speak with such authority where Michael on the phone with me says “God told me” this, and “God told me” that.

I urge him to show us from two thousand years of Church history where such lingo was the norm?

It is a clear violation of the third commandment (Exodus 20:7) and is usually the language of neo-charismatic loons. These exist plentifully today and we have educated maniacs like John Piper who claims he hears God speaks to him which even the acclaimed Protestant theologian Jonathan Edwards warns:

“…Scripture strongly impressed on the mind, are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions [to] fail, and prove vain.”

Even Catholic Bill O’Reilly says God told him to write his heretical book “Killing Jesus”. The latter is proven from the devil for his book is littered with blasphemies saying that Christ never spoke from the Cross. Brown in this video (also you can see him @ 31:38) is here presiding to be the scholarly face to this utterly heretical mania while claiming that “the Lord is moving me” when he wants to split causing a schism within his movement. Where is this in Scripture:

Even worse, Brown purposefully and completely ignored all the beef. Theodore (as you watch the video he complained about) was speaking on gay rape stories, an epidemic influenced by the LGBT movement in the U.S. military where sodomites are raping male wrestlers and male soldiers.

It is the type of disgust that anyone with a sane mind would comment “I wish I had a rocket launcher,” but then, in America the LGBT won’t just put you on a watch list for saying that sodomites should be executed, but send the heavy weight Evangelical guns and as a result we now get a ton of comments accusing us of being “ISIS”.

Who caused such slander? It is not Muslims, it is the Evangelicals!

In every case Theodore brings up, he speaks harshly of these sodomites. Brown told me by phone that he refuses to call them sodomites and is upset that we fight with his colleagues since it “hurts our witness”.

Never mind the victims. Theodore’s call for death penalty was (and always is) in the context of a news piece he does where sodomites have molested children, raped men or military officers.

But does that mean we go vigilante? Theodore never advocated for unprovoked violence. He does believe in the death penalty for gays depending on each circumstance.

Theodore usually speaks of Russia’s zeal in fighting the sodomites and wishes that American laws at times allow for some of the Russian Orthodox ‘rough methods’ with homosexual predators. He does not support every case since there are victims who are homosexuals who need help, not punishment.

How else can we stop the epidemic if we do not punish the predator and the enabler out of the Temple?

While this is not applicable in the United States, the question is: whose method worked?

After all, Christ said: “you shall know them by their fruit”.

In Poland, the nation of Georgia, Serbia and in Russia the sodomite agenda did not advance as it did in the United States.

This is a fact.

Let me rephrase my question even better: Is Jesus God? Was it Jesus Who visited Abraham prior to announcing and destroying Sodom(5) and was it Jesus Himself who destroyed Sodom?

If Mr. Brown answers “No” that Jesus never destroyed Sodom, he would just have turned into a heretic and a blasphemer. If He would answer “yes”, he would have completely refuted himself when he said that Christ committed not even [righteous] violence.

Brown defends the hysterical Brownsville Revival and Faith Movement, which most of it is cultic to the core and the heresies is not as he once stated “just a minority”.

This is what was sparked in the United States, just an old heresy with people rolling and barking in the spirit and claiming messages from the Almighty. To Brown God told him personally and gave him a private message how to conduct his approaches towards homosexuality.

It is obvious that he heeds to a different spirit.

Christianity is a global faith and not a faith only for the mega American brand of the Evangelical industry. Jesus rode a donkey, cracked a whip and told the disciples to “buy a sword”.  What for? To first, fulfill a prophecy where He is falsely accused “being counted amongst the rebels” (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12) while these two swords of Peter “spiritual” and “temporal” was to carry out justice. To say that we should only and strictly focus on the New Testament is a heresy. Truth is not determined by American democracy or by supporters for homosexuality but by Church authority established from the ancient of times. While the Two Swords of Peter is a Catholic teaching, what amazes me is that being Catholic to many is worse than being a sodomite, where the Catholic is not given any latitude while the sodomite is given everything.

UPDATE:

Dr. Michael Brown wrote me insisting  and persisting calling me a “liar” since he had no contact with Joe the blasphemer. Brown did not understand that to prove a lie one had to show evidence of knowledge of falsity. He failed to show such evidence. Although I do accept his claim that he did not communicate with Joe, but it is also obvious that he is in league with LaBarbera who is communicating with sodomite Joe and who quickly joined the twitter war against us taking Brown’s side and Brown taking his side in league against Theodore. We are currently exchanging messages back and forth to get to the bottom line of this unprovoked attacks with LeBarbera’s leaked email to stop a documentary Theodore is involved with. As it seems, it is the typical American style of “shaming and arm twisting” a method that never works in the stubborn eastern mind.

