-35 votes

Pray to the Mother of Jesus Christ!

That is the strongest weapon in your hands

Kneel down even if you are an Agnostic

Even if you are a militant Atheist

For Love will remove all your pains

As a poet
I promise you this

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fraternal disputes are often the most heated

And that was kinda why I was trying to defuse this a bit.

But it really is sad when liberty folk fight over stuff like this. If we agree on liberty I really don't even understand why we're doing this, theist<>atheist, Christian<>Catholic, Anarchis<>Minarchist<>Constitutionalist, etc. Why? If we agree on liberty what does it really matter?

My worry sometimes is that people don't really agree on liberty and may be 'fair weather' libertarians, against state power.. until they get power. Which category includes the entire progressive left apparently who opposed the surveillance state, wars, and corporate welfare.. until a D was in the oval office.

So I worry our liberty upswell is partly disaffected statists from the right, who will immediately resume their statolatry once a Romney or Christie gets in the oval office. And when I see these disputes, it sort of confirms this worry.

I don't believe in god (though neither do I disbelieve in god) but I do think there is a devil, and the evil is in us, is part of us. It's the evil of collectivism, which is just a way for some men to prey on fellow men, rather than the land and the beasts of the earth.

Collectivism is men using other men as resources. It's an evolutionary strategy that all animals have in varying degrees, but in my opinion humans have least of all beasts. Specifically the lack of strong collectivist social structure allowed humans to breed 'freely', which increased the rate of evolution. Humans dominate because of math. A herd or hive or even pack which restricts mating to a very few per generation simply will never compete with many small, mostly monogamous couples.

In a sense, marriage and liberty and 'traditional' family values are exactly what led to human superiority. I'm sure this take doesn't appeal to a theist, even if you agree with the sentiment:) But I kinda wanted to share that our outlook may be more similar than not.

Collectivists want to reverse this and turn us into a hive, herd, pack. In essence they want to make men into beasts.

The state is the instrument of collectivism. I would say it is the instrument of Satan.

The questions:

Is is a little evil really necessary?
Is a little evil even possible?
Is it reasonable to assume good can grow from evil?

History seems to give us abundant proof the answer to these questions is no. The state always grows. Despite a brilliant document like the Constitution supposed to prevent it.. the evil grows.

That said I'm in favor of any reduction of the evil, and anyone that honestly wants to reduce it, even if they don't see yet that really it should eliminated altogether, is an ally.

Faithkills, I think there is

Faithkills, I think there is a lot that we would certainly agree on.

But there is also a great divide. I believe in liberty, but I would never act on behalf of liberty but against my faith. I and likely most of those I've be debating with have faith 1st, with everything else behind.

It just so happens that my faith strongly motivates me to defend and advocate liberty. God gave men a free will with the intention that we would then be able to love Him or not love Him. If God thought freedom of action and choice was so important, then far be it from me to attempt removing that privileged for another.

So, were I czar of the world, I wouldn't mandate Catholic practices for all; because it wouldn't serve God's desire to have people freely choose Him.

I think in a perfect world porn, heroin, and essentially any vises would be legal but nobody would choose to do them. Ironically, even an omnipotent God cannot create a world in which we all have freedom of choice and at the same there is no risk of individuals choosing to do bad things.

I can't think of a situation where I would need to choose liberty or God; but I know that if the two of us faced that situation, we would see separate choices as correct. (perhaps on abortion, since my faith tells me a soul is instilled at conception thus even a zygote is a person entitled to all rights/protection afforded any other person in our society, while someone who doesn't believe in souls might think at birth or even a the age of reason are when a human deserves the rights of "personhood". Or going the other way, I don't think any animals have souls and thus they essentially have no rights and the only reason we shouldn't abuse them is for the same reason we shouldn't abuse heroine - because it is bad for the soul of the abuser)

There are certainly many Christians who have a very different view and think that by tightly regulating individuals with laws and a nanny state we can instill morality on our society. These are surely the group that worry you, and there are many who think this way.

Thankfully for Catholics there are some great works being published that are helping people connect the dots and see that freedom is perfectly acceptable in a Christian world and perhaps is required of Christians. I've a book by Tom Woods in my bag right here called "The Church and Market" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Church-Market-Catholic-Economics/d... ), I'm not far it it yet but I assure you that his line of reasoning on Church/market interaction would have most libertarians nodding and giving a thumbs up.

