NationStates Jolt Archive

I am here to announce to you today that my nation, the Triune Kingdom of Reichskamphen, Russapovia, and Scotta, are going to be taking a stand against the evils of this world.

We shall put on the whole armour of God and defend ourselves against the lies and deceit of Roman Popery, Mohammadenism, Ecumenism, Communism and Athiesm, Paganism, and any other system which defiles Christ and robs him of his glory.

Most of all we shall concentrate our efforts against the vile system of Romanism, which can be proven to be the predicted anti-Christ, foretold in Revelations, the words of Paul, Jesus Christ himself, and even in the old Testament.

The Scarlet Whore of Babylon will not be allowed to continue to take unto herself the souls of men and damn them to hell by placing upon them the Mark of the Beast. They, like the Pharisees of old are like whited Sepulches, holy on the outside, but filled up inside with foul things and blasphemies. They are a generation of vipers which poison the thoughts and hearts of Christians everywhere with their lieing wonders and their trickery. It is with all decievableness of unrighteousness that the Pope, who claims himself infallible as God when sitting on "Peter's" throne, makes his followers twice as fit for hell as he is himself.

We must put an end to the paganism, priestcraft, superstition, and heresy of Rome. We must show the world definitively that Rome is the predicted apostacy and can that the office of the Papacy is indeed the Anti-Christ.

Do not "wonder after the Beast." Turn against Babylon with all the fervor and power which you have and fight it until your dieing breath. Do not believe it when it is told to you that there is nothing you can do about it. There is something you can do about it, and the Lord God Almighty is going to do something about it!

When the day of judgement comes, do not be found laying with vipers, or with the mark of the beast upon your hands and forehead. Be found among the chosen of Israel, be found among those who are delivered from this world and brought to heaven by the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

His Royal Highness,
King Viktor Leipzig I
Sovreign of the Triune Kingdom
First Consul of the region of Greater Prussia

I only have one thing to say:
LOL

Kaiser Kuklinski VI was heard going 'Hahahaha.'

The Beast will decieve the world but those whose names are written in the book of life shall not be decieved.

The truth undergoes many processes.

First it is laughed at...then it is doubted and feared...then it is fought against...and finally it is accepted.

I have solid evidence to back up my claims. You laugh far too soon. Within the next couple of days I shall outline my evidence.

His Royal Highness,
King Viktor Leipzig I

The Holy Roman Catholic Church does not tolerate any kind of alliance against ANY faith: we feel nothing but friendship towards our lost brothers, the protestant churches, and have no interest in eliminating them, but in merging with them around the supreme concept of Jesus.

So why do you wish to the Catholics, to the Church of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, such a horrible destruction? as christians, you should act like the supreme Jesuscrist.


Pope Julian V

The Confederacy of Caligatio, founded upon the principles of Judeo-Christian philosophy, agrees with the Triune Kingdom in theory, but is cautious of its religious fervor.

We deem its allegations against the Catholic Church as unfounded and fully support the Holy Catholic Churche's skepticism of the Triune Kingdom's words.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Hereafter follows a scholarly proof (OOC: Not of my own fashion, sadly. Time would not permitt that. I did add one note into it though and shall at a later date discourse from my own mouth and hands about this subject) of my claims based on Holy Scripture with ideas and points taken from the work of John Calvin, Martin Luther, J.A. Wylie, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Ulrich Zwingli, and many of the other founders of the reformation. Yes, that is correct, the view I express here is not a new or radical one, but one believed by the founders of Protestantism, yea even a basic belief of Protestantism which has been eroded away by the deceit of Popery.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The student of prophecy will find that the Man of Sin is distinctly noted throughout the sacred writings, not only by giving a clear description of his character, but also by showing the times and places of his beginning, prosperity and decline.

This character is very forcibly delineated even in the names applied to it by the inspired writers. Paul calls it "That Wicked One," "The Man of Sin," "The Mystery of Iniquity," "The Antichrist," and "The Son of Perdition"; the Prophet Daniel calls it "The Abomination that maketh desolate" (`Dan. 11:31; 12:11`); and our Lord refers to the same character as "The Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (`Matt. 24:15`), and again as a "Beast" (`Rev. 13:1-8`). This same character was also prefigured by a little horn, or power, out of a terrible beast that Daniel saw in his prophetic vision, which had eyes, and a <272> mouth that spoke great things, and which prospered and made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. (`Dan. 7:8,21`) John also saw and warned the Church against this character, saying, "Ye have heard that Antichrist shall come." He then advises how to escape Antichrist's influence. (`1 John 2:18-27`) The book of Revelation, too, is in large part a detailed symbolic prophecy concerning this same Antichrist--though this we shall merely glance at here, leaving its more particular examination for a succeeding volume.

These various appellations and brief descriptions indicate a base, subtle, hypocritical, deceptive, tyrannical and cruel character, developed in the midst of the Christian Church; at first creeping in and up very gradually, then rapidly ascending in power and influence until it reaches the very pinnacle of earthly power, wealth and glory-- meanwhile exerting its influence against the truth, and against the saints, and for its own aggrandizement, claiming, to the last, peculiar sanctity and authority and power from God.

In this chapter we purpose to show that this Man of Sin is a system, and not a single individual, as many seem to infer; that as the Christ consists of the true Lord and the true Church, so Antichrist is a counterfeit system consisting of a false lord and an apostate church, which for a time is permitted to misrepresent the truth, to practice deceit and to counterfeit the authority and future reign of the true Lord and his Church, and to intoxicate the nations with false claims and assumptions.

We hope to prove, to the satisfaction of every conscientious reader, that this great apostasy or falling away mentioned by Paul has come, and that this Man of Sin has been developed, has sat "in the temple of God" (the real, not the typical), has fulfilled all the predictions of the apostles and <273> prophets concerning his character, work, etc., has been revealed, and now, since A.D. 1799, is being consumed by the spirit of the Lord's mouth (the truth), and will be utterly destroyed during this day of the Lord's wrath and revelation with flaming fire of retribution, already beginning.

Without any desire to treat lightly the opinions of others, we nevertheless feel it necessary to point out to the reader a few of the absurdities connected with the common view concerning Antichrist, that thereby the dignity and reasonableness of the truth on this subject may be properly estimated, in contrast with the narrow claim that all which the Scriptures predict concerning this character will be accomplished by some one literal man. This man, it is claimed, will so charm the whole world that in a few short years he will secure to himself the homage and worship of all men, who will be so easily imposed upon as to suppose this man to be God, and, in a rebuilt Jewish temple, to worship him as the Almighty Jehovah. All this is to be done at lightning speed --three and a half years, say they, misinterpreting the symbolic time, even as they misinterpret the symbolic "man."

Tales of fiction and the most absurd imaginations of childhood furnish no parallel to the extreme views of some of God's dear children who are stumbling over a literal interpretation of Paul's language, and thereby blinding themselves and others to many precious truths, which, because of error on this subject, they are unprepared to see in an unprejudiced light. No matter how much we may sympathize with them, their "blind faith" forces a smile as they seriously tell over the various symbols of Revelation which they do not understand, misapplying them literally to their wonderful man. In this, the most skeptical age the world has ever known, he will, they claim, in the short space of three and a half years, have the whole world at his feet, worshiping him as God, while the Caesars, Alexander, Napoleon, <274> Mahomet and others sailed through bloody seas and spent many times three and a half years, without accomplishing the one thousandth part of what is claimed for this man.

And yet those conquerors had all the advantages of dense ignorance and superstition to aid them, while today we live under conditions most unfavorable to such a development of deceit and fraud: in a day when every hidden thing is being manifested as never before; in a day when fraud of the sort claimed is too preposterous and ridiculous for consideration. Indeed, the tendency of our day is toward a lack of respect for men, no matter how good, talented and able, or what offices of trust and authority they may occupy. To such an extent is this true, as never before, that it is a thousand times more likely that the whole world will deny that there is any God, than that they will ever worship a fellow human being as the Almighty God.

One great obstacle to many, in considering this subject, is the contracted idea generally entertained of the meaning of the word god. They fail to note that the Greek theos (god) does not invariably refer to Jehovah. It signifies a mighty one, a ruler, and especially a religious or sacerdotal ruler. In the New Testament, theos is seldom used except in referring to Jehovah, because, in their discourses, the apostles spoke rarely and little of the false systems of religion, and hence seldom noticed their sacred rulers or gods; yet in the following texts the word god (theos) is used to refer to others than the one supreme being, Jehovah--viz.: `John 10:34,35`; `Acts 7:40,43; 17:23`; `1 Cor. 8:5`.