 

SOURCES

(1) Peter LaBarbera, an Evangelical who is in the documentary, was confronted by the leftist media on the fact he is in the same documentary with me, the man who believes in God’s law that says that sodomites are to be put to death. Instead of defending the law of the Bible, which he claims to believe, he decided to push for us to recant our statements, and said that if I didn’t that I should be removed from the documentary. Janet called me urging me to make a statement to “clarify” what I really believed, that I really don’t believe in the death penalty for sodomites, but simply in the anti-sodomy laws that were once enacted in Texas. To be honest I was quite hesitant to do this because to do so would mean recanting all of my writings in support for the death penalty. Janet sent me the first draft of the statement to receive my stamp of approval. The draft stated:

“While I have had homosexual activists call for my death and beheading, etc., I have not called for anyone to take the life of those practicing homosexual behavior. I do want the laws of the United States to once again make sodomy illegal as they did prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling because such practice is not only immoral, but physically dangerous, as well.”

But Peter LaBarbera objected to the draft and expressed his dissatisfaction with it, pushing for me to recant my position that an inquisition should be established to uproot homosexuality and other perversities. Peter LaBarbera responded to the draft with this email to Janet:

“Not good enough, if he called for an “Inquisition” against homosexuals. We need to look at the exact comments and craft a statement based on those. I do not have time to do that today or tomorrow as I’m driving to DC. We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he needs to disavow that approach (or clarify what he meant). Otherwise people will keep asking about those specific comments.”

 

Peter LaBarbera was blocked from entering Canada, and he goes before the media showing how persecuted he is, but yet he wants to block me — a Christian — from being in a documentary for being more politically incorrect than him. And at the same time, he kisses the feet of the sodomite to deny me as Peter denied Christ. A filthy sodomite who calls himself “Joe My God”, began to attack LaBarbera for being in the documentary with me. Peter LaBarbera quickly went on Twitter to appease the sodomite, even going to far as to address him with the blasphemous title of “Joe My God”. Peter LaBarbera wants to do an inquisition saying “We need to look at the exact comments” and “We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he [Theodore Shoebat] needs to disavow that approach”, while at the same time he runs to some sodomite to get his approval. What an absolutely pathetic person. Peter LaBarbera does not want to respect God, but rather “Joe My God”.

(2) The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, also wrote about the death penalty in his phenomenal Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2. On the question of whether it is lawful to kill a sinner, he responded as follows, first giving three objections to the Catholic view, then giving and explaining the Catholic view, and then refuting the specific objections given at the beginning:

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and “we wish our friends to live and to exist,” according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”; and (Ps. 100:8): “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land.”

I answer that, As stated above . . ., it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Prov. 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). (see Catholic Apologetics)

Also see Catechism of the Council of Trent (late 1500’s) “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

Also see The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago (1899):

“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.”
(Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, ed. by Richard Clarke [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1993], 388-89; italics added for emphasis.)

The Catechism of St. Pius X: “It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.”

Pope Pius XII (1952): “Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.)” Also see Moral Theology, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).

(3) St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century A.D. in his monumental City of God:

The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. (qtd. in Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things, April 2001)

(4) Having been told by someone that we had attacked him (I have that in writing) filling his mind with all sorts of suspicions doubting that we were even Christian. He wrote Theodore “he [your father] decided to come after me last year”. After asking him in writing to show such attacks, he came up empty handed. He then requested to speak by phone (we recorded the whole conversation just in case). He promised to tweet and clarify to the public. Unfortunately he did not include the agreement which included he considers us, being Catholic as Christian and that he wrote the report basing it on hearsay. All what Brown wrote was:

The ‘constructive dialogue’ included a confession of error by Michael on two counts: 1) doubting our faith 2) admit he wrote the article as a vendetta. It took a while to extract from him “Many Catholics are brothers in the Lord MANY or not.”

Charismatic Christians, alongside gays are prone to using savage slander and the LGBT agenda has the heavyweight seminarians in their pocket who seem to have bonded United Against Theodore by using the typical hook ‘you claim Jesus is love then go after Theodore’.

And I know we spoke last night via phone and he has kindly apologized for having stating that he has no problem with calling us Christians even though we converted to Catholicism. But his article still needs to be rectified in order to do justice.
(5) In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17). This person was then God in the flesh, and thus Jesus Christ.

 

print
  • Catbr

    All these groups (lgbt, atheists, statanists, pornographers etc) want their recognition in the world as something that has to be accepted. A group shouldn’t deserve automatic acceptance and doesn’t make any of them right either just because they are a group. It’s like a biker gang, selling drugs and whatever else they do, they all have to do it in a “gang”, because most of them can never stand alone to do what they do because it isn’t right or legal. But the world today has gone mad and seems to be accepting almost anything that stands on two legs, if they are part of a “group” with outspoken leaders. So Theodore is standing on his own because what he is saying has merit and truth. Many people say the exact same thing about rapists deserving the death penalty especially when it comes to children being raped. Homosexuals raping others deserve no exclusion from this opinion.

