Jump to content
The Education Forum

‘A Rogue CIA’ That Can Bully the President

Recommended Posts

I feel sorry for Jews who lack the connection via the Holy Spirit to the rest of the trinity. I dislike Fundamentalst Jews who throw rocks at Christians preaching in the Holy land (Ive posted this YOUTUBE on the forum) and those who claim and publically speak about the genetic superiority to the goyim. (easy to find on internet,not posted by me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I feel sorry for Jews who lack the connection via the Holy Spirit to the rest of the trinity.

I think I can speak for all non-Christians on this site and say we don't want your "pity".

Oh and just wondering, do you think Mormons, Orthodox, Catholics etc. are proper Christians? What about members of Protestant demoninations whose views differ from yours

I dislike Fundamentalst Jews who throw rocks at Christians preaching in the Holy land (Ive posted this YOUTUBE on the forum) and those who claim and publically speak about the genetic superiority to the goyim. (easy to find on internet,not posted by me).

As if there was no shortage of fundamentalist Protestants with odious views/behaviour.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormons are not Christians.




Religion News Blog

Cult FAQ

Cult Experts

Cult Definition

Grace and Mercy

Apologetics Search

Countercult Search




About Apologetics IndexThe Apologetics Index (apologeticsindex.org) 'family of web sites' provides 42,850+ pages of research resources on religious cults, sects, new religious movements, alternative religions, apologetics-, anticult-, and countercult organizations, doctrines, religious practices and world views. These resources reflect a variety of theological and/or sociological perspectives. [More Info]

Popular Entries Emerging Church


Prosperity Teaching

Joel Osteen

Churches That Abuse

Bible Contradictions

Landmark Education


John Hagee

Benny Hinn

Rick Warren

Mormon Church


Joyce Meyer

AI / RNB Highlights The Power of Cults

Who Joins Cults, And Why?

When Spirituality Goes Awry:

Students in Cults

Today's Cults: You Might Not Recognize Them

Cult Information CultFAQ Cult FAQ

CultExperts Cult Experts


Working On It

Apologetics Index is far from complete. Here's a peek at topics we are working on -- along with an explanation about those 'stubs'...

We've Been Busy: Recently Updated below

Mind Control

Heaven's Gate -- Research Resources


Index: S


Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- Research Resources

Michael Rood

Michael Rood -- Research Resources

Polygamy - Research Resources

Hikari no Wa | Circle of Rainbow Light

Spiritual Counterfeits Project - Contact Information

Spiritual Counterfeits Project

Aggressive Christianity Mission Training Corps

Tony Alamo / Alamo Christian Ministries

General Assemblies and Church of the First Born

Rick Ross - Problems with various cult experts

United Effort Plan

Rex Humbard - Research Resources

Rex Humbard

Surrender is not an Option: An Evaluation of Emergent Epistemology

Scientology -- Research Resources: Books

Santa Muerte

Santa Muerte -- Research Resources

International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)


Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ecumenism and the Roman Catholic //// Church Part II Chapter 4

The Book "Recognizing Deception and Apostasy" was written by Dene McGriff.

One of the early signs of apostasy is the ecumenical movement. The only way to bring all the churches together is to compromise the truth. It seeks to dismiss the importance of doctrine (and even criticize it as divisive) and just emphasizes love and forgetting our differences. Some of the liberal churches have already begun to move back into the Catholic fold and many American charismatics have paid homage to the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith. Just watch the rest of the evangelical churches find commonality with Rome.

We need to take a close look at what the Roman Catholic Church believes about itself. We look at the church in America and think it is changing. It is not. It has not changed its official position on any of the major issues: communion, transubstantiation, the deification of Mary, the nature of salvation, purgatory, indulgences, or the fact that any one outside the church is condemned.

Revelation 17 describes a religious beast, “I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, have in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and full of the unclean things of her immorality, and upon her forehead a name was written, a mystery, ‘BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.’ And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered greatly. And the angel said to me, ‘Why do you wonder? I shall tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns... Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. (Revelation 17:3-7, 9,14)

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: The Roman Catholic Church“ is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined.” There is only one church that so proudly traces its origins back to the beginning and only one church that fits the description of Revelation - the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, Bible scholars have agreed that this refers to the Roman Catholic Church, a church that is a mixture of pagan religion, which to this day holds to the same heretical teachings it has promulgated for the last 1900 years. It has not changed. However, as we shall see, there are some historical revisionists who would whitewash the image of the church whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs.