Recognizing the breadth of the Greek word theos, it will be seen at once that the Apostle's statement concerning Antichrist --that he will seat himself in the temple of God, showing himself to be a god--does not of necessity mean that Antichrist will attempt to exalt himself above Jehovah, nor <275> even that he will attempt to take Jehovah's place. It simply implies that this one will exhibit himself as a religious ruler, claiming and exercising authority over and above all other religious rulers, even to the extent of exalting himself in the Church, which is the true Temple of God, and there claiming and exercising lordly authority as its chief or authorized ruler. Wherever in the Greek the word theos is used in any sentence where its meaning would be ambiguous, it then is preceded by the Greek article, if it refers to Jehovah; as if in English we were to say the God. In the texts above, which refer to other gods, and in this text (`2 Thess. 2:4`), which refers to Antichrist, there is no such emphasis.

With this seen clearly, a great stumbling-block is removed, and the mind is prepared to look for the right things as fulfilments of this prediction: not for an Antichrist claiming to be Jehovah and demanding worship as such, but for one claiming to be the chief, supreme religious teacher in the Church; who thus attempts the usurpation of the authority of Christ, the divinely appointed Head, Lord and Teacher.

Strangely enough, too, they who take this literal view of the Man of Sin are generally those who are believers in the Lord's premillennial coming, who are looking for and expecting the Lord to come "at any moment now." Why cannot all see the Apostle's meaning, when he positively declares that the Day of the Lord (the Day of his presence) cannot come and should not be expected until after the Man of Sin has been revealed? It required over forty years to build the former Jewish temple, and it would surely require at least ten to twenty years to build, with more than former magnificence, the new temple at Jerusalem, where they expect a literal Man of Sin to be installed and worshiped as God. Why then should those who believe thus expect the Lord to <276> come at any moment now? Such a view is out of harmony with reason as well as with the Apostle's prophecy. Consistency demands that they should either give up looking for the Lord at any moment, or else give up their expectation of a future Man of Sin; for the Day of the Lord's presence cannot come until the falling away (the apostasy) has taken place, and until the Man of Sin has been developed and revealed out of that apostasy.

But when we get a correct view of the Apostle's words, together with correct ideas of the manner of the Lord's coming, we find no such discrepancies and contradictions, but a convincing harmony and fitness. And such a view we now present. Its Scripturalness the reader must prove.

The various titles applied to this system are evidently symbolic. They do not refer as names to a single individual, but as character delineations to a corrupt religious and civil combination, developed within the nominal Christian church, which, by its subtle opposition to Christ, the Head, and his true Church, his body, well earns the name Antichrist. Such a system could fulfil all the predictions made concerning the Antichrist, or Man of Sin, though an individual could not. It is evident, moreover, that this Antichrist system is not one of the heathen systems of religion, such as Mohammedanism or Brahminism; for the Christian Church has never been under the control of any such system, nor did any of these systems originate in the Christian Church. They now are, and always have been, independent of the Christian Church.

The system which fully answers the description given by inspiration must be professedly Christian, and must contain a large majority of those who claim to be Christians. And it must be one having its start as an apostasy, or falling away from the true Christian faith--an apostasy, too, which was secret and stealthy, until circumstances favored its assumption <277> of power. Its stealthy beginning was in the days of the apostles--in the desire of some teachers to be greatest.

We need not look long to find a character fitting all the requirements perfectly; one whose record, written by secular historians as well as by its own deluded servants, we shall see agrees exactly with the prophetic delineations of Antichrist. But when we state that the one and only system whose history fits these prophecies is Papacy, let no one misunderstand us to mean that every Roman Catholic is a man of sin; nor that the priests, nor even the popes of the Church of Rome, are, or have been, the Antichrist. No man is "the Antichrist," "the Man of Sin," described in prophecy. Popes, bishops and others are at most only parts or members of the Antichrist system, even as all of the Royal Priests are only members of the true Christ, under Jesus their head, and in the same manner that these in their present condition are together the antitypical Elijah, though no one of them is the Elijah or the Christ foretold. Notice, further, that the Church of Rome as an ecclesiastical system only is not the "Man of Sin," and is never presented under any figure of a man. On the contrary, a woman is always the symbol used for a church separate from its head and lord. The true Church is symbolized by a "chaste virgin," while the apostate church, which has fallen away from primitive purity and fidelity to the Lord, is symbolically called "a harlot." As the true "virgin" Church continues to be such to the end of the age, when she is to be united to her Lord and take his name--Christ--so the apostate church was not the Antichrist, or Man of Sin, until she united with her lord and head, the pope, the claimed vicegerent of Christ, and became a religious empire, falsely styled Christendom--which signifies Christ's Kingdom.

Papacy is the name of this false kingdom; and it was built upon a misapplied truth--the truth that the Church is <278> called to be kings and priests unto God and to reign on the earth. But the time for reigning had not yet come: the Gospel age was not appointed for that purpose, but for the selection, development, discipline, humiliation and sacrifice of the Church, following in the footprints of her Lord and patiently waiting and enduring until the time appointed for the promised exaltation and glorious reign--the Millennial age.

The Lord foresaw that nominal Christianity would spread over the world, and that, becoming popular, it would be embraced by many who would appreciate the form without entering into the spirit of its institution. He foresaw that as numbers of this sort would identify themselves with the Church, the worldly spirit, which is the opposite of the spirit of self-denial and self-sacrifice, would come in with them; that selfishness and a desire to be great and to rule, thus coming in, would not have long to wait until they could seize an opportunity; and that thus the Church would seek to dominate the world before the time-- or, rather, that the worldly element which would enter the Church would make its influence felt, and in the name of the true Church would grasp the civil power of earth which God had given over to the Gentiles, and which cannot pass fully into the hands of the true Church until the close of the Times of the Gentiles, A.D. 1914.

And thus it actually transpired: the nominal church began to fall away as it increased in numbers under the teaching and example of ambitious men whose ideas grew more and more favorable to the power and worldly influence which numbers and wealth brought with them. Gradually the spirit of the Church became worldly, and the things of the world were coveted. The suggestion of ambition was-- "If the great Roman Empire, with all its power and influence, <279> its armies and wealth, were only to support the Church, how honorable and noble it would then be to be a Christian! How speedily then would heathen persecutions cease! Then it would be in our power not only to overawe them, but to compel their adherence to the Church and cross and name of Christ. It evidently is not God's design that the Church should forever be subject to the world and persecuted by it: the Apostle's words, 'Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?' as well as our Lord's promises that we shall reign with him, and the many prophecies which refer to the reign of the Church, indicate clearly that such is God's plan. True, the Apostle wrote that our Lord would first return and exalt the Church, and exhorted that we should 'wait' for the Lord; but several centuries are now past, and we see no sign of the Lord's coming. We must understand that the apostles were to some extent in error. To us it seems clear that we can and should use every means to obtain a hold upon civil government and conquer the world for the Lord. It must be, too, that the Church should have a head--one to represent the absent Lord and to represent the Church before the world--one who would receive the homage of the world, exercise the authority of Christ, and rule the world with a rod of iron, as the Prophet David predicted." Thus gradually by a slow process of reasoning covering centuries, the real hope of the Church for exaltation to rule and bless the world--namely, the second coming of the Lord--was lost sight of, and a new hope took its place: the hope of success without the Lord, under the headship and lead of a line of popes. And thus, by collusion, intriguing and exchange of favors with the world, the hope of the Church became a false hope, a delusive snare by which Satan led from one evil and error to another, both of doctrine and of practice. <280>

The point at which the apostasy developed into the "Man of Sin" was when the Papal hierarchy exalted itself under the headship of an arranged line of popes, and claimed and attempted the rulership of earth in the name of, and pretending to be, Christ's Millennial Kingdom. It was a false, fraudulent claim, no matter how thoroughly some of its supporters believed it. It was a fraudulent, counterfeit kingdom, no matter how sincere some if its organizers and supporters may have been. It was Antichrist's, no matter how much they claimed and believed it to be the true Christ's glory and kingdom and power upon earth. It is a mistake to suppose that to be conscientious is always to be right. Every system of error doubtless has as many conscientiously deluded votaries as it has hypocrites, or more. Conscientiousness is moral honesty, and it is not dependent upon knowledge. The heathen, misinformed, conscientiously worship and sacrifice to idols; Saul, misinformed, conscientiously persecuted the saints; and so, too, many papists, misinformed, conscientiously did violence to the prophecies, persecuted the true saints and organized the great system of Antichrist. For hundreds of years Papacy has not only deceived the kings of the earth as to its power and claimed divine authority, and ruled over them, but even in the Church, God's Temple, where Christ alone should be recognized as Head and Teacher, it has seated itself and claimed to be the only teacher and lawgiver; and here it has deceived all, except the few, by its phenomenal success and boastful claims. "All the world wondered"--were astonished, deceived, bewildered-- "whose names were not written in the Lamb's book of life," and many whose names are written as saints of God were seriously perplexed. And this deception is the stronger because of the very gradual formation of these ambitious designs and their yet more gradual realization. It extended <281> over centuries, and, as an ambition, was already secretly at work in Paul's day. It was a process of little by little adding error to error--the supplementing of one man's ambitious declarations by those of another and another farther down the stream of time. Thus, insidiously, did Satan plant and water the seeds of error, and develop the greatest and most influential system the world has ever known--Antichrist.