  • Trevor

    That is why I said last week that evangelicals DO NOT speak for all of Christianity.

    If one carefully peruse all the America’s publications, one would make note that in all dialogue about Christians, it is always the evangelicals who is surveyed. Rarely is asked of Anglican, Catholic, Coptic, or Orthodox of their view. It is always the evangelicals.

    Why? As I have stumbled across in a secular journal article, anti-Catholicism have been built into the America’s psyche since the Puritans’ arrival to the New World.

    Now let me make one point crystal clear: there are a few good, godly men within the evangelical movements, but they are few and far in-between. The evangelicals are not showing sign of healing, but are furthering along and getting worse in delusional.

    • Eric

      Trevor, what you say is true. I had hoped that the Puritain effect had long worn off, but it seems to still be going strong. I never did enjoy mega-churches, and have always found them empty suits.

      • Trevor

        Look at the very word, “Puritans.”

        It denotes they are of “pure” faith. It is the same thing as the filth that comes out of Saudi Arabia with their Wahabbism “puritanical” theology. It is what is causing so much scourge in the world, especially in the Middle East. It is what is pushing the flood of those invaders into Europe and trickling here in America.

        • Eric

          Right, Trevor. I am completely unfamiliar with the Evangelical scene, having come from a Methodist-Calthloic background. All of this is new to me.

          • Trevor

            All you got to do is turn on Trinity Broadcast Network or Daystar to see it.

          • Eric

            I’ve seen Trinity Broadcast as I’ve been flicking some days. We don’t watch a lot of TV here in our house, so that’s probably why I’m not fimilar.

          • mspip

            you are better off not to watch tbn. i stopped watching them a good while back, way better off without that stuff. a lot of it is lies to get ahold of your money.

          • Eric

            I never watch them anyway.

          • A great carpenter turns on the saw blade when he crafts, not the sewage.

          • mspip

            tv has lots of different preachers, almost all of whom are after the almighty dollar.

          • Trevor

            Prosperity gospel. A huge heresy.

          • Kamau41

            Very true and they are horrific/tragic…

        • Bingo. You have become an excellent carpenter Trevor, never missing hitting a nail on the head.

          • Trevor

            I have always enjoyed carpentry. Problem is I have such limited skill.

          • racarrera

            You learn with practice, practice, practice. The profession gave us St. Joseph and the Son of God. You’ll be in good company.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Measure twice, cut once.

          • Trevor

            Ha. I often measure like 4 times and then make sure to line up the teeth of the blade so there would be faint hint of a line. Nothing gets me upset when I find out I cut a lumber too short.

        • racarrera

          It shows the ‘pure’ are cut from the same cloth. Today is the feast of the Pharisee and the Publican. It seems perfectly appropriate since this topic is up.

    • Name me a few will you? Which ones that we should look up to them? Besides Franklin Graham who do you consider “godly”?

      • Trevor

        That’s probably the only name I can think of beside Jerry Falwell Junior.

        • Ratliff

          Did the apple fall far from the tree? I have seen his father on a major news network deny that Jesus turned the water into wine, because consumption of alcoholic beverages is a sin.

          Following this logic, the comment at the wedding party should translate, “you have served the best grape juice for last, and served the served the not-so-good grape juice first.”

          • Trevor

            I have never liked Jerry Falwell Sr. I have only heard good things about his son, and I do not pay attention to tv preachers anymore.

          • Ratliff

            Maybe it did.

            Yeah, I gave up on ’em, too . As I posted to another comment this morning, once their following becomes large, lucrative, high profile and influential, they have much more to lose by standing with the whole truth of the scriptures. They choose to become less the preacher, and more the politician; they become less Paul and more Pilate.

          • Trevor

            “They choose to become less the preacher, and more the politician; they become less Paul and more Pilate.”

            This is what happened to John Hagee, I’m sorry to say. Even though I respect his bold stand against some social issues that face our time, I have already noticed how Judaizing have crept into his preaching recently. I fear that his outreach to the State of Israel and his constant defending have clouded his understanding of God’s salvation plan for Israel also include the need to preach the gospels to them. God does not exclude anyone from the gospel, that includes the Jews. By his own admission, Hagee said it was a waste of time to share the Good News with the Jews. Why? His contact with Israel is impressive. He is in the ear of the Prime Minister of Israel. It would be earth shattering if he preaches the Good News to Netanyahu and see him accept Jesus Christ as Messiah, and proclaim it throughout Israel.