A second book I've got on my Amazon wishlist is "Freedom is Beautiful: Why All Catholics should be Libertarian" ( http://www.amazon.com/Free-Beautiful-Catholics-should-libert... ). I don't know much about the book, but the reviews are very positive and I'll likely give it a try when I've got the time.

But yeah, as I was saying up top, I think there is a different motivation behind some of us. I want what's best for souls and I also think that liberty is tightly intertwined. I'd be a bit surprised if you were of like mind and felt liberty a noble pursuit mainly because God did it first.

It's hard to imagine a perfect world.

But there is a point where we have to realize that every evil can not and should not be punished by mankind through the state. Justice is primarily God's job.

I think the issue of liberty is that we understand it correctly. A thief would insist that he have the liberty to pursue his trade. The liar would insist that he has freedom of speech. The rapist; freedom to pursue happiness. And so on.

The state- or any group of citizens acting for the common good- would have to walk a fine line in deciding which rules would be enforced for the basic safety of all.

Some "separate choices" would have to be non-debatable. For example, the murderer might argue that he committed no crime because Mr. Smith was an ape rather than a man.

I understand.

And I am glad that we're on the same side. But your candor allows me to express my concern with theists. People who cleave to liberty as a principle can never be a threat to you, can never be a threat to anyone who isn't intent on threatening, coercing, stealing, or harming someone else. Certainly you can trust any ancap never to initiate force.

But your belief could, and for other Christians and Catholics (and muslims and hindi and any other religion) certainly does, lead them to be a threat to their fellow man.

I realize this is purely speculative between us, but those who utilize faith and belief are always a potential threat to me. In particular statolaters, even if they use Christianity as an excuse to commit violence via the state, (ie progressives) are, have been, and sadly are likely to continue to be, the greatest threat to humans possible.

This is the meaning of my handle. The state is not possible without faith, no religion is. If we only live by facts, logic and evidence we would have no state. But then there would be no Christians either, and in any case I would never condone force to stop faith and belief.

But it is the voluntary rejection of reason, faith, that has caused most of the evil in history. We don't know what a society based on reason would really look like because we've never had one. Faith is too valuable a means of controlling people, but we do know what faith has brought us.

And please understand I'm not equivocating your Christianity, with statolatry, or radical Islam, or any of the obviously infernal religions.

But when it comes down to it, you would disregard the rights of your fellow man if it was required in pursuance of your faith. That's what faith means. If it's rational, it's not faith, there's no point to faith unless you would do something irrational in it's pursuance.

This is essentially Kierkegaard's point.

He meant it as advocacy.

The wise should understand it as what it is, a veiled threat.

Irrational faith is called superstition

Faith is believing something that goes beyond our understanding- not something that contradicts it.


If it goes beyond understanding that means you don't understand it.

Let me clarify. We both agree there are things we don't understand and accept the possibility that there are things we cannot possibly understand.

The difference between us is that you, faithholders and believers, insist that you know anyway.

Any decision past understanding that has no connection to reality, is irrational by definition.

The truth value of something you don't understand cannot be known by you.

Perhaps this will help you understand.

I cannot disprove there is God and God's truth, so let's stipulate it exists. This still doesn't help you because you have no evidenciary or logical way to know what it is.

You can pray for understanding, but ultimately you have to just make an assumption. What we certainly know from history is that when theists make these assumptions are often self serving and murderous. But it's worse than that, since we cannot know what the divine truth is, it may be the case that the justifications for barbarity are the divine unknowable truth.

Or they may not be, but we don't know. We have to have faith one way or another. In fact if faith is to have any value it must be adhered to over evidence. Otherwise why have faith? You don't need faith if you only act from logic and evidence. The whole point of faith is for you to be able to act contrary to what you see.

All that said, I don't insist you be rational. But the irrationality of theists (especially statists) is always a potential threat. Ultimately I can never know if a faithholder will act on evidence or faith, and if on faith, if that action will be moral or immoral.

Since you don't know, you will pray for guidance and hope you received it and understood it, I certainly can't know.

Religionists are always thus a potential threat to their brothers.

I don't feel qualified to answer your points

At least, not to the extent that your arguments warrant. What seems sensible to the simple-minded (like me) might take much deeper thought for the intellectuals. You may need to look a lot farther for some one of that calibre.

