What kind of Father demands the blood of His Son?

[Elijah John]

Is the God of Jesus a merciful forgiving Father?

Or a bloodthirsty deity who must be appeased by the blood of animals, then later, by the blood of His favorite Son?

I realize these are loaded questions, and that my bias is apparent.

But which is it, merciful Father or Judge who demands blood?*

Which kind of God did Jesus himself teach? (not Paul, but Jesus)

What kind of Father demands the blood of his favorite Son in order to be able to forgive his other children?

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

(note.. this thread is about forgiveness and atonement, not about the wars of YHVH's people etc.)

*if you answer "both" then please demonstrate how the two notions are compatible.

[marco]

The Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo said Satanism is practised in the Vatican. Read the article again.

I understood at first reading, Claire. The gentleman works FOR The RC Church, so he's NOT condemning the Church but making the point that Satan is devious enough (in his view, as an Exorcist) to work inside the holiest of places. You are wrongly interpreting this as if it meant the Vatican practices Satanism when the concern is that the Church is being attacked by some Satanists.

You are happy to accept the view of a Bishop when he SEEMS to you to be attacking the Church. Would you accept the view of a Pope when he's defending it?


Basically: Church is good. Satan is bad. There is not the slightest suggestion that the Pope is authorising Satanism, else the prelate would not be in a job for long. He is ON THE SIDE of the Vatican.

The misdeeds of some priests, horrendous as it is, reflects human nature. The Church has its saints and its sinners.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 128 by Claire Evans]

Also, Ms Evans, how do you account for all the upright crosses in Catholicism? I don't believe you ever answered that one.

I did answer it in my last post:

"Of course there are upright crosses. You can't say the upside cross refers to Jesus because Jesus was not crucified that way. Peter's crucifixion, on the other hand, was a more insidious way of displaying Satanism."

Obviously there needs to be a facade. It has to be subtle else there would be no Catholics!

I never said the "upside down cross refers to Jesus". Nor does an upside down cross mean Satanism in this context. It is a reference to the crucifixion of St. Peter. Remember, Catholics believe the Pope has the "chair of" St. Peter. To counter that Peter was crucified on an "X" instead of a "T" may or may not be hstorically and literally true. But that is beside the point. The point is to depict the way Peter was crucified.

How do you inscribe an upside down "X" on a chair?

Ms. Evans, let me ask you this. Do you want to believe the worst about the RCC?

If that is the case, even evidence and Truth will not convince you otherwise. Please note that it's defense comes from two non-practicing Catholics here. We see her (the Church's) faults and imprefections, but even we do not accept conspiracy theory nonsense about her.

And aren't you the one who here on these boards said that people "shape-shiift" and can have "eyes of a lizard moving in different directions" not because of any disease, but because of the influence of diabolical malevolence.

And aren't you the one who posted links to tampered videos where the pupils of certain human eyes flash vertical? (Like cats, goats, reptiles and birds) .

With regard to credibility, I appeal to the reader to consider the source.

[Claire Evans]

The Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo said Satanism is practised in the Vatican. Read the article again.

I understood at first reading, Claire. The gentleman works FOR The RC Church, so he's NOT condemning the Church but making the point that Satan is devious enough (in his view, as an Exorcist) to work inside the holiest of places. You are wrongly interpreting this as if it meant the Vatican practices Satanism when the concern is that the Church is being attacked by some Satanists.

First of all, it is impossible for Satanism to be practised in a holy place. Satanists aren't going to go near the Holy Spirit. Secondly, it said that Satanism is practiced in the church. Who is practising the Satanism here?

Fr. Malachi Martin's accusations
"In The Fatima Crusader article, Malachi Martin, a scholar, Vatican insider, and best-selling author, said, “Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.�

Who are the surrogates?



Just how bad did Martin judge things to be? Extremely so:

"Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this papacy, the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who worshipped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites� of Wicca, and who lived in lesbian relationships . . . every day, including Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least the tacit permission of certain Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. . . In total number they were a minority—anything from one to ten percent of Church personnel. But of that minority, many occupied astoundingly high positions or rank.... The facts that brought the Pope to a new level of suffering were mainly two: The systematic organizational links—the network, in other words that had been established between certain clerical homosexual groups and Satanist covens. And the inordinate power and influence of that network." (pp. 492-3)"

http://www.tldm.org/news/martin.htm

You are happy to accept the view of a Bishop when he SEEMS to you to be attacking the Church. Would you accept the view of a Pope when he's defending it?

Of course the Pope is going to defend the Church.

Basically: Church is good. Satan is bad. There is not the slightest suggestion that the Pope is authorising Satanism, else the prelate would not be in a job for long. He is ON THE SIDE of the Vatican.

{eadp

Then the Pope truly is ignorant about what is going on in the Vatican regarding Satanism. Yet that seems hard to believe because he is well aware of the paedophiles there.