            The worse crowd of televangelists are those pushing the prosperity gospel at the expense of truth. The list is long but right at the top of the list is Joel Osteen. Then you have Benny Hinn whose crusades are nothing more than a circus where people don’t really get healed or get emotionally high, it turns into an addiction.

            Sometime, it is hard to distinguish the truth coming from the pulpit anymore, especially when I hear it from outside the apostolic church. Unfortunately, I fear that even the apostolic church are not paying heed to strange doctrines creeping into the church.

          • Ratliff

            Agreed. He (Hagee) is more and more erratic in his claims and behavior.

            Another lost ball in the weeds.

          • Trevor

            You know that Hagee was one heavy promoter of the blood moon mania. He even got into a “shouting match” with Mark Blitz who was the first to discover it. Hagee just marketed it better. Now that it has come and gone, Hagee is hedging his bet because he cannot admit to write a retraction on his error and has released a new book. Money is more important than the truth.

            I fear for his soul. And for those who listens to his preaching.

          • susan

            “I fear for his soul. And for those who listens to his preaching.” Me too. How did he explain his failure to his congregation?

          • Trevor

            I do not have the foggiest.

          • susan

            He was so successful at promoting it. I can’t imagine no one asked about it. Oh well.

          • Trevor

            Yes and it has not hurt him because nobody has confronted him on being a false prophet.

          • susan

            I wonder why they want to be seen as a prophet? That seems to me to be dangerous. We have Walid who plainly and CORRECTLY says what’s going to happen and then it DOES yet Walid denies being a prophet. Hagee prophecies what is to happen and then it DOES NOT but where is Hagee’s apology?

          • Trevor

            To be a prophet is a burden. The risk of even getting one thing wrong can have consequences for eternity. True prophets are often hated and slandered, as evident from reading Jeremiah, or read of Joseph’s account on how his own brothers treated him. Very solemn are prophet treated with dignity and respect. The greatest I can recall is Samuel.

            Even David was a man after God’s heart, he was slandered at the end of his life for his failure to rein in Absolam and his rebellion that nearly torn the kingdom apart.

            The point I’m trying to make is, being a prophet is a calling from God and it is often fraught with risk and even threat of death.

          • There is a weather forecaster (me) and then there is the actual weather (the wind that God blows). I am the dumb forecaster and nothing more.

          • susan

            Lol. In my book, you’re the wise forecaster whose forecasts I can trust. 🙂

          • racarrera

            He, Kim Clement, so many. They have to be reasoned with to be brought back to at least a basic orthodox Christianity.

          • racarrera

            These are the professional wrestling wing of ‘Christianity’TM.

          • Ratliff

            Ha! Perhaps soon, they will enter the sanctuaries fat, shirtless and wearing masks.

          • racarrera

            At least they’d then be somewhat entertaining!

          • Raph Sebastian

            Lucha Evengelicos Libre? Once the mask comes off do we see them for what they are and they retire?

          • racarrera

            I see money in this…

          • ChiRho

            Excellent analogy.

      • mikifenn

        The Assemblies of God pastors and Foursquare pastors I have known are not like the ones you described. I live in the Northwest and the ones I know are Godly men.

        • Trevor

          I was a member of a Foursquare Church. Married my current wife there and the pastor name was Nick Gough.

      • Ratliff

        I suggest the reason for the lack of backbone among these high profile “Christians” is what they have to lose by standing up on the more controversial issues. The public and press will castigate you for standing with the scriptures, and one stands to lose congregations, monetary support, popularity and safety.

        With the high profile success, they become much more the politician than the preacher, more Pilate than Paul.

        • mspip

          televangelists are after money,many of them ask outright for it. they may cloak their greed with stories of what they do with $$$ but seems to me their goal in life is to get rich. or am i too cynical??

          • Ratliff

            Paul kept his job as a tent maker, so that he wouldn’t give people any reason to criticize him for taking support.

            The scripture teaches, “thou shalt not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” This is to say that the congregation is to support the preacher so that he can dedicate his life to the service of the Lord God. This is borne out by the old testament and the Levites being supported by a portion of the sacrifices. Paul was trying to be beyond any criticism that might stand in the way of the Gospel.

            However, you are right. Television time costs a fortune, and that lot are raking it in to be able to stay on the air. I’m sure you’re familiar with some of Walid’s direct encounters with the hypocrisy of the TV evangelical crowd. Never offend the source of funding, regardless of their nefarious goals and activities.

  • Eric

    Ted, I stand with you 100%! These men attacking you are pure loons! They are undeniably goats! You have been such an inspiration to me on so many levels. You have encouraged me to fight against the homosexual agenda more than ever before, even after I had been affected by sodomites personally. Know that I will support you 100% in your fight. I sincerely wish I could do more. God bless, and KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!