The name "Antichrist" has a twofold significance. The first is against (i.e., in opposition to) Christ: the second significance is instead (i.e., a counterfeit) of Christ. {Note: Anti-Christ it was in the original greek meant Vice Christ, or Substitute Christ and when translated into English..Vicar of Christ..the same title the Pope calls himself by. Therefore when he calls himself the Vicar of Christ, he pleads before the bar of the world that he is the Anti-Christ} In the first sense the expression is a general one, which would apply to any enemy opposing Christ. In this sense Saul (afterward called Paul), and every Jew, and every Mohammedan, and all the Pagan emperors and people of Rome, were antichrists-- opposers of Christ. (`Acts 9:4`) But it is not in this sense of the word that the Scriptures use the name Antichrist. They pass over all such enemies, and apply the term Antichrist in the sense given above, as now its secondary meaning, viz.--as against, in the sense of misrepresenting, counterfeiting, taking the place of the true Christ. Thus John remarks, "Ye have heard that the Antichrist shall come. Even now there are many antichrists." (`1 John 2:18,19`) [The Greek distinguishes between the special Antichrist and the numerous lesser ones.] And John's subsequent remarks show that he does not refer to all opposers of Christ and the Church, but to a certain class who, still professing to be of the Christ body, the Church, had left the foundation principles of the truth, and were therefore not only misrepresenting the truth, but were, in the eyes of the world, taking the place and name of the true Church--hence really counterfeiting the true saints. John says of these, "They went out from us, but they were not of us:" they do not represent us, even though they may deceive themselves and the world on this subject. In the same epistle John declares <282> that those he mentions as many antichrists have the spirit of the Antichrist.

Here, then, is what we should expect, and what we do find in Papacy: not an opposition to the name of Christ, but an enemy or opponent of Christ in that it falsely bears his name, counterfeits his kingdom and authority, and misrepresents his character and plans and doctrines before the world--a most baneful enemy and opponent indeed--worse far than an outspoken foe. And this is true, be it remembered, even though some of those connected with that system are conscientiously astray--"deceiving and being deceived."

With these intimations as to the identity and characteristics of the Man of Sin, and when, and where, and under what circumstances, to look for him, we shall proceed to an examination of some of the historic evidences, proving, we think beyond reasonable question, that every prediction concerning the Antichrist has been fulfilled in the Papal system, in a manner and to an extent which, with the enlightenment of this day taken into account, all must admit could never be repeated. Space obliges us here to confine ourselves to a mere outline of the great mass of historic testimony. We have also confined ourselves to historians of recognized accuracy, in many instances going to Roman Catholic writers for their testimony or admissions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Response to the Holy Catholic Church:

I have no malice for the individual Catholic, and wish no wrong to come to them. Individual Catholics are not the ones at fault here. Oftentimes they just accept the lies told to them as truth because they have no way to disprove them. They oftentimes do not know the true nature of Popery, they are merely led astray by the Beast, and dazzled by the superstition, opulence, and priestcraft of Babylon.

What we do hold malice for, is apostacy. Apostacy is the offspring of the pit, born in Hell. Apostacy is far worse than any heathen religion for while assuming the name of Christianity it tears away at its foundations and attempts to destroy Christ...makes war with the saints and speaks foul things and blasphemies. We hold malice towards evil. We hold malice towards Satan, we hold malice towards your Pope and your corrupt, vile, wretched Roman System.

With that being said, the Protestants are far from your lost brothers. We are the true Church and yours is the one that has fallen from grace. Many of the doctrines you keep have no biblical basis and many, such as the Mass, veneration of Saints, prayer to graven images, and many others, are downright blasphemous. Also blasphemous is the claim that the Pope is infallible and the Church is the only way to Christ. It is through grace alone that we are saved and not by the will and whim of some heretical pope who exalts himself as Christ in the Temple of God. There is only one head of the Church, and that is Jesus Christ.

Prior to reading the scholarly evidence as presented by the Triune Kingdom, the Confederacy of Caligatio was skeptical as to its true purposes.

However, now that an intelligent explanation has been given with evidence from respected men such as Martin Luther (though his Anti-Semitism was unecessary) and John Calvin (though the nation of Caligatio disapproves of the doctrine of predestination), the President of the Confederacy of Caligatio wishes to express its support to the Triune Kingdom.

Caligatio supports no state religion, as we feel that it is important to have a separation of church and state (though not a separation FROM church and state.) Caligatio's inhabitants are deeply spiritual people. 85% are active members in their faith, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. The President of the Confederacy of Caligatio considers himself a devout Protestant, though his personal beliefs he does not push on others, out of respect for his governmental office.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Thankyou for your support, Caligato. I agree with your position on not merging the Church with the state. When that happens, you get Romanism, or a white washed version thereof.

Predestination is another doctrine for another day, but we are nevertheless thankful for your support.

His Royal Highness,
Viktor Leipzig I

"Many of the doctrines you keep have no biblical basis and many, such as the Mass, veneration of Saints, prayer to graven images"


Jesuschrist said "and celebrate this in my honor" while he was consagrating the wine, His blood, and the bread, His holy body. That´s our mass, the consagration of His blood and body, food for the soul.

We do not consider humanity as incapable of comitting good acts like most of protestants do... considering the humanity to be naturally sinful IS a blasphemy that goes against the religious nature of the man (and thus a good nature), identified by Viktor Frankl, who ironically was thaught by S. Freud. Some humans decide to follow its good nature, and become role models, which are value to guide the common christian, to show him how to live according the desire of God: to live in its plentiful as a human, since saint= the plentiful.

The images are not being workshiped, the images only represent: a patriot does not defend the flag, but defends what the flag represents, a nation.
The Church is One, is Saint, Catholic and Apostolic: One, because Jesus founded ONE church, only one, Saint, because it is the plentiful Earth´s masterpiece of Jesus, who fonuded it in Peter.

Jesus wanted his church to exist until the end of time, Peter, our first Pope, sadly did not lived until the end of time, so, in order to follow Jesus´desire, we had to select other one to guide His sheeps, which was Jesus´order to Peter.


There´s only one head in the Church, Jesus, who founded it on Peter.


Calling me, heir of Peter, heretical, is just an ignorant allegation: Thou shalt not be salved, because you´ve met Jesus and his true Church, but yet you continue to deny it.

Pope Julius V.

Caligatio's spiritual advisor, a devout Roman Catholic, issued this statement:

"Though I support the Church fully, and I see the Pope as MY spiritual advisor, public statements regarding the condemnation of others for differing religious beliefs should not be a policy of Rome. Catholicism, in my opinion, represents the love of Jesus Christ. It is an instrument of tolerance in an intolerant world, and an instrument of unity throughout such a world. Divisive statements only serve to harm that image."

The nation of Agrigento is alarmed by the rants of this nation, Reichskamphen. Any attempts to persecute anyone inside, as well as outside your country, based on religious or political beliefs will be seen as a pretense to war. Furthermore, the fulfillment of, or then attempt to fulfill any threats against the Pope, or the Roman Catholic Church will also be seen as an act of war against La Repubblica D'Agrigento.

Consider yourself forewarned.

A: The pope is not the antichrist. Everybody knows its McDonalds.
B: Do you realize what kind of people join the klan? Not only are they idiots by political conviction, but they are truly stupid. In a recent Klan initiation ceremony, the leader shot a gun in the air. Straight up. Can you guess what happened next?
C: Communism rocks, man! Peace, love, and Noam Chomsky for president!
D: Let us take a look at the teachings of Jesus Christ. Did he not say love thy neighbor as thy love thyself? Eh? If a man strikes your right cheek offer him your left? You think you are being good christians but you are really being bad christians.
E: Now, for some horrendous rock music:


Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)
I needed money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won (twice)

I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

Robbin' people with a six-gun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)
I lost my girl and I lost my fun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)

I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

I fought the law and the law won (7 times)
I fought the law and the

Viva la Clash!!!!!!!!!

And also, any attempts at the Dalai Lama or any Rabbis will be treated as attacks on the Kirov missile cruiser squadron The Hammer of Trotsky.

So please, this is not a very good descision. There are far more diverse/leftist/jewish/muslim/catholic/atheist/pagan nations than there are white protestant ones. Give up before you get really badly beat up. M'kay?

The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. If you insult it you insult his body. I was once a fundamentalist, but now I am a Catholic and proud of it. Visit www.catholic.com.

OOC : It is well known that Attica is Atheist.

OOC : It is well known that Attica is Atheist.

This talk of war is very alarming. To start a war over something so small is dumb to say the least.

What is more alarming is this idea of having seperate churches. Tell me, do we not all believe in Jesus Christ? Then why should we let such small diffrences seperate them. Jesus Christ said "A house divided cannot stand." So why should there be these seperations. We believe you should re-consider some of your stance.

Otherwise we support you.

