sherpa

I really get a kick out of you. You claim they're not mentioned in the Bible, yet the first Gentile to become Christian was a eunuch. Read Acts 8 vs 26. Read the story of Esther, which is so interesting it should be made into a movie. A personal question. Do you ever research things you post?

Really? And it wasn't a "few bishops." The money was sent to Rome to pay for St. Peters. Luther simply challenged the practice, and they put a hit on him. I can specifically remember the issue in my Catholic education centuries later. What about today? "The church offers indulgences under specific conditions. Besides visiting designated holy sites such as the National Shrine of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini during set periods of time and for special occasions, Catholics can receive indulgences by reciting a set of approved prayers or making charitable contributions. The 1999 “Manual of Indulgences” provides guidelines for church-sanctioned practices. "The church teaches that even when a person has been ritually forgiven, God’s justice still requires some punishment to purge the sin – at the very least, suffering and miseries on Earth. Moreover, the church teaches, these hardships are to be welcomed because they purify the soul and heal the stain of original sin." Invention None of this is Biblical.

They are mentioned.

Because It's specifically warned against in that pesky Bible thing, just as graven images are. I have no concern over what you believe, and no interest in changing anyone's views on this. What I do dislike is any attempt to marginalize people by claiming they hate" something when simply pointing out known facts. I don't hate anything or anybody.

Sure. I have been interested in the church's backing away from the Mary thing over the last decade or so in particular. Of course there is Mary worship. Altars for her, constant prayers, even the one spoken by the new pope today. I was listening to his speech and I can understand enough to hear that he used the word intercessor in either Italian or Latin. Ever hear Jesus say we needed an intercessor? What is the rosary? Is that not a prayer to Mary. What does the Bible say about that. "Don’t recite the same prayer over and over as the heathen do,..." That is exactly what the rosary is. Don't worship the dead? What's the nonsense about relics. There's even a grading system for them., as I recall, on a scale of four. How about human body parts in church's? Know anything about that? Over 40 altars inside St. Peters to other people. So they were just "wrong" about indulgences? Why was Purgatory invented? See anything in the Bible about that? Jesus redemption wasn't quite good enough so believers need further cleansing after death, and conveniently, a market for them can be established to fund St. Peter's in the 1500's? Why is there no history suggesting anyone thought Peter was of some kind of primacy for hundreds of years, or that he was ever the head of any church anywhere. Then in Vatican 1, using the self proclaimed infallibility of the church doctrine, they claimed it had always been known. No evidence of that anywhere. How about this infallibility thing when speaking ex cathedra. The recently deceased pope said a lot of things, but never claimed it. Where is the canonization of saints justified? Now you can even get an accelerated version. This isn't any disdain for Catholics, no matter how you claim it. This is pointing out invented traditions that have no basis, just as the Pharisees added on to Mosaic law by tradition, and were chastised by Jesus for it, so they had him killed.

But nit the "Catholic Church." The creation of the Church happened at Pentecost and has nothing to do with the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. That's why it didn't exist for hundreds of years, and why Peter was never the head of anything. It's also clear that indulgences, relics, worship of the dead, any interlocutor between God and man, worship of Mary, bowing before perceived idols and a host of other things that are called "traditions," are viewed as heresy. Another word for "traditions," is "inventions." Believe what is in the Bible, not what has been invented. By the way, the concept of God ever intervening is the selection of historical popes should make one run for cover. I think it's a very important office, but it's man made.

Lost me with the Mary stuff.

i had to look really hard, but I absolutely saw an angelic fly by.

Just an insane idea, and am familiar with the area, having been married on Yerba Buena, another island in the San Francisco Bay. Like him or hate him, the man proposes crazy ideas.

Are you asserting a subtle point here? I am never going to get into Revelations, nor ever attend any Bible study that does. It's just too weird. But....Regarding the Anti Christ, the individual is going to be far more impressive than anything we've ever seen.

No problem, but we all must come to our own conclusions, especially when it regards something as serious as this. I have no problem with the Catholic Church. I simply don't believe their theological interpretation. For me it's quite simple. I don't know that every square meter of earth was covered by water during the flood. I don't know that Jonah spent a few days in a fish. What I am convinced of is that Jesus existed, was crucified and rose from the dead. To me, based on evidence, this is indisputable. The many forks in the road one chooses after that s up to them.

It has more than "blemishes." It has self proclaimed inventions purported as truth, and I've named a bunch of them, including the Papacy and the concept of ex cathedra infallibility. The Assumption of Mary, her permanent virginity. These concepts are nonsense. I haven't chosen a different branch from the Catholic Church. I have chosen a church which does not include inventions or traditions codified into accurate, self proclaimed theology. Still a big fan of my Catholic friends and relatives. My path away was led, unintentionally by my wife. When we first dated, I brought her to my Catholic church, which we attended regularly. After marriage and moving to the San Francisco Bay area, when we attended church, she, brought up as Lutheran, would ask me questions about various things, like statues, candles, Jesus always on the cross, Mary stuff and I had no response as to why these things existed. Eventually, I looked at it and realized it was all tradition and opinion without scriptural proof, which is precisely what precipitated the Reformation. Regarding Trump, I will never offer any opinion on what God thinks of anyone.

Completely agree. As an aside, my favorite vs in the Bible is part of this for as Jesus responds to Peter's claim that Jesus is the Son of the living God, by stating that "this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my father in heaven." In short, we are not capable, as humans, to perceive this. It must come from faith.