    • Great, made a carpenter out of Trevor and a Superman out of you 😉

      • Eric

        Indeed, Mr. Shoebat. Please give your son my thanks. 🙂

  • susan

    I’m looking forward to the debate. Theodore’s been preparing his whole life for these types of discussions. I thought it odd that he felt the need to round up his friends to attack Theidorr as well.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Christian Reconstructionism is not your cup of tea – nor mine – but they are within the evangelical (Reformed) camp and they have advocated the death penalty for homosexuality. (It’ been, gladly, sometime since I read them so I can’t say under what conditions.)

  • Eric Mueller

  • Kamau41

    You have indeed truly raised up a David and mighty WARRIOR to fight and defeat the Goliaths. What you mentioned in the article is spot on and makes a very concise and profound point. “But arguing for the death penalty as “a life for a life” could be argued as “an eye for an eye”. This would debunk the notion that all Levitical laws are obsolete. How could these re-explain “vengeance is mine” along with their support of the death penalty and that we should not uproot the tares lest we also uproot the wheat?” Thank you Ted for all that you do and encouraging us to stand STRONG, TALL and FIGHT against this very wicked ideology incuding all other forms of evil/darkness….I’m also looking forward to the debate that has been slated for March.

  • John Mungai

    First of all those two videos are disgusting. That is not Christianity leave alone baptism.

  • Impeach Obama Now!

    The woman in the first video is Possessed! She is shaking because she is fighting it!

    • Ratliff

      I disagree. She grows tired as she prattles on, and thus she shakes much less violently toward the end of her little speech.

      • Impeach Obama Now!

        You have never witnessed Demons! Now start paying attention!

        • Ratliff

          How would you know what I’ve witnessed? Try downtown Los Angeles, friend. We disagree on the woman’s condition, that’s all.

          • Impeach Obama Now!

            You are not a Christian! You wouldn’t know!

          • Ratliff

            Y’know, I used to wonder why the regulars around here got so impatient with people and their comments, but not so much anymore.

            Just how would you know what I am? How would you know what I believe, and what my experience with Jesus is?

            Be careful, you don’t wanna use up your monthly allotment of exclamation points too quickly.

          • Impeach Obama Now!

            I’m not a regular! I’m new here! Now stop spewing your Liberal rants!

          • Impeach Obama Now!

            Listen little miss 194 comments! I have been around the block a few times!

          • Ratliff

            Yawn…

            You didn’t answer the questions. On second thought, don’t bother. Go use your exclamation points on someone else.

          • Remember Ratliff, a grasshopper never answers a question and always changes the subject. The ticket Ratliff, is to always hear the grasshopper at your feet:

          • Ratliff

            I’m old enough to have watched that when it first aired, and I’m quite certain I did. Thanks for the encouragement.

          • The good old days Ratliff.

          • Amazing. The guy who wants to educate you on “demons” says “You are not a Christian!”

            Only a demon or a heretic would judge so quickly who is and who is not Christian. These grasshoppers think that just because you do not have wings and quick hopping feet that you are not Christian, when all they are are grasshoppers.

          • Ratliff

            My young son, in his mellow-but-wise way, would chide me for bothering to have a “flameout” with an unworthy opponent. Such exchanges go nowhere, and waste a student’s precious time. His father could learn a few things from him.

          • At times its wise to let our sons beat us in an argument. It makes them feel they have become men.

  • Tom_mcewen

    All you boy scouts please line up and bend over to earn your new merit badge.

  • Tom_mcewen

    please, find a verse from scripture to prove St Augustine and Pope Pius XII wrong, quick we are to sup with evil and we need that verse. That woman must be one of the protestant miracles Tim is talking about.

  • Thank you Fr. Higgins, your kind words mean much to us, especially after these attacks by heretics.

  • susan

    Written by a 7 year old? Have you read more than the title? You’re just giving cheap shots. Have you ever been angry over injustice? Does the suffering of others concern you? What about the rape of children?
    But Ted gets under your skin? His anger bothers you? Well. You’ve given your two cents worth. I hope you feel better because I’m certain you haven’t learned anything you wouldn’t hear in church.

    • Catbr

      Fallony is probably from an lgbt group based on his or her comment. Nothing substantial in it, just raving and name calling.

  • Owen Schumacher

    Question one: Was it a “disgrace” when in “public,” to use your own words, Christ called the Pharisees “snakes” and “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33)?

    Question two: At the First Council of Nicaea, was St. Nicholas wrong to slap Arius across the face?

    Question three: Was Paul a “disgrace” for “oppos[ing] [Peter] to his face” (Galatians 2:11)?

    • racarrera

      Apparently, yes!

