Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[ebb tide]

Bible Only is dumb

ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE

Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

.

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

.

TWO

How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

.

THREE

Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

.

FOUR

Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

.

FIVE

Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

.

SIX

What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

.

SEVEN

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

.

COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

.

EIGHT

When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

.

NINE

Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

.

TEN

What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

.

ELEVEN

Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

.

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

.

FIFTEEN

Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.

.

COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.

.

SIXTEEN

Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ).

.

COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).

.

SEVENTEEN

Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources, there are 73 different organizations of Methodists, 55 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 17 organizations of Mennonites, 128 of Lutherans and thousands of other denominations.

.

COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.

.

EIGHTEEN

In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

.

COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.

.

NINETEEN

Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.

.

2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

.

TWENTY

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.

.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-18: 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.

Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

.

TWENTY-ONE

What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.

.

COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.

.

TWENTY-TWO

Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

.

COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

.

TWENTY-THREE

Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.

.

COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."

.

TWENTY-FOUR

Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.

.

COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

.

TWENTY-FIVE

During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

.

COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.

.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similar words:

.

Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran, founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of the some 33,800 sects have been created since then.

.

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

.

Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.

[metmom]

You are SO humor challenged.

But then again, I have noticed people consumed by anger and bitterness usually are.

[metmom]

ebb tide only annoys Protestants who don’t like to hear any other opinions than theirs.

What a laugh. He goes for blood from other Catholics as well. NO other FRoman on FR is Catholics enough for ebb. He condemns them all.

He also will not say who he thought the last legitimate pope was, so nobody knows how Catholic he is. All anyone can discern from his posts is that no one is good enough for him.

Who needs an infallible Pope when we have you guys here to make definitive statements and tell people they’re going to hell? A lot of “thank God I’m not like other men” style stuff from you guys.

Such hypocrisy from Catholicism. That is the EXACT thing they do to non-Catholics all the time.

It's even in your catechism, that anyone not in submission to your church is going to hell.

Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, not membership in a corrupt, immoral religious organization which demands constant hoop jumping to hopefully, maybe make it there.

[ealgeone]

Specifically , for salvation they have to be subject to their pope as per Unam Sanctam(but not Scripture). If not, there is no salvation per the bull though not the New Testament. Seems certain RCs aren’t being subject as commanded.

[boatbums]

And that's worse than actively practicing homosexual priests who molest minors, eh? So if that disqualifies or invalidates anything Hus had to say, then what about the corrupt, immoral popes and priests Catholicism is rife with and has been for the last 1,000 years or so??

[Trump_Triumphant]

Hus was the founder of a Christian movement. Many of his early followers were as immoral he is. So you have the foundation of a movement who was debauched and many members of the movement were just as bad.

What the priests do is beyond the pale and they have bought shame to the Catholic Institution. But whenever you think the Catholic Church was founded, you will find condemnations of homosexuality, fornication and said people should follow the Commandments.St.Pius V ordered that homosexuals should be executed. Hus was corrupt from the beginning.

[Trump_Triumphant]

Really? So did I.

[Trump_Triumphant]

I don’t know any Catholics who regularly tell Protestants they’re damned, that their religion is evil,etc. Nixon once said that Barbara Bush is a woman who knows how to hate. I feel the same way about some people on this thread.

[Trump_Triumphant]

You would know.

[metmom]

But whenever you think the Catholic Church was founded, you will find condemnations of homosexuality, fornication and said people should follow the Commandments. St.Pius V ordered that homosexuals should be executed. Hus was corrupt from the beginning.

Catholicism has been corrupt longer than that.

St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah: Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian's Time

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/929551/posts

Ten worst popes lists.

10 of History’s Most Scandalous Popes

https://historycollection.com/10-of-historys-most-scandalous-popes/

Top 10 Worst Popes in History

https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php

And the lists don't even agree!

And that's not even counting Francis who Catholics reject and yet demand Prots put themselves under the authority of in order to be saved.

Such rank hypocrisy.

[metmom]

Odd since you are posting on a thread posted by one of the worst offenders in that area.

Of course you know them.

[Elsie]

Mothra?

[Elsie]

Nixon once said that Barbara Bush is a woman who knows how to hate. I feel the same way about some people on this thread.

Some folks on this thread are quoting Nixon?

[daniel1212]

I know the story of Hus, and some of the hagiography surrounding it. I suppose you also know that the Hussite movement descended into a cult where freedom meant nudity all of the time, and that Hus was screwing around with women not his wife while he was preaching at Bethlehem Chapel. He considered this part of the “Freedom of the Gospel”.

Citations needed. I am sure the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia - old and new - as well as any such would be interested in your venerable sources on Huss and your broad brush of the the Hussite movement. Of course, what a movement descended into, esp as meaning some offshoot to which some linkage is found, is enough for some RCs for denigrate the whole of it, while making excuses for their own, past and present.

Cardinal Bellarmine:

 "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- , in ”A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

•Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy during this period leading up to the Refomation: 

“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

More

[daniel1212]

But whenever you think the Catholic Church was founded, you will find condemnations of homosexuality, fornication and said people should follow the Commandments.

But as James stated:"I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) and Rome manifests its understanding of its own teaching by affirming even proabortion, prohomosexual, Muslim-affirming public figures as member in life and in death.

TradCaths are more likely to see censure (since Rome is to the left), and who think they are in a position to declare the liberals as incurring latae sententiae excommunication, while the most unyielding vocal TradCaths do not care what Rome says seeing as they reject the current or even all modern, popes.

And (though it matters not to them) under canon law (subject to interpretation) that is considered "a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" (canon 751; 1364). - https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/

And thus you have papal statements such as,

"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." sources

Which sect do you fit in with? Is Francis a legit Catholic and pope? What about Ratzinger? Do you affirm Vatican Two as being legitimate, doctrinal and requiring obedience? Or do you subject the veracity of modern RC teaching to your understanding of ancient RC teaching?

[ealgeone]

I don’t know any Catholics who regularly tell Protestants they’re damned, that their religion is evil,etc

Well, Vatican I for starters and a whole bunch of other Roman Catholic writings.

A good number of Roman Catholics have posted threads saying don't call Protestants Christians.

[daniel1212]

Who needs an infallible Pope when we have you guys here to make definitive statements and tell people they’re going to hell?

What RC here believes you even have an infallible Pope (which is the wrong term anyway). At least one major propagandist here evidently has no living pope.

[daniel1212]

I know you [kinsman redeemer] said that you wouldn’t answer, but do you believe works of the (Mosaic) Law are the same thing as “good works”?

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. (Titus 3:5: written to an uncircumcised: Galatians 2:3)

If works of charity could obtain justification, versus the effectual repentant faith that was behind them, then keeping the law which required loving one's brother as oneself would qualify a system of salvation. One would just have to believe like a Catholic is lead to, that one is accounted to have truly merited eternal life by the very works which one did done in God.

if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)

The premise that one is justified by actually becoming good, vs. that being a necessary fruit, is what the Catholic system rests upon.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

—> you will find condemnations of homosexuality

There are literally drug-fueled homosexual orgies in the Vatican.

~Half the priestood is gay.

What is claimed contradicts what is permitted and covered up.

It’s very sad.

[metmom]

But as James stated: "I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) and Rome manifests its understanding of its own teaching by affirming even proabortion, prohomosexual, Muslim-affirming public figures as member in life and in death.

OUCH!!!!!

[ebb tide]

So now you’re a mind-reader!

LOL.