he Roman Catholic Church is described as the Mother of Harlots, which includes those churches that split off from her and will come back under her wing in the “last days.” There never was a doubt that the liberal Protestant churches that belong to the World Council of Churches would come back to the Catholic fold. But until recent years, there was absolutely no thought that the conservative evangelical would ever consider a rapprochement with the Catholic Church. Historically most conservative evangelicals understood what Roman Catholicism practices and stands for. There was no way a Bible believing Christian could ever condone what it believes and does. Something would have to be done to clean up her image or history would have to be rewritten and that is exactly what has happened. Today, we are told the Reformation was just a misunderstanding and the Roman Catholic Church is emerging as the leader of divided Christendom and evangelical churches. The liberal churches are seen as morally bankrupt, the evangelical churches are divided on issues, but the Catholic Church the moral high ground on questions such as divorce, abortion, and homosexuality.

The softening of attitude is going so far that Paul Crouch, president of Trinity Broadcast Network declared that he is "no longer a Protestant because he has nothing to protest." Pat Robertson is sharing the pulpit with archbishops and priests in various forums co-sponsored by the Christian Coalition and the Catholic Church. Christianity Today came out with a series of articles in the December 1994 written by such well-known scholars as J.I. Packer and Charles Swindall. One article suggested that the Reformation was just a semantic misunderstanding and that the Catholic Church always believed in salvation by grace. What a travesty to twist history in such a way!

On March 29, 1994 evangelicals and Catholics signed a joint declaration titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. This paper is signed by forty notable Christian leaders such as Chuck Colson, John Neuhaus, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Jesse Miranda of the Assemblies of God, J.I. Packer, John White of the National Association of Evangelicals, Monsignor William Murphy, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston, Archbishop Francis Stafford and endorses such as Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, Pat Robertson of CBN and many, many more. The purpose of the declaration is to minimize the differences. In fact, some are calling the Reformation a semantic misunderstanding. One of the most well-known Christian apologists says that Catholics “believe in justification by grace” and that differences between Catholics and evangelicals “are not as great as generally perceived and they are not crucial...involve heresy...the whole theological core of historic Christianity is held in common.” (The Southern Cross, January 13, 1994, p. 11 as quoted in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, p. 406) Recently, they made an attempt to define salvation, but even those who developed the statement said it meant different things to each group. Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals use many of the same terms but they mean something completely different to each. Now either we have a huge misunderstanding on our hands or there is a titanic effort at historical revisionism and a cover-up of massive proportions. There are only three possibilities: 1) the Reformation was a mistake, 2) the Roman Catholic Church has changed or 3) our foremost “evangelical” leaders have fallen further into apostasy than anyone ever expected and are leading the church into apostasy. We need to examine the facts.

Evangelicals are so eager to accept Rome’s revisionism that they don’t bother to check the facts. It seems that no sacrifice is too great for evangelicals to further the “unity”. The fact is Vatican II reconfirmed all of the basic teachings evangelicals should abhor: the Eucharist, Mary worship, papal infallibility, purgatory, etc. “This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors...and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence and of the Council of Trent. (Vatican Council II as quoted by Dave Hunt, op.cit., p. 351) This means they haven’t changed! Here is another example, “There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind ‘that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament (i.e. the wafer which they believe has been transformed into Christ’s body) the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church... through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation.” (Vatican Council II as quoted by Dave Hunt, op.cit. p. 368). This teaching of the mass or Eucharist is one of the most onerous anti-Christian teachings of the church and we will get back to this later. When it comes to ecumenism, it is a one-way street. We are the ones that have to change. According to Vatican I and II, the Reformation and we evangelicals are still anathema (condemned) on over 100 points, including believing in salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Pastor Jack Hayford, writes in Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, “Redeeming worship centers on the Lord’s table. Whether your tradition celebrates it as communion, the Eucharist, the Mass or the Lord’s Supper, we are all called to this centerpiece on Christian worship.” A statement such as this should raise a cry from every Bible believing evangelical in the country. Yet, there is silence from leaders across the land. (Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, p. 19) Instead, we have the head of the Vineyard movement lending his support to Catholics: “Wimber is as comfortable with Roman Catholic dogma as he is with evangelicalism. As we have noted, Wimber defends the Catholic claims of healing through relics. He advocates the reunification of Protestants and Catholics. A former associate says, ‘During a Vineyard pastors’ conference, {he} went so far as to ‘apologize’ to the Catholic church on behalf of all Protestants.” In his seminar on church planting, Wimber stated, “the pope by the way is very responsive to the charismatic movement, and is himself a born-again evangelical. If you’ve read any of his texts concerning salvation, you’d know he is preaching the gospel as clear as anybody is preaching it in the world today.” (Phil Arms, Promise Keepers: Another Trojan Horse, p.265 quoting John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p. 148)

These are both ridiculous and blasphemous statements from the highest leadership of evangelical circles! Let’s look at what the Roman Catholic Church is and stands for and see if these statements can be justified.