We don't need to waste time arguing about those verses. I am extremely familiar with them and the Catholic interpretation of them as establishing Peter. I am also extremely familiar with the Protestant interpretation of them as doing no such thing. In the immediately following verses from the "rock," after Jesus tells the disciples that he will go to Jerusalem, suffer and be killed, Peter rebukes him telling Jesus it can't happen. Jesus tells him "get behind me Satan, you are a hindrance to me for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on those of man." So immediately after supposedly naming him a the primary figure he calls him out? There is absolutely no evidence that the Apostles ever viewed Peter as anything special, nor did Paul. He was not the head of the early church in Jerusalem, nor in Rome. He was a very important figure, but had no primacy. They argue about this even up to Gethsemane. There is no evidence of any "Pope" figure for hundreds of years. There is no basis for establishing Rome as the center of Christianity. There is no basis for establishing the Catholic church as an "authority." Certainly no justification for purchasing indulgences. These authority claims caused the first schism when the eastern orthodox church waved the bs flag in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation in 1517. The Catholic church claimed it was the only entity capable of interpreting the Bible, and prohibited translations into languages understood by the people. The history is exactly similar to that of the Pharisees. Traditions added on that are not scriptural. Some are counter, like the Rosary. Mary. Sainthood. The pope, (and papal history is incredibly wacky). Indulgences. Purgatory. Salvation including "works." Confession to a priest or anything else requiring an intermediary between God and his people. It goes on and on, but these man made inventions are exactly what Jesus accused the Pharisees of with their additions to Mosaic law. What Jesus alone did was completely sufficient. Nothing and nobody needs to be added. No "near Gods" need to be invented and should not be venerated. I have great regard for Catholics and other Christians, and hope they have a great conclave, but the "traditions" are man made. And by the way, to address one of your comments, we recite the Nicene Creed at every service in my Lutheran Church, just as you do. we just say "and Christian Apostolic Church," instead of "Catholic."

Yes I did attend through high school. I don't believe the Pope has any legitimate authority, just as I don't believe Peter was ever designated as the head of anything. Certainly the Apostles didn't, nor did Paul. You expose yourself with your third sentence, claiming "many traditions are not biblically based." That is correct. They are not. Know what Jesus' main objection to the Pharisees was? Know what he regularly disputed with them? It was their importation of invented "traditions," which he viewed as nonsense, and what the Catholic Church has been doing for centuries, including the Pope, Mary, Saint reverence, Purgatory, indulgences and a host of other things of "tradition." The traditions are inventions. Same stuff.

Better, consult the Bible on the concept of Papacy, and the history of that office. Got me.

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this. The Saudis have become an ally, but aren't really a major variable in the Iran/Israel thing. Protecting shipping in international waters has always been a primary interest of the US. A strategy of simply absorbing weapons, which was the Last admin's thing was insane on about five different levels. I mentioned three above, but I would add corrosive to Navy morale and a definite negative in the retention issue, which is extremely important. Regarding Vance, of the four running for pres/VP, I would regard him as the brightest and most trustworthy. I think the Dems ran the goofiest couple in my lifetime.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this, but it isn't a significant variable in a discussion of Iran's expressed intent to eliminate Israel, but ya, against Iran, they could probably do OK. Really hard to say though. I'm not sure exactly where they are now, but they have good equipment at least. Still, I fought against their F-15's back in the 80's, and they were useless. A total waste of time. Rich, entitled Muslim men who drank heavily every night and were useless in the air. Started with six of us and four airplanes on Monday, supposed to do two things per day until Friday. Got to be such a waste of time we cut it to three airplanes and four pilots by Wed.

If this goes on an energy vector, I'm not interested, because I don't think the Iran issue has anything to do with our interest in this, which is legitimate and important. Iran is run by a lunatic who thinks he is directed by Allah to destroy not only Israel, but the rest of the non Muslim world. Energy is a red herring, in my view.

The difference is that we have a decades long relationship with Israel, which has always supported us, and the regime absolutely intent of destroying them is a trouble maker of the worst sort, run by a lunatic who believes he has a directive from a seventh century, violent nut to destroy anyone not sharing his view.

I agree. The primary reason was the legitimacy he gave the AFL with the Super Bowl win. But his pro Bills comment didn't hurt, and we had a lot of hurt at that time.

They should do a lot of things, but they don't, because they rely on the massive US military capability. That's why they don't support NATO to agreed upon levels, and allowed their capability to be so pathetic as the Russians invaded Ukraine. Regarding this issue specifically, there is no way "Europe" is going to defend Israel. Look at the criticism and protests over the Israelis eliminating Hamas from that group. As long as the US does what it does, the govs of the EU, ex the UK, will never step in with any significant effort.

The policy of continuing to absorb Houthi attacks on Red Sea commercial shipping, sending drones to deliver weapons against Israel and attacking US Navy forces was not "peaceful." It was unbelievably expensive, stupid and useless.

Correct, and Japan is still not innocent, but China is many magnitudes worse. A complete scam as a trading partner, on all levels. Simply horrible.

I've never wanted to denigrate the Catholic Church, as a beneficiary of its superior academic product throughout grammar and high school, but when I got older and looked at the theology, the Papacy, Mary, the Saints and Purgatory led me to move on to another Christian group. Been studying the issue and active for years, and I'm pleased I decided what I did. Hope all goes well, but I'm not invested in it.