For me, the existence of God makes the most sense out of life and true Christian theology fits with all of my inner views. I'm not sure that individuals can be expected to go further than that. You want evidence. Can events experienced by others be reliably accepted as evidence? If so, there is plenty out there to site. *

Why not see this from an internal view? Obviously, you have some sort of idea that murder and aggression is wrong, or at least threatening to you personally. You do not seem inclined to use these same threats for your own self-preservation or benefit. Why? If you could live the easy life by knocking off your fellow man, why wouldn't you?

I'd call it conscience. And I think it is proof that we have something within us holding us to a standard outside of ourselves. A standard that is like a maker's mark or the inheritance/"genes" of the children of God.

I do not accept your idea that faith should be adhered to over evidence. But we might part ways on the definition of evidence. I believe there is a bigger picture than what I can see with my own two eyes.

* Something that might interest you is the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. I am not saying that this is a basis of faith, just that it may be evidence that faith can exist alongside physical, scientific evidence.

For many of us who profess faith

For many, who profess faith, atheism is a natural consequence of faith being a gift of understanding.

All man can do is clear the obstacles to understanding.

The Church's response to the Reformation was the Counter-Reformation. Technically, the Counter-Reformation ended with the Second Vatican Council. But people are rotten, and stubborn.

So it comes down to Market share. The red herring of Saint worship, etc is a counter to equally vile attacks by the Church, in days gone by.

Being misguided is often easier and can be emotionally satisfying, but I agree.

Statism is the religion of the Adversary!

On this thread, true and useful debate has prospered for the most part. I like to read what others think, I am a fool, but not foolish enough to think that I know-it-all.

But, one can only go as far as their understanding takes them. The principles of liberty and tolerance present new possibilities in the history of mankind.

Free includes debt-free!

Hear, Hear Paul.

"But, one can only go as far as their understanding takes them. The principles of liberty and tolerance present new possibilities in the history of mankind".

Only when we can practice universal Tolerance will we be truly Virtuous and Righteous.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

More error

smber2c tells us, "He [Jesus] is also in all things and all people."

Another untrue statement. Now you are a pantheist. God is separate from His creation.

Jesus only indwells those that have accepted Him as savior.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul


...it seemed like smber2c was instead emphasizing that anything *truly* good that any of us do is only made possible by the grace of God acting in us. That's different than equating creatures with the Creator, isn't it?

Consider, also, the ultimate situation which Paul says will be established:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." I Cor. 15:28

So, however you might interpret that, it seems clear that saying 'God is in all' or 'God will be in all' is not necessarily the same thing as saying 'everything is God'.

Catholics did not give us the Bible

smber2c tells us "the silence is very telling" about Christians not answering the question about where the Bible came from.

Like all things Catholic: nonsense.

The Roman Catholic church did not give us the Bible. It didn't even exist at the time the books of the Bible were commonly accepted as canon. Additionally, the Catholic Church has a long history of discouraging laypeople from reading it, claiming only they can interpret it, and even executed people that had a Bible in a language other than Latin.

You can google it, but here are a few brief articles to educate yourself on the subject if you wish:




No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

still you fail to give an answer

You have Bible. I have a Bible. We both call this holy book infallible.

I questioned how we each have come to know this book is correct.

I have explained that I believe it is infallible because the Church says it is. That Jesus, to Peter, etc, etc...passed on the teachings of the Church until the Bible was compiled (obviously I explained far more detail in a post below).

You give no answer but provide 3 links so others can answer for you. Well here is the best answer I saw among them:

"Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?
Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. [...] Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed."

So is that your answer? It was an amorphous group of Christians over the centuries that just kinda decided:
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - In
Revelation -...I guess so.
Gospel of Thomas - nah, we've got 4 of those to transcribe already.

All joking aside; is your answer that our perfect scripture was decided by common consensus of Christians in the centuries after Christ's life? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, I'm asking your understanding. So, is that your position?

Infallible? Do you REALLY believe that?

smber2c: "You have Bible. I have a Bible. We both call this holy book infallible."

Really? Then why are you a Catholic? Catholicism is not in the Bible.

"So is that your answer? It was an amorphous group of Christians over the centuries that just kinda decided:
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - In
Revelation -...I guess so.
Gospel of Thomas - nah, we've got 4 of those to transcribe already."