What Does the Roman Catholic Church Believe?

Although there may be some "born again" Catholics, the question is, has the Roman Catholic

Church officially changed any of its historic positions? The answer is no! In fact, Vatican II and every council and edict since confirmed these positions. Exactly what does the Roman Catholic Church believe? Unfortunately, because of the vastness of this subject, I will only highlight a few. All of these points can be fully documented. The following are just a few of the historic and present day positions of the church, which are absolutely opposed to historic Bible, centered Christianity:

The Catholic Church teaching and tradition are equal to the Scripture even though traditions are often inconsistent and contradictory.

An infant is saved through the sacrament of baptism, which removes "original sin."

God forgives sin through the Church, specifically the judicial act of the priest following confession and contrition.

The atonement of Christ is not sufficient - the sacrament of the Eucharist converts the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ through a process called "transubstantiation. The bread and wine are worshipped as God.

Only a priest can administer these sacraments.

Mary is the sinless Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and co-Redeemer, sitting at the right hand of God mediating for us. People worship and pray to Mary as well as saints.

The Roman Pontiff is the head of the church and the representative and authority of God on the earth.

The Pope is infallible and the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

From an eschatological or "last days" point of view, the Roman Catholic Church sees itself exercising dominion over the earth. The Vatican is a country with embassies in most countries throughout the world.

Indulgences, purgatory, praying to the dead, etc.

When it comes to salvation, semantics are subtle but important. They say they believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. They believe Christ died for their sins but that salvation comes through the Roman church. There is a one-time salvation through infant baptism, which is imparted by the church. But salvation is literally imparted by the priests as a member partakes in the mass. The Scripture says that “Christ entered in once into the holy place to obtain our salvation” (Hebrews 9:12). To say that “the priest is indispensable, since he alone by his powers can change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ” is an abomination (John A. Hardon, Picket Catholic Dictionary, Doubleday, 1966, p. 249). The more Masses they attend the better because they are physically eating and drinking Jesus Christ. The true gospel of grace is denied by the teaching that ‘merits and graces” won by Christ are dispensed by installment each time they participate in the mass. To turn a wafer and wine into Christ’s flesh and blood through transubstantiation is not only blasphemous but also ridiculous! Please notice that the laity only has a “relationship with God” through the mediation of the priests and the Church.

To acknowledge the priesthood of Rome is to deny the priesthood of Christ and the believer. To accept the mass and the Eucharist is to deny the efficacy of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Many Catholics may not be fully aware of what the church teaches and others may not agree with them. Of course there are some saved Catholics, but one would have to think that anyone who fully understands, could not continue in the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism and true Christianity are diametrically opposed. The path to unity is to overlook their positions on essential truths. We can have unity with the Roman Catholic Church at the expense of the truth or we can have truth.

We could spend a lot of time on the Roman Catholic Church. There is so much that can be said. But here are just a few examples. Their claim that there is an unbroken succession of Pope’s is historically inaccurate. There are huge gaps. There are times when there was no Pope and others with more than one Pope. Further, many of the Popes down through the ages as confirmed by many solid historical accounts were involved in the most heinous sin, immorality, and crimes against humanity. There is a lot of documentation, so if you are interested, please check it out. There are so many inconsistencies as to be laughable. Priests married for a thousand years but once it was forbidden, the only sin was marriage - not fornication. The Vatican became the home of one of the biggest brothels the world has ever known. Rome - the mother of harlots. “Popes had mistresses of fifteen years of age, were guilty of incest and sexual perversions of every sort, had innumerable children, were murdered in the very act of adultery....In the old Catholic phrase, why be holier than the Pope?” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, pp.396-397)

I will only deal in depth with one other topic and that is Mary worship. Many deny that this takes place, but just listen to the Rosary - Mary is more prominent than Jesus Christ Himself. I have been in and out of churches all over Europe and Latin America, and it is obvious who is at center stage -Mary! The current Pope goes to Mexico and venerates Our Lady of Guadalupe. He is convinced that the Fatima visions will restore Mary to her rightful place. The Immaculate Conception is Mary - the Co-Redeemer. Mary is venerated far above God or Jesus. This is blasphemous and superstitious at best, and Satanic at worst.