  • Cheryl, you are in danger of being graced with knowledge. You are correct. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

  • Banky,

    If someone attempts to rape you, will you fight them in the spirit?

  • Can you give a quote from the article and then provide a refutation? That is if you have the education to do it. If not, just ignore my request, okay?

  • The article was speaking of gay rapists. Your comments are as colorful as your butterflies. Are you in Hawaii by any chance hanging out in Luau?

  • So as I understand you Yanke, if someone sexually raped your children, you would a) love them b) want the death penalty for them?

    How about for murder, are you for a) death penalty b) no death penalty?

  • Our readers are not stupid to listen to a walking slander machine. Good try though.

  • “The reason why the spirit of homosexuality is ravaging the west is because they are spiritually dead”

    No.The reason why the spirit of homosexuality is ravaging the west is because you are spiritually dumb.

  • susan

    I guess we don’t need prisons either. We just forgive and that’s it. They can do whatever they like until death or Jesus returns.

  • Raph Sebastian

    As soon as the sodomite pastors of the protestant denominations are.

  • Mr Al

    I have sought tobe Iinformed of God’s heart on LGBT and God said to me ALL sexual perversion heterosexual, homosexual and outright weird Iis detestable in the sight of God. Jesus said paraphrasing if a guy mentally undresses a woman he is committing adultery.

    What is the crux of Christianity? It is Jesus restoring order to a society that sin especially sexual sin has brought massive disorder.

    We as the church need to discover the zeal in the heart of Jesus for sexual purity. He designed sexual order for a reason: mankind’s happiness and we are best satisfied when we keepwwithin His blessed sexual boundaries.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      It was designed to propagate children.

      • Mr Al

        Totally agree. Homosexuality is on part of Satan’s war on God intended law and order with procreation. I think there is a book to be written called “Satan’s war on procreation”

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Artificial birth control achieves the same end.

          • Your wise remarks will get us an incoming nuke. Duck down.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Al’s nuke disarmed itself.

  • mspip

    perry stone is interesting preacher. i don’t watch him now. received an impression to stop. tho i liked his tv programs.

  • I am more for Jesus than you think.

  • I follow Jesus, not the Pope. When a Pope speaks Jesus like. I listen. When he speaks socialist I don’t. I do not mind it if you try to walk me back. But I hope you also do not mind I walk you forward 😉

  • Owen Schumacher

    Cheryl, you’re correct in identifying this heresy, which is called modalism or Sabellianism. It’s a theory which makes of God a schizophrenic and divides His trinitarian unity. Also, it denies that Christ was present in the Old Testament, appearances called the theophanies. For instance, Jacob wrestles with the God-man Christ in Genesis 32, and this has always been the teaching of the Church Fathers.

    • racarrera

      Modalism, also known as Sabellianism in ‘honor’ of that heretic. If people only knew… Bravo, Owen!

      • Owen Schumacher

        Just learning from you and everyone else here. 🙂

        • racarrera

          That’s the cool thing about this place – we tend to learn from each other. We have a lot of interesting perspectives which challenge the nonsense which some ‘visitors’ like to sputter.

    • “you are in danger of being graced with knowledge.”

      This would be you Schumacher.

      • Owen Schumacher

        You said it. Not me. 😉

  • ION

    Too many call themselves ‘Christian’ and worship idols, and ignore the Word of God until it fits their need or doctrine; I’m with you on this one Walid!!!

    • That is because you are well aware with Orthodoxy ION. The seasonings that your soul has been flavored with stems from centuries of perfected recipes:

    • That is because you are well aware with Orthodoxy ION. The seasonings that your soul has been flavored with stems from centuries of perfected recipes:

  • racarrera

    Every one of the clowns on TV say they preach from the Bible. They don’t. You find, in one liturgy in an Orthodox or Catholic Church, a year’s worth of ‘preaching’ on TV. Yet, too many see these liturgies as the works of men. Amusing, since the God-Man, Jesus, founded the Church, if you read the Book of Acts clearly.

    • carole smith

      Well, I don’t know about any clowns who preach. But anyone with half a brain, can follow along in their Bible or look up anything he says is in the Bible, and know whether or not he is telling the truth. Just because they say it, does not mean it it true. YOU have to be the one to do your own work on finding that out. Otherwise it is just plain laziness and a lack of caring about your eternal soul.
      I also don’t follow catholicism or an some orthodox religion. I follow the New Testament. It is easy to read and easy to understand and tells you just what to do to be saved and how to worship.

      • racarrera

        Who put the New Testament together? No, God didn’t drop it complete out of the sky. If you believe that, there’s a more appropriate religion for you called Islam which teaches such things. MEN put it together, and the Apostolic Church codified it.

        Sola Scriptura is a heresy. Please consider learning some church history before saying things that will make you look odd here.