Christians don't take the Bible as cavalierly as the Catholic Church and you do. The first two links (and many others you can quickly find with google) answer your question – you even quoted a good portion of the answer in your post above. You completely ignored that, just as you ignored the six points I made in this paragraph:

"The Roman Catholic church did not give us the Bible. It didn't even exist at the time the books of the Bible were commonly accepted as canon. Additionally, the Catholic Church has a long history of discouraging laypeople from reading it, claiming only they can interpret it, and even executed people that had a Bible in a language other than Latin."

If you believe the Bible is God's infallible word, then you would believe point number 4 from the page you quoted:

"If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us."

So do you really believe God's word is infallible, or do you believe the Catholic Church over the Bible?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I think you do not answer because you cannot.

Mr. Spock, I'm not sure I've seen someone before try harder to pretend to answer a question through links, sites, and vague references to " 6 points" or "point number 4".

You have not made an answer. Attacking Catholics is not an answer but an attempt to distract from the fact that you are scared to reply.

If the Catholics were wrong, that still would not make your position any more solid. There are more than 2 possibilities. Mormons, Jews, Hindu, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and a millions other possibilities of what is behind the veil. I've not asked to you tell my why another faith is incorrect I'm asking about the foundation of yours.

I also know that it is a "faith" and as such there is a point of leaping, where logic & reason are not enough and one must trust. I'm not asking you to prove God, I'm asking for you to show me where you jumped from.

Neither you nor I can "PROVE" the Bible infallible, but we can answer to others why we have taken that position.

I have explained why I choose to believe the Bible infallible and I've presented numerous reasons why it is hypocritical for anti-Catholics to believing in that same book.

You haven't answered. You haven't even tried to deny my points illustrating the hypocrisy of an anti-Catholic having the Bible in their possession. You've tried to distract and in attempting it so consistently suggest that you are incapable of a response. Your behavior suggest that you cannot respond because once your answer was in print it would either be so hypocritical, so laughable, or so accepting of Catholicism that you cannot permit yourself to take the risk.

Are you so attached to hate for Catholics that you are unwilling to consider they are not in fact evil? Is your determination to attack the Church so ingrained that it prevents you the freedom to consider and discuss the origin and preservation of the Bible through all the centuries between Jesus and today?

I will pray that yours eyes will be open

Many will say "Lord! Lord!" but He will not know you. Do you think denigrating the mother of our Savior is going to help you get to heaven, especially on her birthday? You may have some surprises in store for you. How do you feel if someone ignores or even worse insults your mother? How much worse to do this to Our Lord? Google miracle Fatima Portugal 1917 for starters and tell me we should not be begging for Our Lady, the Queen of Peace's intercession. She is Queen of heaven and earth and if we poor sinners want to touch the heart of Jesus then go to someone He can't refuse, His Mother.


Catholics are necromancers

You cannot "go to" Mary. The Bible condemns witchcraft and necromancy.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Are you saying...

...that a child who tells his mother in heaven, out loud, that he misses her--setting aside the question of whether his mother actually observes him--is engaged in witchcraft/necromancy? Certainly the child's vocalization of his affection for his mother is not the same thing as if the child was engaged in an occult ritual or playing around with mediums and ouija boards and seances in order to contact his mother.

Just because there are wrong ways to attempt to communicate with those in the world beyond does not mean that there are no right ways, or that the intended recipients in fact do not hear these communications. I think it's a grey area, but I don't think it right to equate the attempted voicing of prayer requests to fellow believers in heaven with occult witchcraft and necromancy -- worlds apart, whether or not such attempts are futile.

My grandma died in 1960.

My mom still cries for the friend she misses.

It is a expression of her feelings and very real to her.

Free includes debt-free!


Infiltration methods used on the internet. How to recognize fake bloggers, disinfo agents, misdirection and all those passing themselves off as ordinary net surfers.
"A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole." (My edit: in order to mislead, confuse and misdirect)

Cointelpro and how to recognize disinfo agents
(Always create a division and to stop newcomers coming to site to find out truth.)


Bookended this

The Catholic teachings are so contrary to the Bible in that they even altered and changed the 10 Commandments.

How abominable is that?

You can rest in your false salvation and I will NOT go on and on with you nor anyone about this, but leave it with Him who alone will judge righteously on that last day and I can tell you, anyone praying to Mary, or anyone else other than Almighty God, will be cast into outer darkness on that dreadful day as He will say "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you".

Those are God's word, not mine!

We are told to speak the Truth in love, and this I have done!

I am now done with this matter.

May there be someone here who is yet unsaved, unsure, come to the truth and call upon the One Name who alone can save, the precious name of Jesus!
He will never turn a deaf ear to a truly repentant sinner!