A: The pope is not the antichrist. Everybody knows its McDonalds.
B: Do you realize what kind of people join the klan? Not only are they idiots by political conviction, but they are truly stupid. In a recent Klan initiation ceremony, the leader shot a gun in the air. Straight up. Can you guess what happened next?
C: Communism rocks, man! Peace, love, and Noam Chomsky for president!
D: Let us take a look at the teachings of Jesus Christ. Did he not say love thy neighbor as thy love thyself? Eh? If a man strikes your right cheek offer him your left? You think you are being good christians but you are really being bad christians.
E: Now, for some horrendous rock music:


Breakin' rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)
I needed money 'cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won (twice)

I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

Robbin' people with a six-gun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)
I lost my girl and I lost my fun
I fought the law and the law won (twice)

I left my baby and it feels so bad
Guess my race is run
She's the best girl that I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the

I fought the law and the law won (7 times)
I fought the law and the

Viva la Clash!!!!!!!!!

And also, any attempts at the Dalai Lama or any Rabbis will be treated as attacks on the Kirov missile cruiser squadron The Hammer of Trotsky.

So please, this is not a very good descision. There are far more diverse/leftist/jewish/muslim/catholic/atheist/pagan nations than there are white protestant ones. Give up before you get really badly beat up. M'kay?


Altough I don't agree with everything you said, you fucking rock.

oh and the Clash are awsome!

This talk of war is very alarming. To start a war over something so small is dumb to say the least.

What is more alarming is this idea of having seperate churches. Tell me, do we not all believe in Jesus Christ? Then why should we let such small diffrences seperate them. Jesus Christ said "A house divided cannot stand." So why should there be these seperations. We believe you should re-consider some of your stance.

Otherwise we support you.

The quote is "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand" and it was said by Abraham Lincoln on June 1858, not Jesus.

Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) love to claim that the Pope must be the Antichrist and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon.

Admittedly, if you don't know much about your Catholic faith, their arguments may sound very convincing, and, of course, they look like they are "Bible-based." Oh well. You can tell the Bible has become the play-toy of heretics, for countless different denominations which all teach different things say their teachings are "Bible-based."

But anyway. I already have issued a challenge against the SDAs about the 666 game, and it has so far remained unanswered. If you're a SDA, please check out my challenge "The Pope, the Beast, and 666." Here now, though, I would like to give brief but--I think--irrefutable proof that the Catholic Church cannot be satanic, not the Whore of Babylon, and therefore the Pope (as such) cannot be the Antichrist (note that while it might be possible in the future for one particular claimant to the Chair of Peter to be the Antichrist, SDAs claim that the Papacy, i.e. all Popes, are the Antichrist). How am I going to do this? Easy. I'm going to use the Bible. The Catholic Church is accused of being satanic; she is said to be the "apostate church."


Well, our Savior Jesus Christ had, when He was on earth, pretty much the same accusations to deal with. He was driving demons out, and so some said He was doing this by the power of the devil. What did Jesus respond? Let me quote it for you:

Mark 3:23-26
And after he had called them together, he said to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan be risen up against himself, he is divided, and cannot stand, but hath an end.

In other words, Jesus responded that if He were of the devil, He could not drive out demons, because that would not work, for "a divided kingdom cannot stand." Satan would be destroying himself in the process.

Now, listen to this: The Catholic Church drives out the devil, too. This practice is called "exorcism." You can't deny that the Catholic Church has been doing exorcisms on people and really driven out Satan that way for nearly two millennia. Therefore, we must reason just like Jesus: if the Catholic Church were of the devil, it could not drive the devil out. For, as Jesus said, "A divided kingdom cannot stand." The Catholic Church, however, has been standing for nearly 2,000 years. Jesus refuted the argument that He is of the devil by saying that Satan could not stand then, and I claim the same about the Church. If the Church is wrong, then so was Jesus. But if Jesus is right, then so is the Church.

This now is my quick response to any and all arguments of the SDAs. There is no need for me to refute any other argument as long as there is no qualified and effective counter-response by the SDAs.
As a last point, the Bible plainly tells us what kind of person the Antichrist is: 1 John 2:22: "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son." SDAs would have to admit that the Catholic Church does NOT deny the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost--just browse through any Catholic catechism.

So there is twofold proof that the Catholic Church, per Scripture, cannot possibly be the Whore of Babylon, nor the Pope the Antichrist.

Now, Adventist apologist Michael Scheifler has responded to this challenge by quoting Matthew 7:22-23:

Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

He claims that this proves that the mere fact that the Catholic Church drives out Satan doesn't prove that she is of divine origin. But here he is presupposing that the people who claim that they drove out demons in Jesus' name really did so. But the text does not make this clear. It only says that they claimed that. Jesus never confirms their claim, however. So we do not know whether they actually really did cast out demons or only engaged in pseudo-exorcisms.

Another possibility is that these folks really did do all those authentic and miraculous things at one point in their lives, but failed to endure to the end. Here we do well to remember Ezechiel 18:26: "When the just turneth himself away from his justice, and comitteth iniquity, he shall die therein: in the injustice that he hath wrought he shall die."

It seems, though, that the first interpretation is correct, as Christ specifically says, "I never knew you."

Either way, Michael Scheifler's interpretation is not necessary, and so we can dismiss his claim to having answered the challenge.

Kaiser:

"Personally, I beleive all this religion who-wha is silly, but if any religious, racial, or social groups are injured or abused in any way, we will be forced to take action on their part."

This talk of war is very alarming. To start a war over something so small is dumb to say the least.

What is more alarming is this idea of having seperate churches. Tell me, do we not all believe in Jesus Christ? Then why should we let such small diffrences seperate them. Jesus Christ said "A house divided cannot stand." So why should there be these seperations. We believe you should re-consider some of your stance.

Otherwise we support you.

The quote is "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand" and it was said by Abraham Lincoln on June 1858, not Jesus.

*cough (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+12&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

it is verse 25. the url is for the entire chapter, for reference.

Hearken ye...know that the man of sin is Martin Luther. His name adds up to 666. Need I say more. FYI:

Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Matthew 10:1-4
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:16-19
And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:14-16
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Acts 1:13
And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Luke 9:32
But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Peter speaks for the apostles.
Mark 8:29
And he saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Peter answereth and saith unto him, "Thou art the Christ."

Luke 12:41
Then Peter said unto him, "Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?"

John 6:68-69
Then Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Pentecost: it was Peter who first preached.
Acts 2:14-40
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams' [...]
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

Peter worked first healing.
Acts 3:6-7
Then Peter said, "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

That the Gentiles were to be baptized was revealed to Peter.
Acts 10:46-48
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas", which is by interpretation, 'A stone'.

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.... the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."
Matthew 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Keys (in Matthew 16:19, above) as symbol of authority - and especially authority over the house of David.
Isaiah 22:22
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelations 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Revelations 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

"Feed my sheep" - Peter is to act as a shepherd.
John 21:15-17
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

"Simon ... strengthen your brethren".
Luke 22:31-32
And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

"Vicars" (substitutes) of Christ.
Luke 10:1-2, 16
After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. Therefore said he unto them, "The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.... He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Galatians 4:14
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Acts 5:1-5
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

Humans can be holy (as in "Holy Father"; cf. "call no one holy").
Mark 6:20
For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Luke 1:70
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began...

Acts 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Colossians 1:22
In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Ellen G. White, the foundress of the SDA's, was a hypocrite, liar, and committed perjury. Also her name adds up to 666. So she is obviously the anti-Christ. No doubt about it. The Bible proves it. If you don't accept this then you don't believe the Bible. Besides the SDA's worship Saturn since they worship on Saturday.

I do wonder something though. Which of the 30,000 Bible only denominations is the right one? No two of them agree on what the Bible says. I guess for them God is the author of confusion.

I have much to say, so bear with me.

First, I shall address the political matters.

Agrigento. You take it upon yourself to be the police of the world? Should I wish to execute anyone in my country or do whatever, it is my right as this is granted to me by my form of government. I am King, appointed by Parliament, which was elected by the people. It is well within my power to do such a thing. However, it is unChristian to committ such acts. No executions shall be made. However, since the first Calvinist Ministers came to our fair land in 1598, Roman Catholicism and the practice of the Mass have been outlawed in our land. The only persons allowed by law to take part in the Mass are foreign dignitaries and only within their embassy which is land that is ceded to their nation..common international law. You will not attempt to change the laws that have been on our books for hundreds of years and which are supported by the people of our nation.

Also, I have made no threat against the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church. The Sword of men cannot fell Apostacy. It is well demonstrated in the Scriptures that God will devour the Apostates with the Sword of his mouth, that is the word of God. I stand here only to spread the word. To raise a sword up is not my intent, but neither shall I stand Idly by and take threats. You may threaten my person, you may threaten to do all manner of horrible things to me. But when you threaten my people, then do I stand up. I will die for them and will die that Christ's words be heard. Your threats prove only to the world that Rome has not changed. When it encounters something it does not like, it draws forth its swords and smites it.

Yesterday, someone threw a rock through the window of my Church in Magdeburg, the Capitol of Scotta. Obviously some sort of person that is upset with what I was saying. When it was seen who did it, people in the street seized him and turned him over to the police. He was of course released and allowed to go free after agreeing to pay for the damages he had caused. Now, friends, I assure you, if Rome had the power she had in days of yore, she would not break windows, but she would break the bones of Holy men.

All men are my brothers. I agree to this. However, it is my bounden duty as a Christian to oppose Satan, to oppose Anti-Christ, to oppose apostacy. I would be abdicating my duty to simply lay back and allow Satan to work freely.

Insofar as unity is concerned, there can be no unity with apostacy. When the Apostacy, or great falling away, occurs, one should not cling to the infected limb and attempt to latch it back on, lest the infection spread. In the case of the Protestant Reformation, the whole body had become infected and the head only remained clean which was replanted by the great heros of the Reformation, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Ulrich Zwingli.

My voice is strong and my rhetoric is harsh, but the Apostacy deserves no better, yea I am giving it a light treatment.

Next, I shall address doctrinal matters. First, the verses posted by the Office of the Inquisition (Note that it is named after an Office which was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands [Could Possibly be Hundreds of thousands by more liberal estimates]and the systematic oppression of millions more).

In response to the first half or so of your verses, I do not deny that Peter was an apostle, that he was loved of God, and of Christ. I do not deny that he was obviously the foremost apostle. I do not deny that Christ gave unto him power as he did others to do good works "IN HIS NAME" but not as if they were him. Also, God reveals things unto his prophets and his Apostles just he revealed the visions in Revelations to John and the visions of the coming Christ to Esais. And the visions of the coming Apostacy to Daniel even etc etc.

Now, as for your rock of the Church Argument. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says you are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. This is where things start to get complicated, so again, bear with me.

There are three words in Greek for rock, Petros, Petras, and Lithos. Petros means a small stone or boulder, or a rock that can be used in battle. Petras means a strong immovable rock, a ledge of rock, and Lithos can mean the same thing as Petros, but is more commonly used to mean a precious stone. When Jesus names Peter he calls him Petros, meaning a small stone. And when he says upon this rock I shall build my church, he uses Petras. These are two completely differant words and two completely differant things that the Gospel writer is referring to. In some interpretations, Peter’s faith is the petras that is spoken of, not the person of Peter, but his faith. In some, Christ is the rock of the church. This is, again, another doctrine for another day as I don’t have time to discourse on it unless there is much demand to. Next, in Greek when addressing a person, the name is Capitalized. Petros, when referring to Peter is Capitalized, however, petras, referring to the rock upon which the Church will be built, is not Capitalized. Greek is a very precise language and if the Gospel writer were referring to a person, he would have Capitalized petras as well. There are many many examples of such situations in Greek historical texts and dramas and other works that I can provide to prove this point. Any good student of Greek will know my argument to hold water.

Also, to speak on the entirity of Matthew 16:18, I will quote from the venerable John Calvin and his Institutes of Religion.

“That example, therefore, which is seen to have been temporary, they have no right to bind upon us as by a perpetual law. In the New Testament there is nothing which they can produce in confirmation of their opinion, but its having been said to one, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," (Matth. 16: 18.) Again, "Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me?" "Feed my lambs" (John 21: 15.) But to give strength to these proofs, they must, in the first place, show, that to him who is ordered to feed the flock of Christ power is given over all churches, and that to bind and loose is nothing else than to preside over the whole world. But as Peter had received a command from the Lord, so he exhorts all other presbyters to feed the Church, (1 Pet. 5: 2.) Hence we are entitled to infer, that, by that expression of Christ, nothing more was given to Peter than to the others, or that the right which Peter had received he communicated equally to others. But not to argue to no purpose, we elsewhere have, from the lips of Christ himself, a clear exposition of what it is to bind and loose. It is just to retain and remit sins, (John 20: 23.) The mode of loosing and binding is explained throughout Scripture; but especially in that passage in which Paul declares that the ministers of the Gospel are commissioned to reconcile men to God, and at the same time to exercise discipline over those who reject the benefit, (2 Cor. 5: 18; 10: 16.)

How unbecomingly they wrest the passages of binding and loosing I have elsewhere glanced at, and will in a short time more fully explain. It may now be worth while merely to see what they can extract from our Saviour's celebrated answer to Peter. He promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said, that whatever things he bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 16: 19.) The moment we are agreed as to the meaning of the keys, and the mode of binding, all dispute will cease. For the Pope will willingly omit that office assigned to the apostles, which, full of labour and toil, would interfere with his luxuries without giving any gain. Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, it is by an elegant metaphor distinguished by the name of keys. Again, the only mode in which men are bound and loosed is, in the latter case, when they are reconciled to God by faith, and in the former, more strictly bound by unbelief. Were this all that the Pope arrogated to himself, I believe there would be none to envy him or stir the question. But because this laborious and very far from lucrative succession is by no means pleasing to the Pope, the dispute immediately arises as to what it was that Christ promised to Peter. From the very nature of the case, I infer that nothing more is denoted than the dignity which cannot be separated from the burden of the apostolic office. For, admitting the definition which I have given, (and it cannot without effrontery be rejected,) nothing is here given to Peter that was not common to him with his colleagues. - On any other view, not only would injustice be done to their persons, but the very majesty of the doctrine would be impaired. They object; but what, pray, is gained by striking against this stone? The utmost they can make out is, that as the preaching of the same gospel was enjoined on all the apostles, so the power of binding and loosing was bestowed upon them in common.”

Insofar as Isaiah 22:22 goes, I have no idea what you are going at here. Here are the verses before it. Let us put it in context.

15. Thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even into Shebna, which is over the house, and say,
16. What hast thou here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an hbitation for himself in a rock?
17. Behold, the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
18. He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
19. And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.
20. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah;
21. And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.


Basically, this verse has no relevance at all to anything we are presently discussing. Now, as God promised David his Kingdom would be forever, as it now is with Christ as the King, Israel was often referred to as the House of David. This is not a reference to heaven. Also, Shebna was a treasurer who was betraying Jerusalem and the House of David to their enemies and was making himself a great tomb in the land he was betraying and building himself a house high on a rock so that he thought he could not be forced out. The Lord did carry him out and cast him out. Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah is the person Isaiah 22:22 is talking about. It is become his charge to maintain the house of David. The Key to the house in Israel were presented to those who would be its stewards. As Eliakim had become its steward after the casting out of Shebna, the keys were given to him. Mark, he is not the King, merely the steward, someone to maintain the house and see after it. He was a real man who had a birth and a death and his charge ended with his death. He simply kept things in order for the King to arrive, which was Christ. Furthermore, this is in the Old Testament. There is no Christ...there are no apostles...there IS NO PETER. This has absolutely NO RELEVANCE.

In your quote from Revelations, you must keep in mind that the speaker is God, is Christ, speaking to John through an Angel and in most red letter bibles where the text Jesus speaks is red, that text is in red.

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

He is here commanding John to tell the Church in Philidelphia that the following things that are to be said, are said by he that hath the key of David etc etc. The speaker is God, is Christ and if the things that are to be said are said by he that hath the key of David etc. Etc. It is obviously Christ who holds the Key to the house of David as he is the King of the World and head of the house of David and he openeth and no man shutteth etc. Etc. This is JESUS SPEAKING ABOUT HIMSELF. There is no reference to anything applicable. This is an IRRELEVANT VERSE.

Revelations 1:18 Jesus is again SPEAKING ABOUT HIMSELF. He says that he holds the keys over hell and over death. This is common knowledge. And Irrelevant to the discussion. However, your verse does bring up an interesting point. It is Christ that holds the keys to heaven and hell...not the Pope. Thus speaks Christ.

Speaking about John 21:15-17, I shall quote from John Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, as he puts this much better than I myself could.