        • ION

          So true, I was a Protestant for 53 years and through life circumstances was pleasantly introduced to Orthodoxy and became Orthodox in1996.
          I saw in Protestants (including myself) too many ‘Popes’ – everyone knew THEY were right, and knew best. I love the fact that in Orthodoxy we consider the Seven True Ecumenical Councils Correct!!! – Case closed.

          • racarrera

            Welcome home, dear sister, and I agree – The Orthodox are thinking people, but we know when to put our foot down in regards to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Hundreds of the finest Christian minds did the world a great service, only to be mocked and ridiculed by third-rate cultists running around being their own pope today.

          • Dang it racarrera. You are getting all the fish in your net.

          • racarrera

            May we aim for our prideful leaders to put back these differences so that I can visit a Roman Church, you can visit a Constantinopolean Church, and we can be in one proper Church instead of two!

  • racarrera

    And yet the East is far more devout.

    • Nathan Smith

      That could very well be. Even so, the father encouraged his elder son to celebrate the return of the younger, who had squandered his inheritance with wild living.

      • racarrera

        We await our good brothers to come home to one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And we will wait with robes and rings and your inheritance to give you.

  • Alright then, if someone rapes your wife, just forgive and let them go. Okay?

  • racarrera

    What cult are you part of?

  • Thats because your normal rom. I was searching for the abnormalities out there since I am doing a research on the American zoo. I had a couple of them today that one said that he would not kill anyone who molests his kids or his wife and the other said that she loves gays. So I was wondering about the specific species to see how they interact with the strange other species.

  • racarrera

    She will have my prayers immediately. May the Lord give her much help and wisdom. And be patient, as with faith, she’ll come around.

    • Trevor

      Thank you, my dear friend.

      I know she will return to God.

      • racarrera

        Because you and those who pray for you ask it, it shall be granted.

        • Trevor

          Appreciate it. She is in the rebellious stage as a teen.

          • racarrera

            We’ve all been through that stage. This is where it is good to have hope.

          • Trevor

            I have been through my wife’s teens, so I got a head up before my daughter’s coming of age.

  • racarrera

    Disqus takes a while to load comments, and things also have to be moderated. It takes a bit of time for new accounts.

  • Ratliff

    I have literally heard David Jeremiah refer to islamic terrorists as men who had hijacked a religion. His credibility with me was gone in that moment. I can’t say whether he spoke from ignorance or political correctness, but any faith other than Jesus Christ is the worship of a false god; he should know better.

    I beg to differ.

  • racarrera

    I may well do so!

  • racarrera

    Before I answer, do two things:

    1. Read Mr. Shoebat’s opinion, which is also mine, and those who belong the the Apostolic Church: http://shoebat.com/2016/02/21/93748/

    2. Listen to the words of Kallistos Ware, who was once a Protestant, now the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in England: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjHGtCHyBrU

    But to answer your question briefly, I am ever in the hope of being saved (in the continuous form, which is something that CAN indeed be lost through carelessness).

  • Julie LaBrecque

    We are delighted to hear that you eat His flesh and drink His blood!!

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So Antonin Scalia was a heathen?

  • “It’s not brother Walid Shoebat or Kallistos Ware.I neither look up to any man nor denomination.”

    How about Paul. Should you look up to Paul? You sound like Jesus is someone Who comes in a rescue boat while you drown, but since the floating tube He is dropping to you is not Jesus Himself, you do not need it. When will you folks stop stripping Jesus naked all the time? You never will unless you know the errors of your ways.

    Also, if sodomites raped you and your children and your grand children, would you forgive them and let them go?

    Is there any crime in your mind that is worthy of death?

  • racarrera

    So you deny that Jesus left the Church to continue his work, and that the Holy Spirit remains with us through it?

    Also, the errors, as you call them, have been countered. Walid knows more about this than you do. You refer only to an incomplete Bible, whereas Walid refers to a complete Bible, the Church Fathers, the intellectual and historical development of the Church and the richness of Christian culture, which Protestants and Evangelicals have tried to strangle, as all heretics do.

    Perhaps consider rereading what Walid actually wrote, and what Ted actually said, before trying to correct people.

  • O Banky. I think we need to do this one more time.

    “It’s not brother Walid Shoebat or Kallistos Ware.I neither look up to any man nor denomination.”

    Do you obey Paul?

    Should you look up to what Paul says?

    If so, than why would you say “I do not look up to any man”?

    Well, obviously Jesus sends MEN,

    So your statement does not make any sense.

    You sound like Jesus is someone Who comes in a rescue boat while you drown, but since the floating tube He is dropping to you is not Jesus Himself, you do not need it. When will you folks stop stripping Jesus naked all the time? You never will unless you know the errors of your ways.