Time is quickly runing out for everyone!


" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

So don't even speak to his mother?

Some of you believe in death too much.

Happy Birthday Mary, full of grace.

Mary can't hear you. Yes she

Mary can't hear you. Yes she was favored by God and yes she was/is a good person. But she has no diety in her at all. He hears no prayers.
How can you speak to her?

But Jesus said:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand."

So Mary, never having perished, can hear us. Did a particular religion teach you otherwise? I am asking in all sincerity.

non sequitur

What a non sequitur. The verse you quoted has NOTHING to do with whether a person in Heaven can hear us - let alone have the power or authority to grant anything we ask.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

You Know,

Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with Jesus in front of a few of His apostles. They were dead by the time Jesus came along, weren't they? How could they appear with Jesus? Mary is alive in heaven. You believe this, since you say "she was/is a good person." So, yes she does hear us. No, she is not a deity, and the Catholic Church does not call her one. She had a very important role as Mother of God - bearing, protecting and nurturing the God-man Jesus during His time on earth. At the foot of the cross, Jesus told John, "Behold your mother," and to Mary regarding John "Behold your son." She became John's mother, and by extension became mother to us all, spiritually. As such, she has become a way for us to approach Jesus. One more thing. There is debate over the passage that states Jesus had "brothers." Some scholars believe the passage means "cousins." If Jesus did have flesh and blood brothers, why did He give Mary into John's care? Wouldn't His flesh and blood siblings take care of her? Why did he have to be buried in a borrowed grave? If he had such an extensive immediate family, why didn't they take His body and bury Him?

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

I will try to answer

The question about Jesus having brothers, is a fact spoken of a number of time in Scripture and He also had sisters, this is VERY clear!

Here are two places:

Mark 6:3
" Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him".

and in Matthew 13:55.56

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us"?

He was burried in a borrowed tomb ( of a rich man being Joseph of Aramathea ) because that was a fulfillment of scripture ( Issaiah 53:9 for one place ) and Jesus from birth to death owned nothing other than His clothing.

Matthew 6:20
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
He was and is King of the universe and yet He owned nothing here on this sin cursed earth.

He came soley to pay for the sins of all who would believe on Him.

Though He owns the entire universe that He created, He became poor while on earth for our sake.

2 Corinthians 8:9

"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich".

I am not sure as to why He gave John to care for His mother and to say why would be speculation.

Hope that helps

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Two errors

JSM says, "Mary is alive in heaven. You believe this, since you say "she was/is a good person.""

Typical error of Catholicism - believing that being a "good person" gets you into Heaven. There are no good persons; "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 That includes Mary.

"She had a very important role as Mother of God"

God does not have a mother. Two examples that show you do not not know the Bible.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul


Mr. Spock,

I was quoting Sierra. I don't think all you have to do is be a good person to get to heaven. God is the judge of hearts and only He knows who is worthy. But, the whole point of Jesus' resurrection was to open the possibility of heaven for us. Are you saying there is nobody in heaven since His resurrection? I also don't see an answer to the question I asked about Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus during the Transfiguration. They were dead. How could they appear with Jesus? Mary bore Jesus, and He *always* had two natures, even in utero, as evidenced by Elizabeth's recognition of His divine nature.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Sorry, YOU said it

I said, "JSM says, "Mary is alive in heaven. You believe this, since you say "she was/is a good person.""

"Typical error of Catholicism - believing that being a "good person" gets you into Heaven."

JSM replies, "No Mr. Spock, I was quoting Sierra."

No, you only quoted Sierra saying, "she was/is a good person." YOU are the one that said she is alive in Heaven. And you claim Sierra agrees with you ("believes this") because he (sorry if Sierra is a girl – I don't know) referred to Mary as a good person. The logical conclusion is you are saying she's in Heaven because she's a good person. That is an error, as I said. And right after that, you state that she can hear us because she IS in Heaven. There is no reason to believe that, either. We don't know if those in Heaven can hear us or not.

Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus because He caused them to supernaturally appear with Him. He's God. He can do what He wants. This has nothing to do with Mary (or anyone else) being able to hear us, to answer our prayers, etc. It is irrelevant. And none of us are worthy to enter Heaven unless we are clothed in Christ's righteousness, which is a gift when we receive His resurrected life – not because we made ourselves righteous through our works, baptism, or anything else apart from Him.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul