Roman Catholic Church(synagog of satan)

Does history repeat itself

  • yes

    Votes: 9 90.0%

  • no

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Total voters
    10
L

Lady

Banned
Banned
History is bound to repeat it self if ignored.
Given the know cases of evil practiced in the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, I have concluded that this wealthy& powerful denomination is above the law.America,as well as many other catholic controlled countries can NOT rid themselves of it, furthermore,the history of this church is a bloody given. If you disagree or agree let your inner thoughts be know without fear.
 
Last edited:
First, Welcome to Sciforums, Lady!

Secondly, I agree. The RCC is very rich and powerfull, and acts as if it is above the law in the US. They clearly violated child protection laws here, yet are not being punished. Nor will they be.

What do you suggest that we do about it?
 
Seal testimony with blood I DON'T SEE any ALTERNATIVES...however the King James bible does speak of a rapture BEFORE tribulation. Are you at all familiar with the Holy Bible?
 
Lady:
"Seal testimony with blood I DON'T SEE any ALTERNATIVES..."

To do what? :confused:

"however the King James bible does speak of a rapture BEFORE tribulation. Are you at all familiar with the Holy Bible?"

Yes. But what does this have to do with the scandal in the RCC? Are you comparing it with the Whore in Revalations? Specifically, Rev. 2:9
"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

Hey cool, guys, we got another Xtian!
 
The RC church has been doing the same nasty crap for centuries, it's very ingrained in their culture. Luckily in many nations now those freaky RC weirdos are being turned in to the police for their crimes. A nice inquisition of the entire RC church by UN investigators would be good.
 
Originally posted by Lady
History is bound to repeat it self if ignored.
Given the know cases of evil practiced in the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, I have concluded that this wealthy& powerful denomination is above the law.America,as well as many other catholic controlled countries can NOT rid themselves of it, and furthermore,the history of this church is a bloody given. If you disagree or agree let your inner thoughts be know without fear.
Click to expand...


Hi Lady, the real question is, is the RCC about the glorification of the Almighty God, or are they anti-God.
As i have always said, it is action that counts.
The description of God and how to awaken ones consciousness in order to understand Him, is clearly documented in His scriptures, so it is easy to see whether one/an organisation is God-conscious or not.http://www.cephasministry.com/world_pope_black_magick.html
 
Lady,

To assign the name Synagogue of Satan to the Roman Catholic Church is limiting what the name applies to. This name was in existence long before the formal organization came into existence. It was in existence in the days of the Apostles and could be summed up as the Spirit of Antichrist. I am not denying that the RCC is part it. There is an image to this beast and there is also a False Prophet. There are a variety of opinions as to who this could be, but there are certain conditions that must be applied. Just a few of the combinations could be: Roman Catholicism--Apostate Protestantism--Paganism| RCC--Apostate Protestanism, Spiritualism| RCC--Apostate Protestantism--Islam| RCC--European Union--US| RCC--New AGE--Ufology. You get my drift. A case could be made for all of these combinations--or they could all be tied in together. The question is, is there genuine believers in any of these organizations? The answer is a resounding YES! The message of Rev. 14 is one of a calling out of these organizations--and many others. The bulk of true believers is thought to be in the world and not affiliated with these organizations--perhaps as many as 98%. Some of the atheists on this forum--much to their horror--will also respond to this last day call and take their stand alongside those who stand for the truth, because everything will become very evident to those who are individual thinkers. Many of those who have been die-hard believers will abandon their posts and take the side of Antichrist. Just because they say Lord Lord doesn't mean that they automatically make the grade, and just because some say,"there is no God", doesn't mean that they are automatically left out. Nature and Revelation alike testify to the truth of God's Kingdom. Many who have never even heard the name of Jesus will be standing on the sea of glass.
 
Re: Re: Roman Catholic Church(synagog of satan)