“15. When, therefore, they had dined. The Evangelist now relates in what manner Peter was restored to that rank of honor from which he had fallen. That treacherous denial, which has been formerly described, had, undoubtedly, rendered him unworthy of the apostleship; for how could he be capable of instructing others in the faith, who had basely revolted from it? He had been made an Apostle, but it was along with Judas, and from the time when he had abandoned his post, 2 he had likewise been deprived of the honor of apostle-ship. Now, therefore, the liberty, as well as the authority, of teaching is restored to him, both of which he had lost through his own fault. And that the disgrace of his apostacy might not stand in his way, Christ blots out and destroys the remembrance of it. Such a restoration was necessary, both for Peter and for his hearers; for Peter, that he might the more boldly execute his office, being assured of the calling with which Christ had again invested him; for his hearers, that the stain which attached to his person might not be the occasion of despising the Gospel. To us also, in the present day, it is of very great importance, that Peter comes forth to us as a new man, from whom the disgrace that might have lessened his authority has been removed.
Simon (son) of John 3 lovest thou me? By these words Christ means that no man can faithfully serve the Church, and employ himself in feeding the flock, if he do not look higher than to men. First, the office of feeding 4 is in itself laborious and troublesome; since nothing is more difficult than to keep men under the yoke of God, among whom there are many who are weak, others who are wanton and unsteady, others who are dull and sluggish, and others who are slow and unteachable. Satan now brings forward as many causes of offense as he can, that he may destroy or weaken the courage of a good pastor. 5 In addition to this, we must take into account the ingratitude of many and other causes of disgust. No man, therefore, will steadily persevere in the discharge of this office, unless the love of Christ shall reign in his heart, in such a manner that, forgetful of himself and devoting himself entirely to Christ, he overcomes every obstacle. Thus Paul declares this to have been the state of his own feelings, when he says,
The love of Christ constraineth us, judging thus, that if one died for all, then all must have been dead, (2 Corinthians 5:14.)
For, though he means that love with which Christ hath loved us, and of which he hath given us a proof by his death, yet he connects with us that mutual love which springs from the conviction of having received so great a blessing. Ungodly and false teachers, on the other hand, are pointed out by him in another passage by this mark, that they do not love the Lord Jesus, (1 Corinthians 16:22.)
Those who are called to govern the Church ought, therefore, to remember that, if they are desirous to discharge their office properly and faithfully, they must begin with the love of Christ. Meanwhile, Christ openly testifies how highly he values our salvation, when he employs such earnest and striking language in recommending it to Pastors, and when he declares that, if the salvation of their flock be the object of their earnest solicitude, he will reckon it a proof of the ardor of their love to himself. And, indeed, nothing could have been spoken that was better fitted for encouraging the ministers of the Gospel, than to inform them that no service can be more agreeable to Christ than that which is bestowed on feeding his flock. All believers ought to draw from it no ordinary consolation, when they are taught that they are so dear and so precious in the sight of the Son of God, that he substitutes them, as it were, in his own room. But the same doctrine ought greatly to alarm false teachers, who corrupt and overturn the government of the Church; for Christ, who declares that he is insulted by them, will inflict on them dreadful punishment.
Feed my lambs. The word feed is metaphorically applied by Scripture to any kind of government; but as the present subject is the spiritual government of the Church, it is of importance to observe what are the parts of which the office of pastor or shepherd consists. No idle rank is here described to us, nor does Christ bestow on a mortal man any government to be exercised by him in a confused manner according to his own pleasure. In expounding the Tenth Chapter, we have seen that Christ is the only Pastor or Shepherd of the Church. 6 We have seen also why he takes this name to himself. If, is, because he feeds, that is, he governs his sheep, because he is the only true food of the soul. But because he employs the agency of men in preaching doctrine, he conveys to them also his own name, or, at least, shares it with them. Those men, therefore, are reckoned to be Pastors in the sight of God, who govern the Church by the ministry of the word under Christ, who is their Head. Hence we may easily infer what is the burden which Christ lays on Peter, and on what condition he appoints him to govern his flock.
This enables us plainly to refute the wicked adherents of the Church of Rome, who torture this passage to support the tyranny of their Popery. "To Peter" they tell us, "in preference to others, it is said, Feed my sheep." We have already explained the reason why it was said to him rather than to the others; namely, that being free from every disgraceful stain, he might boldly preach the Gospel; and the reason why Christ thrice appoints him to be a pastor is, that the three denials, by which Peter had brought on himself everlasting shame, may be set aside, and thus may form no barrier to his apostleship, as has been judiciously observed by Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril, and most of the other Commentators. Besides, nothing was given to Peter by these words, that is not also given to all the ministers of the Gospel.
In vain, therefore, do the Papists maintain that he holds the highest rank, because he alone is specially addressed; and, granting that some special honor was conferred on him, how, I ask, will they prove from this that he has been elevated to the primacy? Though he were the chief among the apostles, does it thence follow that he was the universal bishop of the whole world? To this it must be added, that all that Peter received does not belong to the Pope any more than to Mahomet; for on what ground does he claim to be Peter's heir, and what man of sound understanding will admit that Christ here bestows on him any hereditary right? Yet he wishes to be reckoned Peter's successor: I wish he were so. None of us hinders him from loving Christ, and from taking care to feed his flock; but to take no concern about loving Christ, and to throw aside the office of feeding, and then to boast of being Peter's successor, is excessively foolish and absurd. Now, as Christ, in assigning to Peter the duty of teaching, did not intend to erect a throne for an idol or for a murderer of souls, that by means of it he might miserably oppress the Church, so he stated in a few words, what kind of government of the Church he approves. This removes the mask from all the mitred bishops, who, satisfied with a mere theatrical display and an empty title, claim for themselves the authority of bishops.”

Luke 22:31-32 Here Peter is being commanded to do no more than any of the other apostles or indeed even as we are commanded to do.

Luke 10:1-2 Here ministers are being appointed. This I have no problem with. Preachers of the Gospel are commanded to go forth into all lands and preach the gospel and are called by God to do this, and appointed by Christ...these 70 had it done in the physical world as opposed to the spiritual appointment.

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me. (He has given them the word, and when they preach his word, they hear him) He that despiseth you, despiseth me (He would be despised for the preaching of the Gospel, and the Gospel is the word of Christ. If you hate the Gospel, you hate Christ) And him that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. (If you hate Christ, you hate God)

John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me (as Christ sends his minister armed with the word, the person that recieves the minister recieves the word and he that recieves the word Recieves Christ.) ; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (He that recieves Christ recieves God.

2 Corinthians 5:20

I wish to go back a moment to 5:19 and address the part where it is said that the Gospel has been committed to them. I again quote the Bible Commentary of John Calvin

“Again he repeats, that a commission has been given to the ministers of the gospel to communicate to us this grace. For it might be objected, "Where is Christ now, the peacemaker between God and us? At what a distance he resides from us!" He says, therefore, that as he has once suffered, 6 (1 Peter 3:18,) so he daily presents to us the fruit of his suffering through means of the Gospel, which he designed, should be in the world, 7 as a sure and authentic register of the reconciliation, that has once been effected. It is the part of ministers, therefore, to apply to us, so to speak, the fruit of Christ's death.
Lest, however, any one should dream of a magical application, such as Papists contrive, 8 we must carefully observe what he immediately subjoins -- that it consists wholly in the preaching of the Gospel. For the Pope, along with his priests, makes use of this pretext for giving a color of warrant for the whole of that wicked and execrable system of merchandise, which they carry on, in connection with the salvation of souls. "The Lord," say they, "has furnished us with a commission and authority to forgive sins." This I acknowledge, provided they discharge that embassy, of which Paul here makes mention. The absolution, however, which they make use of in the Papacy, is entirely magical; and besides, they inclose pardon of sins in lead and parchment, or they connect it with fictitious and frivolous superstitions. What resemblance do all these things bear to the appointment of Christ? Hence the ministers of the Gospel restore us to the favor of God in a right and orderly manner, when they bear testimony to us by means of the Gospel as to the favor of God having been procured for us. Let this testimony be removed, and nothing remains but mere imposture. Beware, then, of placing even the smallest drop of your confidence on any thing apart from the Gospel.”

And for 5:20, I shall yet again quote from Calvin’s Bible Commentary as his words are far better than mine.

“20. As if God did beseech you. This is of no small importance for giving authority to the embassy: nay more, it is absolutely necessary, for who would rest upon the testimony of men, in reference to his eternal salvation? It is a matter of too much importance, to allow of our resting contented with the promise of men, without feeling assured that they are ordained by God, and that God speaks to us by them. This is the design of those commendations, with which Christ himself signalizes his Apostles:
He that heareth you, heareth me, etc. (Luke 10:16.)
Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, (Matthew 18:18,)
and the like.
We entreat you, in Christ's stead. Hence we infer, with what propriety Isaiah exclaims,
How blessed are the feet of them that preach the Gospel!
(Isaiah 52:7.)
For that one thing, that is of itself sufficient for completing our felicity, and without which we are most miserable, is conferred upon us, only through means of the Gospel. If, however, this duty is enjoined upon all the ministers of the Church, in such a way, that he who does not discharge this embassy is not to be regarded either as an Apostle, or as a Pastor, we may very readily judge from this, as to the nature of the Pope's entire hierarchy. They are desirous, indeed, to be looked upon as Apostles and Pastors; but as they are dumb idols, how will their boasting 9 correspond with this passage of Paul's writings. The word entreat is expressive of an unparalleled 10 commendation of the grace of Christ, inasmuch as He stoops so low, that he does not disdain to entreat us. So much the less excusable is our depravity, if we do not, on meeting with such kindness, show ourselves teachable and compliant.
Be reconciled. It is to be observed, that Paul is here addressing himself to believers. He declares, that he brings to them every day this embassy. Christ therefore, did not suffer, merely that he might once expiate our sins, nor was the gospel appointed merely with a view to the pardon of those sins which we committed previously to baptism, but that, as we daily sin, so we might, also, by a daily remission, be received by God into his favor. For this is a continued embassy, 11 which must be assiduously sounded forth in the Church, till the end of the world; and the gospel cannot be preached, unless remission of sins is promised.
We have here an express and suitable declaration for refuting the impious tenet of Papists, which calls upon us to seek the remission of sins after Baptism from some other source, than from the expiation that was effected through the death of Christ. Now this doctrine is commonly held in all the schools of Popery -- that, after baptism, we merit the remission of sins by penitence, through means of the aid of the keys, 12 (Matthew 16:19,) -- as if baptism itself could confer this 13 upon us without penitence. By the term penitence, however, they mean satisfactions. But what does Paul say here? He calls us to go, not less after baptism, than before it, to the one expiation made by Christ, that we may know that we always obtain it gratuitously. Farther, all their prating as to the administration of the keys is to no purpose, inasmuch as they conceive of keys apart from the Gospel, while they are nothing else than that testimony of a gratuitous reconciliation, which is made to us in the Gospel.”