    Also, if sodomites raped you and your children and your grand children, would you forgive them and let them go?

    Then you WOULD LET THEM GO. FORGIVE THEM, RIGHT BANKY? Just a YES or a NO. I was not asking for your theological explanations.

    “Is there any crime in your mind that is worthy of death?”

    You missed that one.

    Comon Banky. Pay attention in the class 😉

    You still get a C+

    🙂

  • “all the bickering between orthodoxy, Pentecostals, evangelicals is just coming from the father of lies himself. ”

    FALSE Banky. Here is the truth:

    The splits to orthodoxy to Pentecostals to evangelicals is just coming from the father of lies himself.

    The CHURCH CHRIST wanted was ONE.

    SPLITS were caused by Satan.

    Now you know why I am CATHOLIC.

  • Ratliff

    Veronica; what a beautiful name.

    May our most merciful and long suffering Lord God soften her heart, open her eyes and mind, and bring her home safely into His loving arms.

    • Trevor

      Thank you.

  • racarrera

    People who say they were once Catholic and then become Christian Taliban never were Catholic. They simply make up fables as you are now doing.

  • Okay, forget the Catholic Church, forget the Orthodox church. Whats left? Your movement, right? What a drivel.

  • “Is there any sin that it is too difficult for Jesus Christ’s blood to wash away?”

    Yes. Denial.

  • Ratliff

    Why do you assume I’m Catholic?

  • Ratliff

    …”put Peter in charge, very unfortunate. ”

    So Jesus made a mistake?

  • Trevor

    That’s why I chose that name.

  • Ratliff

    I have found disheartening many things said from both Catholics AND Protestants here, Elaina. I have found myself being drawn more toward Eastern Orthodoxy for a number of reasons, but I am not going to argue the point. I grew up in a Baptist church, and my spiritual journey has been a long one.

    The list of things that non Catholic and Catholic Christians share a common belief in is a long one, and it boggles my mind that all many can think of to do is condemn and name call. The discussions should be on finding common ground and healing wounds. The Lord knows we have more than enough enemies without.

    I know that this statement will not be met warmly by many, and yes, there are heretical outfits all over to be excluded.

    However, I will leave you with this:

    Mark 9:38-50

    38John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40Whoever is not against us is for us. 41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

    42“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.

  • I looked into it and took that one out. The tweet now is correct. Thank you.

  • Ratliff

    There are hurt people, mischaracterisations and misconceptions abounding. There are good people here, and much to be learned, though some of it can be painful. Hang out awhile, and stay out of the comments if you have to.

    Walid came to the faith among the Baptists, but over time and through study of church history, came to believe the Catholic way is correct.

    Hang out awhile, and stay out of the comments if you need to.

    “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Happens to the best. I was lucky, worked for a master carpenter, he even taught me how to use a coping saw to make corner molding pieces fit – I’ve never regretted having to spend my summers doing hard labor.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    “I know some great Catholics but sure don’t understand why they follow some of those HEATHEN practices.” Please identify these ‘heathen practices.’ In case you weren’t aware, Scalia was a DEVOUT Catholic – I assume you know what that means.

    • O God help you with this one. He has the regular list below.

  • Gerald Harp

    “I didn’t think you could be a Catholic and disagree with the Pope.”
    Yes, of course you may unless the Pope is speaking in cathedra status. For example when he said that Trump was not a Christian, he was just blathering in answer to a gotcha question from one of our typical “journalists.” The Pope was caught off guard, he needs to get wise to reporters and not be naive and expect sincerity from a reporter.

  • Your debunking my views on the Baptists Wilma. Bless your heart sister.

  • They are a Catholic Christian. Do you have a problem with Messianic Christian or a Baptist Christian?

  • “my confusion is, that you defend the Catholic church when they are eminently guilty of doing exactly what you condemn in others.”

    I became Catholic because they, like the Jews, were guilty of everything under the sun and the ones who discovered such guilt were the un-biggoted most loving folks on earth. You know, folks like you.

    God bless you Hilary for your wonderful love.

    One last thing, you spoke of a “confusion”. Why are you confused sister Hilary? The gay agenda infiltrated the Jewish religious community too. In fact, for your sake, I will do an article on the subject tomorrow. Just for you. So stay tuned.

    Lady in red … is caring for me

    • Hilary Ann Farquhar NeeBoyce

      Boy you replied fast! I’m off to church, if I can find one that isn’t polluted with unbiblical meanderings. It saddens me that we need to guard ourselves from our fellow Christians descent into gnosticism. Not that everyone is like that. It is just difficult to find a good old fashioned bible believing fellowship.

      • Yaaa, the good old school Bible believing church. Be careful not to get polluted.