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
so it is easy to see whether one/an organisation is God-conscious or not.http://www.cephasministry.com/world_pope_black_magick.html
Not a very reliable reference site there Jan. Here's part of it's policy statement:
Our job is research. It has brought to the surface that some "Christians" in high position condone: rock music, proven to be of satanic origin, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, communication with spirits, consulterers of spirits, necromancy, lying tongues, transexuality, thoughts and ways to oppress the poor, a heart with wicked imaginations, feet that be swift running mischief, bearing false witness, prostitution, conscious intentional falsehoods, following other gods, astrology, and not to forget, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).
Click to expand...
Our website is about proving to you that "Christianity" is rapidly tumbling into apostasy. The times of the Gentiles are about to come to a close. Because cults like Mormons, Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Robert Schuller, Catholics, Word of Faith, Promise Keepers, and many others call themselves Christians (Christ's) doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
There's a perfectly Christian reason for the inverted cross. St. Peter had himself crucified upside-down in deference to Jesus. Here are a few sites that actually provide source material rather than pure biased opinion.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1118_vaticanbasilica.html

http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/invertedcross.html

Not that I'm all for the Roman Catholic Church. Ever been to the Vatican? It's the most disgusting display of immodesty and wealth I've ever seen. Walls are literally covered from floor to ceiling with renaissance paintings. One room could probably feed a small nation for a year. And, of course, the RCC's history speaks for itself.
~Raithere
 
Re: Re: Re: Roman Catholic Church(synagog of satan)

Originally posted by Raithere
Not a very reliable reference site there Jan. Here's part of it's policy statement:

Our job is research. It has brought to the surface that some "Christians" in high position condone: rock music, proven to be of satanic origin, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, communication with spirits, consulterers of spirits, necromancy, lying tongues, transexuality, thoughts and ways to oppress the poor, a heart with wicked imaginations, feet that be swift running mischief, bearing false witness, prostitution, conscious intentional falsehoods, following other gods, astrology, and not to forget, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15).

Why do you say it is not very reliable?


There's a perfectly Christian reason for the inverted cross. St. Peter had himself crucified upside-down in deference to Jesus.

I wouldn't have used the term 'deference,' i think he saw himself as totally 'unworthy' to be crusified/glorified the same way as his Lord. More a sign of real humility.
The inverted cross is most definately a satanic symbol, if the Pope was reprisenting Christ in truth, surely he would not use such a symbol, regardless of whether he is paying respects to St. Peter or not.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Roman Catholic Church(synagog of satan)

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Why do you say it is not very reliable?
…
The inverted cross is most definately a satanic symbol, if the Pope was reprisenting Christ in truth, surely he would not use such a symbol, regardless of whether he is paying respects to St. Peter or not.

I thought that evident from the parts of their mission statement that I quoted. However, I'll give a bit more of an explanation.

They claim to do "research", however they lack any objectivity. They obviously have a clear agenda and the only "research" evident in the site is the collection of trivia which fits their agenda. No opposing viewpoints or arguments are even acknowledged. True research must be willing to acknowledge alternative theories and explain evidence that may be contrary to the conclusions drawn and do so satisfactorily. This site does not even attempt it. It's "conclusions" are pure BS.

Specifically, the site references the inverted cross and immediately comes to the "Satanic" conclusion without even mentioning, much less addressing and disproving, the Catholic explanation.

St. Peter is considered to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church, the Apostle that received Christ's authority in the Church. The inverted cross is therefore a symbol of the Pope's position in the Church as decreed by Christ in respect to the first Pope, St. Peter. This tradition of the inverted cross as a symbol of St. Peter, the Pope, and St. Peter's humility towards Christ is a much older one than it's use in modern Satanism. Why should the Church change one of it's traditional symbols because some group of morons tries to usurp it? If anything, in their position, I would make more use of it in order to publicize it's original meaning and refute it's usage in modern Satanism.

~Raithere
 
Hey, Roman Catholicism isn't all bad. It gives the young people an extremely good example of how retarded and corrupt religion is. :p
 
Originally posted by Raithere
True research must be willing to acknowledge alternative theories and explain evidence that may be contrary to the conclusions drawn and do so satisfactorily. This site does not even attempt it.

There are many ways to conduct research, the one you mentioned is one way.

Specifically, the site references the inverted cross and immediately comes to the "Satanic" conclusion without even mentioning, much less addressing and disproving, the Catholic explanation.

Whats wrong with coming to the “satanic” conclusion, the inverted cross certainly figures in satanism.
From what I can understand, St. Peter requested his death in order to suffer because he thought himself worthy of that suffering. So an inverted cross signifies suffering, whereas a cross turned the proper way signifies Christs sacrifice, therefore love.
Also why glorify St. Peter in such an elaborate way of using his symbol all over the place, would it not be more benificial, not to mention respectful, to use the symol of Christ (love).
And why do they not use the symbol all the time.
Is Christ not the head and goal of the Catholic church, and if not, why not?

St. Peter is considered to be the first Pope of the Catholic Church, the Apostle that received Christ's authority in the Church.