Galatians 4:14 Christ commands that his apostles be treated as he would be treated. He does not say that you are a substitute for me, but he commands that they be treated well. Infact, claiming to be a substitute for Christ, the Son of God, is blasphemy. How can anyone claim to work in the stead of the SON OF GOD.

As for the rest of your verses. Men can be Holy only insofar as they are touched by the Lord. The words that the prophets spoke were holy, the actions of many were holy, yet as they were humans, they had base desires, and thoughts, and lied, and did all manner of foul things. The only part of them that wasn’t filthy and reprobate was the word which they preached through God’s Inspiration and the actions which they were ordained to take by Gods command...although perhaps they might have been unclean in some instance somewhere, I am unsure of this.

Also, I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, so you can throw that tripe out. I have no idea where that came from. The Sabbath is on Sunday, that is clearly proven in scripture. Apostacy effects many of the Protestant Churches as well, but the arch apostate is the Church of Rome.

I appologize for the length of this discourse, and I still have more to go, I have yet to address many of the arguments put before me. However, I must depart and will address those tommorrow.(OOC: Got a big day, been up too late writing this stuff so no one could read the entirity of it :P )

His Royal Highness,
King Viktor Leipzig I

Also, Vicar of Christ adds up to 666 in Latin, Greep, Aramaic, and one other language wich escapes me...perhaps English. This numerology tripe I don't put any account into. I have yet to reseach it fully. I cannot find anywhere by what method they count these things so if any one, Papist or Protestant alike, has knowledge of where I can find this information and not just claims of what names add up to and what appear to be random number letter assignments, let me know.

This talk of war is very alarming. To start a war over something so small is dumb to say the least.

What is more alarming is this idea of having seperate churches. Tell me, do we not all believe in Jesus Christ? Then why should we let such small diffrences seperate them. Jesus Christ said "A house divided cannot stand." So why should there be these seperations. We believe you should re-consider some of your stance.

Otherwise we support you.

The quote is "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand" and it was said by Abraham Lincoln on June 1858, not Jesus.

Actually. Abraham Lincoln was quoting Jesus.

OOC: Yep, all are correct, Lincoln did say that but was quoting Jesus. Also, I am curious, Arigento, whose issues I will address tommorrow spoke of a Catholic Church...is there a large Catholic Church in NationStates because all Ive ever seen is numbers of differant people claiming to be pope and this that and the other. Who is the largest Pope in NS?

A call for the peace is a must for anyone who calls himself a christian.

A religious faction calling for an unfair war against the Ture Church or any church for that matter, does not deserve the title of religion, but rather the title of criminal organisation.

That´s why, I, conscious of the history of the world and what words and insults can cause, calls for a stop of verbal agressions and military threats, in the name of Christ.

http://thumb2.sac.overture.com/image/285827621

Pope Julius V

What I do not get about the religious right is why they think their god is better than everybody else's. Don't muslims, christians, and jews really worship the same god? And also, another thing I don't understand is why people figure that by following what is said in some book claiming to be the word of god will let them go to a nice cushy spot after they die. That's what religion is, really. People claiming to know what happens after you die. All that effort put into religion- couldn't it be put to better use? Also, people follow the direction of their religious leader like a flock of sheep wandering about mindlessly. Can't people make their own choices? To quote Brian, "You don't need to follow anybody! You are all individuals!" And also, if there is a god, what is there to say he is not human-like at all? 'He' could be a giant cloud of gas, or dark matter, or something completely incomprehensible. If god made man in his own image, I shudder to think what god must be like.

Also, it seems once and a while, a person shows up who can really change things, like Jesus, or Budda. To my knowledge, Budda got off without being killed, but look at Jesus. People are not only resistant to change, they are violently opposed to it. In terms of this alliance you are trying to create, you are completely ignoring the message of these people, quite possibly divinely inspired. LOVE YOUR FELLOW HUMAN BEING

OOC: Yep, all are correct, Lincoln did say that but was quoting Jesus. Also, I am curious, Arigento, whose issues I will address tommorrow spoke of a Catholic Church...is there a large Catholic Church in NationStates because all Ive ever seen is numbers of differant people claiming to be pope and this that and the other. Who is the largest Pope in NS?

ooc: No, I was simply referring to the Agrigentian Catholic Church, the Arch-diocese of the nation, and its Archbishop.

No God, only the hell we create.

The motto of my nation. God only confuses things, you must live for yourself and those you love. You are responsible for the turns your life takes, you and no one or nothing else.

Le Soleil Bordeaux shines upon all.

The truth, if it is the truth, must withstand and repel aggressions by others. I have withstood and repelled verbal agressions and defended my doctrine and proved it Biblically sound. By calling for a cessation to all these verbal aggressions, you are only demonstrating that you fear...or perhaps know...that your points are weak and cannot hold up under scrutiny. I place my doctrine out before the bar of the world. I put it up for the attack and scrutiny which it will recieve...but you, by simply leaning on your position to call for a cessation of discussion is historically what Rome has done. When threatened by the truth, the Pope simply orders a stop to all discussion. Names the subject a heresy, and forbids it be spoken of. You hold no power over me, you man of Sin, you son of Perdition. If you wish to prove to the world that my claims are not true, combat them as others here have attempted to do. Give me a reason that my points are incorrect rather than simply ordering me to stop my discussion. You do not prove yourself to be Holy by this stance, simply a bad debater. There can be no unity with Satan. I will not strive towards unity with the Devil! I leave that to you and the rest of your Popish minions and veil priests.

I do love my brother as myself. You do not understand me here obviously, in the words of C.H. Spurgeon:

"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. It wounds Christ, robs Christ of His glory, puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread in the place of the Saviour....If we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls, though we loathe and detest their dogmas...."

I love the persons of the Roman Priests and yea, even the Pope, yet I detest their errors. I love their souls, yet loathe and detest their dogmas.

Next, my alliance is not of a military nature. My alliance is an alliance of nations that will spread the word. We will use only the sword that God has provided us with. No human weapon can strike down AntiChrist, this was proven in the Schmalkaldic wars as well. The anti-Christ cannot defeat the true followers of Christ...yet the weapons of men cannot slay the Beast. It is the weapons of deceit, which the devil uses, and the of God's word, which Christ and the righteous use, thats shall decide this. I am confidant in my beliefs and challenge all to make attacks against me as many have. I will defend and prove my doctrine. Do not dismiss my discourses simply as the mad ravings of some senile man...I urge you to listen to what I am saying...for though it may sound harsh to the human sensibilities, so does the rest of the Gospel...the concept of staying clear of Sin is harsh to the human sensibilites...most of the concepts of mainstream Christianity are against the prevailing feelings of the day. My doctrine is like a medicine for the soul...it tastes bitter, but it heals and enlightens.

Sadly, as events at the palace have kept me otherwise occupied (OOC: Events to attend to during the day in RL) I will not be able to discourse on other matters of doctrine and rebut some of the other attacks tonight, but rest assured direct rebutals and further discourses are coming. Many of the concepts provided are rebutted in my scriptural refutation provided earlier, but I will later review them and see which need to be addressed more fully. Think me not some ignorant sap that, through lack of knowledge, believes a lie. I have studied the word my entire life, and was a Catholic myself until the age of 22 when I was gloriously converted. I have studied Roman Catholicism greatly as well as Protestantism, but most of all have studied the word which transends all titles and names. It is due to my knowledge that I believe as I do, not due to lack of it.

God Bless,

His Royal Highness,
Viktor Leipzig I

(OOC: Studying for exams, cannot address today either :cry: )

Now to respond to the last truly substantial arguments made before the Inquisitional office, I again appologize for the length of time it took.

First we shall speak on the Mass. During the mass, it is a Roman doctrine that the wine, while having the image and all appearances of wine, becomes the actual blood of Christ and that the bread actually becomes the body in like manner all after being blessed by a Priest. Then the host, supposedly the body of Christ, is presented before the masses and a prayer is said to the host as if Jesus were actually in that wafer.