The misdeeds of some priests, horrendous as it is, reflects human nature. The Church has its saints and its sinners.

And should they not be punished? Why is the Pope not punishing them?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 128 by Claire Evans]

Also, Ms Evans, how do you account for all the upright crosses in Catholicism? I don't believe you ever answered that one.

I did answer it in my last post:

"Of course there are upright crosses. You can't say the upside cross refers to Jesus because Jesus was not crucified that way. Peter's crucifixion, on the other hand, was a more insidious way of displaying Satanism."

Obviously there needs to be a facade. It has to be subtle else there would be no Catholics!

I never said the "upside down cross refers to Jesus". Nor does an upside down cross mean Satanism in this context. It is a reference to the crucifixion of St. Peter. Remember, Catholics believe the Pope has the "chair of" St. Peter. To counter that Peter was crucified on an "X" instead of a "T" may or may not be hstorically and literally true. But that is beside the point. The point is to depict the way Peter was crucified.

How do you inscribe an upside down "X" on a chair?

I know you didn't but if people are signing themselves with the upside cross in church, are thy referring to Peter or do they believe that it is respect for Jesus. You keep believing it is Satanism in this context but reversing good as depicting it as the opposite is the sign of Satanism. Can you not see that it is clever to show off Satanism in the guise of something acceptable? It is impossible for Peter to have the first Pope of Rome since the CC only came into existence in the 4th century. He was not Catholic.

The Scriptures do not indicate even that Peter was even crucified upside down. It only features in the Act of Peter which is from the 2nd century apocryphal text.

"The Acts of Peter is filled with legendary material, such as Peter raising a tuna fish and Simon Magus flying through the air. And yet it does contain a historical core."

http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-peter- ... pside-down

Ms. Evans, let me ask you this. Do you want to believe the worst about the RCC?

If that is the case, even evidence and Truth will not convince you otherwise. Please note that it's defense comes from two non-practicing Catholics here. We see her (the Church's) faults and imprefections, but even we do not accept conspiracy theory nonsense about her.[/quote]

I think the worst of the Catholic Church because of the evidence.

Pope Admits Priests Have Raped Thousands of Children Without Punishment

According to FoxNews,

“Pope Francis acknowledged Saturday that the Vatican has a 2,000-case backlog in processing clerical sex abuse cases and says criticism of the slow pace was justified. But he says more staff are being added and insists the Vatican is ‘on the right path.’�

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/14 ... cases.html

Why do you think that is? Too lazy?


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... e-priests/

There appears to be a deliberate cover up. Why?

Fr. Malachi Martin's accusations
"In The Fatima Crusader article, Malachi Martin, a scholar, Vatican insider, and best-selling author, said, “Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.�

Who are the surrogates?



Just how bad did Martin judge things to be? Extremely so:

"Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this papacy, the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who worshipped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites� of Wicca, and who lived in lesbian relationships . . . every day, including Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least the tacit permission of certain Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. . . In total number they were a minority—anything from one to ten percent of Church personnel. But of that minority, many occupied astoundingly high positions or rank.... The facts that brought the Pope to a new level of suffering were mainly two: The systematic organizational links—the network, in other words that had been established between certain clerical homosexual groups and Satanist covens. And the inordinate power and influence of that network." (pp. 492-3)"

http://www.tldm.org/news/martin.htm

Even a Vatican insider corroborates my claims.

And aren't you the one who here on these boards said that people "shape-shiift" and can have "eyes of a lizard moving in different directions" not because of any disease, but because of the influence of diabolical malevolence.

What disease can you think of?

And aren't you the one who posted links to tampered videos where the pupils of certain human eyes flash vertical? (Like cats, goats, reptiles and birds) .

With regard to credibility, I appeal to the reader to consider the source.

No, I have not referred to any shape-shifting eyes.

[marco]

First of all, it is impossible for Satanism to be practised in a holy place. Satanists aren't going to go near the Holy Spirit. Secondly, it said that Satanism is practiced in the church. Who is practising the Satanism here?

You are asking me?

I am impressed you know the regulations permitting Satanism to be practised.

Who are the surrogates?

Sorry - I don't know. Do you?

Just how bad did Martin judge things to be? Extremely so:

"Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this papacy, the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who worshipped Satan

Suddenly unarguable! Goodness me. And did Martin really judge things bad enough to be extremely bad enough? Awful. Bad Catholics!

Of course the Pope is going to defend the Church.

No. surely not.

And should they not be punished? Why is the Pope not punishing them?

Again I am speechless. I don't know why the Pope is refusing to punish paedophiles. Should he - or should the police? Could it be that the Pope, being Satan, is encouraging them? They might be good servers at one of his Black Masses.

I am wondering what all this has got to do with the OP - what kind of Father demands the blood of his Son? Or is the answer - the Holy Father?