That’s fair enough, respect is most certainly due, but worship should be reserved for The Christ.

The inverted cross is therefore a symbol of the Pope's position in the Church as decreed by Christ in respect to the first Pope, St. Peter.

I would have thought the inverted cross, in this connection, reprisents the opposite of the crucifiction of Jesus the Christ.

Why should the Church change one of it's traditional symbols because some group of morons tries to usurp it?

Why should the church use a symbol which reprisents the fallen, a symbol which satanists use to reprisent their hatred of Jesus the Christ, to reprisent the Holy Trinity (God), when it is Christ who is to be glorified, surely it should be the symbol of Christ being shown off.

If anything, in their position, I would make more use of it in order to publicize it's original meaning and refute it's usage in modern Satanism.

I’m quie sure you would.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
There are many ways to conduct research, the one you mentioned is one way.

Not logically sound research. Show me any other method of research that is equally viable in anything but a subjective frame.

Whats wrong with coming to the “satanic” conclusion, the inverted cross certainly figures in satanism.

Because it ignores historical fact, it doesn't refute it or give alternatives. It also ignores the fact that the Catholic meaning is older than the Satanic. In analogy: The swastika was used as a symbol of power by prehistoric Germanic tribes. To equate these ancient runes with the more recent usurpation of the swastika with Nazism would be incorrect. Nazism did not exist when this rune was originated. Now, you may argue that the swastika should not be used today because the correlation to Nazism is overwhelming in the modern paradigm, but one cannot state that the ancient German tribes were Nazi's based upon this.

From what I can understand, St. Peter requested his death in order to suffer because he thought himself worthy of that suffering. So an inverted cross signifies suffering, whereas a cross turned the proper way signifies Christs sacrifice, therefore love.

St. Peter requested not that he be killed but that given that he was going to be executed he didn't think he was worthy to die in the same manner as Christ. It indicates humility towards Jesus. Both crosses indicate suffering anyway. Or do you not believe that Christ suffered on his cross?

Also why glorify St. Peter in such an elaborate way of using his symbol all over the place, would it not be more benificial, not to mention respectful, to use the symol of Christ (love).

I've already given the reasoning you chose to ignore it. The inverted cross symbolizes Christ authority given to the Pope and the Church. You're asking for a judgement call here on it's use.

And why do they not use the symbol all the time.

They do.

Is Christ not the head and goal of the Catholic church, and if not, why not?

The R.C. Church believes that the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth. (i.e. He is under Christ's direct authority.)

That’s fair enough, respect is most certainly due, but worship should be reserved for The Christ.

Now you're arguing the R.C. sanctification of the Apostles and Saints. A different matter altogether. Try staying on topic.

I would have thought the inverted cross, in this connection, reprisents the opposite of the crucifiction of Jesus the Christ.

What you thought I demonstrated to be incorrect. Do you revise your thinking based on facts or do you revise and ignore fact to fit your thoughts?

Why should the church use a symbol which reprisents the fallen, a symbol which satanists use to reprisent their hatred of Jesus the Christ, to reprisent the Holy Trinity (God), when it is Christ who is to be glorified, surely it should be the symbol of Christ being shown off.

See above and my previous post. Really now; how many times must I repeat myself? The argument is clear.

~Raithere
Click to expand...
 
It's kind of refresing to see a TRUE atheist at work. Most of what I see on this site are agnostics at best. A true atheist does his homework and Raithere has done his. A true atheist has looked at all the angles of theism and then took his stand. I agree with all the positions you have taken with Jan Ardena--from a Biblical standpoint.

The inverted cross is not the problem here. The Roman Catholic claim to it is. I can give chapter and verse, but for brevity's sake, let's just say that Jesus said to Peter "who do you say I am". Peter said "you are the Christ". Jesus then said, "well said, you are the little rock--upon this big rock(the revelation that he was the Christ), I will build my church. Thus, the claim that RC's are inheritor's of Peter's (authority?), is based on a false premise. In fact, the first pope was also Emperor and presided over paganism. History shows that he claimed a vision and converted to Christianity, while maintaining paganism in all it's forms. The statue of Peter in the Vatican is in reality the statue of Apollo and it's toes have been literally, "kissed off" to smoothness. There is a mountain of information available on the satanic symbols located at the Vatican. They figure prominently in the prophecy of Daniel's 2300 days(years). For 1260 years(from 538 to 1798), they were the ultimate church/state(3 1/2 years), until Napoleon through his General Berthier, took the pope into custody and ended his rule. Many different churches consider them to be the beast of Revelation.
 
Originally posted by sonofbabylon
It's kind of refresing to see a TRUE atheist at work.

Actually what you're seeing is the work of a true skeptic, my atheism plays little part in most discussions. But thank you none-the-less, I do try to do my homework.

Thus, the claim that RC's are inheritor's of Peter's (authority?), is based on a false premise. In fact, the first pope was also Emperor and presided over paganism. History shows that he claimed a vision and converted to Christianity, while maintaining paganism in all it's forms.

Christianity, as a whole, has largely adopted "pagan" symbols, traditions, and "Holy days". As a comedian pointed out; What do rabbits, eggs, and chocolate have to do with Jesus's crucifixion? Nothing. They're remnants of a fertility rite.

There is a mountain of information available on the satanic symbols located at the Vatican.

You should see the Vatican (if you haven't); they have mountains of everything, from Renaissance paintings to Egyptian artifacts.

They figure prominently in the prophecy of Daniel's 2300 days(years).

I'm unfamiliar with this, any references?

~Raithere
 
Raithere,

The book I got my information from was published in 1897 by Uriah Smith. It is titled "Daniel and the Revelation". It's an excellent historical treatise and does a verse by verse study of the two prophetic books. Unfortunately, it is tainted somewhat by being connected to the Millerites of the 1830's who became discredited for setting dates for the end of the world. The timeline goes like this:
457 BC--Decree to rebuild Jerusalem(Artexerxes)
490 years of the 2300 year prophecy cut off for the Jews.(70 weeks)
69 weeks to the Messiah
70th week--Messiah cut off in the midst of the week(3 1/2 year ministry)
1798 minus 1290 years =508 Christianity declared in Rome
1798 minus 1260 years =538 Christianity declared religion of rest of the pagan nations--Rome was now a united church/state
2300 years minus 457BC plus 1 for zero year = 1844 (Cleansing of the Sanctuary)Expected to be end of world (Earth considered the Sanctuary)
1844 minus 1335 =508to509 (Declaration of Christianity)
1798 minus 1290 =508to509 "
"
Rome was the only church in history that fits the 1260 year timeline and killed literally millions whom they considered heretics. This is well documented in Fox's Book of Martyrs.

If then they are the Beast, the image to the beast would be a similar church/state that unites with the beast.(the current U.S. govt and apostate protestants are seeking to reunite under the papacy). The papacy is making strong overtures to Islam--the prophet? This threefold union is supposed to subjugate the world into a New World Order. One world religion, one world economic system, one world government. Sound plausible to you?
 
Originally posted by sonofbabylon
It's an excellent historical treatise and does a verse by verse study of the two prophetic books.

Well, I don't put much stock into revelation or psychic forecasts. Generally speaking, they are too vague to indicate any real knowledge. The 1260 year date for the RC church seems a bit arbitrary, how exactly does one determine the precise beginning and ending of such things?

For instance; when exactly did the US revolutionary war begin? Was it the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775? Or was it the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773? Perhaps one could argue for Thomas Paine's publication Common Sense in January, 1776? Or was it the signing of the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776. Hopefully you see my point here. History is not digital. There are rarely points where one can say "Here it began." or "At this point it was inevitable." Generally speaking, this hold even more true for endings than beginnings.

To point out another problem in what you posted, there was no year 0 between B.C. 1 and A.D. 1.

This threefold union is supposed to subjugate the world into a New World Order. One world religion, one world economic system, one world government. Sound plausible to you?

I generally find large conspiracy theories lacking as well, generally having two major faults:

1. Appeal to ignorance: The lack of proof supposedly proves the conspiracy and any given explanation is said to be evidence of a cover-up.

2. Human nature: People have trouble acting in unison towards a common goal even when the objective is simple, brief, and the participants are well informed. How much more difficult to sustain some covert operation of extended duration and massive complexity?

Once again, the tendency is to include only the trivia that supports the theory; ignoring and failing to refute contrary evidence.

To address these specifically:

One world religion: Will never happen. I don't know of a single example of successful religious repression. Religious repression and persecution simply drives religions underground where they often prosper.

One world economic system: Already exists. The only way to stop this would be to prevent countries from trading with each other.

One world government: Unlikely to happen, too much cultural diversity and opposition.

Well, we're way off topic now. But it's been fun.

~Raithere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top