Now, if this is true, in the paraphrased words of a Great Catholic theologian, whose name now escapes me, then the Mass is the greatest celebration and worship of Christ in the history of the world, but if it be false, it is the greatest blasphemy ever perpetrated by God or Man.

I intend to demonstrate now, that the Mass is invalid and therefore a great blasphemy. I would rather have an army of 10,000 pillaging the earth than just one Mass.

First, the entire concept behind the mass, the conversion of the wine to blood and bread to body has NO BIBLICAL FOUNDATION. Many Romanists will point to Matthew where it says plainly, "This is my body and this is my blood" And they will say, "How much more simple do you want it?" Well, let us put it like this. If I held a picture up to you of my son and said this is my son, you know what I would be talking about, yet that piece of paper would most certainly not be my son. So Christ can mean it in two ways. In order to find out how he meant it we must read on further in the passage until the point where he says, "and I will not again drink of this FRUIT OF THE VINE until I am with you again." by his naming the wine, the fruit of the vine, he is demonstrating that the wine is not blood, but is still wine.

The Roman Philosopher and Theologian, Thomas Aquinas was the one who really popularized this doctrine. It is not based on any biblical principle but instead based on Aristotle, many of who's beliefs and concepts have been proven to be eroneous including the one relating to the Mass. This shows the Mass to be invalid.

Also, the Mass is termed a sacrifice, a burnt offering. Now, according to the covenant laws, a burnt offering has to be a bloodied sacrifice and even the most ardent Romanist will have to admit that no blood is shed during the Mass. Also, in Jesus Christ is the FINAL sacrifice. There are needed no more sacrifices. Such is said all throughout the Bible. If Jesus is the final sacrifice, then any further attempts at sacrifice for our sins would be blasphemous and degrade the name of Christ and his death on the cross for us. Also, a sacrifice to atone for sins is a one time thing, eg Jesus's death on the Cross. With the Mass, the sacrifice is never done because, if you miss one sunday mass of your own accord, it is according to the official catechism of the Papist Church, a mortal sin, and according to them, a mortal sin damns you to hell. So an 80 year old man who has been to mass every sunday of his life even as an infant and on his 80th birthday that he isnt going to Mass, but instead is going fishing. Should he fall in the river, he is going to Hell according to Rome. The sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross was more than sufficient to Forgive All of Our Sins and for rome to suggest otherwise, to suggest that Christ's sacrifice was incomplete, that a priest has to pretend to transubstantiate bread and wine every week to forgive the sins of his congregation, to pretend to have the power of forgiveness of sins like Christ is BLASPHEMOUS. Any person who studies the Bible will see this proven.

Therefore, if the mass is invalid, there is no transubstantiation and there is no sacrifice, you are reduced to the priests claiming that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was not sufficient to save mankind, claiming that Christ's body is in a small wafer and the congregation bending down and praying to that wafer as an idol. This entire ceremony is the heigth of blasphemy.

Next, to address the issues of prayer to idols. The Holy Catholic Church (The Nation not the actual organization) claimed that the idols represented God just as a patriot does not defend a flag, but what it stands for. That argument would hold a great deal of water if that were not exactly what an idol is. An idol is a statue meant to represent a God. In the pagan days, they had the golden calf representing a god and God...the TRUE God ordered that his people not bow down in worship before Idols. This is exactly what you are doing, violating Gods law.

Furthermore you are violating the third commandment by having a graven image of something that is in heaven...eg Christ, Mary etc. It is said that thou shalt have no graven images of anything that is in the heavens above, in the earth below, or in the waters in the earth below. Some Roman Bibles actually omit this commandment, just completey cut it out to suit their own purposes. Some combine it with another to give it less signifigance. They mistranslate, misinterpret, and misreprestent God's word to decieve the world.

Also, the concept of the veneration of Saints has absolutely no Biblical foundation. It is a pagan practice, praying to respected dead who had gone on before you for help in this life. Even if they could intercede for you, even if they could speak to God about your prayer, where would you get the idea that they would have God's ear any more or less than you would? Plus, it clearly says that the last intercessor between God and Man is Christ.

Confession is unfounded. One CAN confess his sins to a person on earth, but it must also be before the sight of God and it is not an obligatory thing. The priest cannot absolve you of your sins. Admittedly, true apostles of Christ are given power to bind and loose sins, but as we have demonstrated before, these veil priests are hardly true apostles of Christs, they are apostles of his deceptive locum tenant, the Anti-Christ!
It does also say in Jas 5:14 to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another that we may be healed. This is doing nothing more than telling us to pray for our fellow men, it gives no ground for heavenly intercessors other than Christ nor does it give ground for obligatory confession to a priest. One should confess his sins, yes. It is healthy and good to do. But it should not be done in some sin box (confessional) infront of a veil priest who pretends to have special authority in receiving a confession when in truth, all men have authority to listen to the confession of sins. How often is it that when you talk deeply with your friends and commerades that you speak of past transgressions and realize you have done wrong? This is a form of confession! The only step that needs to be taken from there is for you and your friend to bow your heads in prayer and ask GOD for HIS forgiveness. No veil priest can determine whether or not God and Christ forgive you.

On the same note, veneration of Mary is unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary is divine and ever virgin. Infact, it says Jesus had brothers and because of that we know she was not ever virgin. She was simply a mortal vessel that God used to carry his one and only son. She is blessed assuredly for this, but she is not an intercessor and has not the ear of God anymore than you or I. She is not holy except wherein Christ and God impacted her soul. But she, like every human who is not the Christ, is corrupted and corruptable. Sinning and sinful.

Purgatory is not even mentioned in the Bible.

Nor is Praying the Rosary.

There are so many Papal doctrines which are either taken from false glosses on scripture or from out of thin air...from the minds of men.

To answer the charge, how can Satan cast out Satan? The Priest is not the one casting out the Devil if indeed a devil is being cast out. It is Jesus the Christ at whose name the earth trembles who removes the Demon. It is in his name and not in the Pope's which the demons are taken out and Christ and God, as he is supremely sovreign can, if he chooses, even work through a veil priest to dispense with a devil. However, I have many great doubts as to whether many of the devils were devils at all. It is said that the Anti-Christ shall dazzle the world with his lieing wonders. He shall perform all manner of miracles, and since, as we've established, an Anti-Christ is a false Christ, he would do it in the name of Christ. The Papacy has claimed throughout its years to have done the same things that Christ has done, comparing itself to him, making in itself a copy of christ so astute that it has fooled the world into believing that it is Christianity to the waste of ages not a few and billions of immortal souls.

Insofar as the anti-Christ denying Christ, the Papacy does that with limited atonement as well as many other things come to think of it. In the belief I earlier addressed that Christ's death was not sufficient for the forgiveness of all sins, the Papacy denys Christ. It denies his role as saviour and attempts to take unto itself that role by means of the mass...again fashioning itself into a copy of Christ that will decieve all but the elect.

The Papacy denies Christ when, as John Paul did, he dedicated the new milenium to "Mary most Holy". Dedicating to Mary what belongs to Christ alone and ignoring Christ's claim over the soul's of all man kind and claiming instead that it is the Roman Church which holds dominion over those souls and outside of it there is no salvation, is denying Christ's role as saviour and denying Christ. He who denys the Gospel, denies Christ even if he claim a nominal belief in him. And, as we have seen demonstrated time and time again, the Papacy consistantly denies the Gospel.

God Bless,
His Royal Highness,
King Viktor Leipzig I

AHEM!
*Sung to the tune of frosty the snowman*
Bumpity Bump Bump Bumpity Bump Bump Bumpy's on his way. Bumpity Bump Bump Bumpity Bump Bump leave your post today!

BUMP

"However, since the first Calvinist Ministers came to our fair land in 1598, Roman Catholicism and the practice of the Mass have been outlawed in our land."

Reichskamphen:

I have a questoin concerning the above statement made on February 1, 2004. As member of the UN you are obligated to obided by all UN resolutions, so how can you outlaw Catholicism within your borders when there are two UN resolutions that grant religous freedom: The Universal Bill of Rights passed Aug. 8, 2003 and the Religous Talerance act passed June 21, 2003. I look forward to your reply.

My reply is, that I am withdrawing from the UN. It has no legal right to govern and no authority over my nation or my sovereignty. The UN is NOT worth a Mass. I would rather die than knowingly allow a single mass to take place in my lands.

-Viktor Leipzig

If you feel so strongly about the UN violating your national sovereignty then why did you apply for membership in the first place?

OOC: I applied in order to hold a delegate post, a regional position of power. But as that is no longer necessary. I am just going to resign from it as soon as i get someone to endorse the delegate already up there.

The government of Fuhgedaboudit feels that the Vatican has made no act of aggresion towards your nation. Therefore, Fuhgedaboudit will defend the Vatican by any and all means necessary if any act of aggression is made on your part.


Michael Corleone
Prime Minister of Fuhgedaboudit

Maybe you didn't read everything in the thread. There is no threat against the Vatican. We cannot win in aggression against it with the swords of men. Only with the word of God can the beast be slain.

-Viktor