Let us be clear, the Roman Catholic Church believes it is the only true Church, that it alone provides the sacraments which lead to salvation and that it can never share that distinction with others. So where does that leave Paul Crouch, Benni Hinn, Bill McCartney (founder of Promise Keepers), J.I. Packer, Charles Swindall and even Billy Graham and many others who believe they hold to the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith and are “brothers and sisters in Christ?” I am ashamed and embarrassed to say it but one day history will show that people like Billy Graham and Bill Bright (founder of Campus Crusade) have done more for the ecumenical movement than anyone. Graham has always worked with the Catholic Church and sent people “saved” in his crusades back to the Catholic Church - back to what? - back to an apostate cult! Bright and a number of other ministries agreed to not try and proselytize Catholics in Colorado Springs because “we are all Christians.”

Brothers and sisters, I could go on and on and on, but don’t you see something wrong? Thirty years ago we evangelicals expected the liberal World Council of Churches members to end up in the Catholic fold, but one would have never expected a fundamental church such as the Baptists to ever even consider it. Yet today, we see a quantum shift. Today evangelicals are leading the bandwagon to celebrate a Jubilee 2000 and a Papal Mass for as many as 5 billion! Evangelical leaders are flocking to Rome to kiss the Papal ring! So where does this leave their flocks?

If there were only one sign of the Apostate Church that should make every true Christian sit up and take note, it is this rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, although there are a number of voices crying in the wilderness, few take note. Dave Hunt, whose excellent book, A Woman Rides the Beast, brought nothing but ridicule from the establishment. Where are the watchmen? Where are the spiritual leaders? Where is the cry of protest from today’s spiritual giants at this travesty? Our so-called evangelical leaders are strangely silent. Many of the leaders of the New Revival - the Vineyards, Kansas City Prophets, and most dominionists have pilgrimaged to Rome. The Promise Keepers and similar men and women’s organizations promote an ecumenical agenda, as do most para-church organizations such as YWAM, Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, etc. There are very few left who haven’t jumped on the bandwagon.

This just came out on the Internet on May 1, 1998. “Kampen, The Netherlands, 28 April (ENI)--Dr. Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, has renewed his call for the main Christian churches to start, in the year 2000, a process to lead to a universal Christian council uniting all churches and Christians.

Speaking at the opening of the Dutch Kerkendag (church day) on Saturday, 25 April, Dr. Raiser said that in the year 2000, leaders of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and Pentecostal churches should make a solemn promise not to rest until such a council had been achieved.”

I used to think, hey just think of all the “born again” charismatic Catholics! They must be Christians. Now I realize that speaking in tongues is not necessarily evidence of being “born again.” Mormons, Buddhists and Hindus, and most other religions have this phenomena. If all of these people were truly saved, I doubt the Lord would allow them to stay in such an idolatrous institution. The Lord doesn’t say stay and evangelize, he says get out of that apostate church lest you partake of her plagues! I know too many Catholics that are truly “born again” and the last thing they would do is to back to the Roman Catholic Church. Those of us who are “evangelicals” are the naive ones who fail to recognize the utter evil of the Harlot church.

Why has this happened? Why have we drifted so far? First, I think it is because we are in the last days. It was prophesied to happen and it is. Second, Christians are Bible illiterates, and are not grounded in the faith. But third, you have to lay the blame squarely on the leadership. There isn’t a single Bible School or Seminary in the country that is untouched by this apostasy. The pastors and professionals are leading the trusting flock - a good argument for not being a dumb sheep.

Anyone who would question is considered to be rebellious, not under authority, a troublemaker, negative, unloving, divisive, a heresy hunter. People who resist the rush to unity are ridiculed, and marked. It is incredibly frustrating because people will not discuss the issues. They attack the person. I used to ask my pastor, have you ever read this book or that, and he would reply, “oh no, that is too negative.” These people are afraid to be informed about the issues! And they are our leaders! Dear readers, if you remember nothing else, please don’t forget this. There is a move that calls for unity at any cost. Instead of being a protection for the believer, doctrine is considered divisive. The whole Word of God is no longer the standard, but the five essentials (e.g. as defined by the Promise Keepers) or whatever the number may be. This will be defined by the experts, so don’t bother to argue. Who are you? What are your credentials? This is a juggernaut, which will run through the churches of this land, so be careful if you get in the way. You will be run over, mowed down, personally discredited.

I am frankly disgusted as I read one book after another on the “last days.” They warn that the real threat to the church is the New Age movement. They think the threat is from the Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, the Universalist or the modern New Ager who sits in the lotus position and meditates. The threat is not from without but from within! It is coming from the evangelical church, which has embraced the most New Age humanistic pseudoscience ever concocted by man. This isn’t my bright idea. Why can’t our leaders see it? We opened our doors wide and invited humanism into the church and few there are that have not been affected by it! Let’s examine how leaven affects the church.


Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone gives a toss what an obscure but long-winded author from an obscure website thinks about Catholicism; I asked you for your views. So are Catholics and Orthodox real Christians? Will moral ones be saved? // end Colby


Its not about being good. Its about forgiveness. All men are sinners coming short of the Glory

of God. God can forgive you,wants to forgive you.

Come to God with a contrite and confessional heart. Recognize Christ's torture to death sacrifice with his being raised from the dead and his LORDSHIP over all Creation. Open your heart,let Christ rule in it and he will create in you the most fantastic and precious thing ,AGAPE LOVE. You dont deserve this but by Gods grace (unmerited favor) you can receive this and eternal life in Gods presence.

Why not let Christ in Len ? BTW The science is on my side of things, try reading Signiture In The Cell by Meyers.


There are numerous apostasies of the offical Catholic doctrine . A individual Catholic can be saved ,however, they must not accept offical Catholic doctrine.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy (background )



Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

by Matt Slick

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

The "Real Presence" is the term referring to Christ's actual presence in the elements of the bread and the wine that have been transubstantiated.

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.

The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord's Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are miraculously changed, even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ. Synonymous with transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence. Where transubstantiation is the process of the change, the real presence is the result of that change. In other words, the doctrine of the real presence states that the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Christ in bodily form as a result of the process of transubstantiation. Roman Catholicism states that the incarnation of Christ itself, where Jesus was a man but contained an invisible divine nature, is analogous to the the doctrine of the real presence.

Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following:

•Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

•John 6:52-53, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'"

•1 Cor. 11:27, " Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."




Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let's take a look. First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal.

No where in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood..." and "This is my body..." This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc. Jesus often spoke in figurative terms and in the context of Jesus telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood, He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63).

After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), He said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was His literal blood? We can clearly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively.



- there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. There simply isn't any indication of this. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood? That would be ridiculous.



- there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, "Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to God alone."1 Where is the worship given the sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there.



- the supper was instituted before Jesus' crucifixion

The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become broken body and shed blood of Christ and represent the crucifixion ordeal. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it actually became His sacrificial body -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.



-the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic, it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.



- It is a violation of the incarnation

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This "became flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time and He will forever be God and man.

Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man -- since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always, even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated.

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent, not in His human nature, but in His divine nature.

To make this more clear, let's look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum:

•John 17:5, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."

•John 3:13,"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man."

Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is because the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another -- the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.



- the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith, not by a ceremony.


It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical. For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord's supper. It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works. Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

•"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).

•"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).

•"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).

•"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith," (Rom. 4:13).

•"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).

•"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9).


1. http://www.vatican.v...sterium_en.html

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW The science is on my side of things, try reading Signiture In The Cell by Meyers.

So you're a creationist? Why am I not surprised? Meyers isn't a scientist. The number of people with advanced degrees in biology, biochemistry, zoology etc. who are creationists is miniscule. But what does that have to do with which branch of Christianity (if any) is closer to divine truth?

A individual Catholic can be saved ,however, they must not accept offical Catholic doctrine.

So a 'good Catholic', good as in one who follows his or her religion's teachings, will face eternal damnation, this applies then to Mormons (not even Christians according to you), Orthodox Christians and obviously Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Baha’is, atheists, anamists etc. What about Protestants denominations whose views differ from yours? I assume you're some sort of Baptist or Pentecostalist, what then will become of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians etc. can they like Catholics only be saved if they do “not accept” the “offical [sic]...doctrine” of their religions?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not about being good. Its about forgiveness. All men are sinners coming short of the Glory

of God. God can forgive you,wants to forgive you.

Come to God with a contrite and confessional heart. Recognize Christ's torture to death sacrifice with his being raised from the dead and his LORDSHIP over all Creation. Open your heart,let Christ rule in it and he will create in you the most fantastic and precious thing ,AGAPE LOVE. You dont deserve this but by Gods grace (unmerited favor) you can receive this and eternal life in Gods presence.

Why not let Christ in Len ? BTW The science is on my side of things, try reading Signiture In The Cell by Meyers.




Military-Industrial Complex from Eisenhower to Obama




The $1 trillion national security budget


There is a reason why neither Obama or Romney, nor even the Democratic and Republican party establishments, are discussing the $1 trillion national security budget. On foreign policy, there is a bipartisan consensus within the American foreign policy establishment that the United States should remain the world’s top hegemonic power. Very, very few politicians in either political party question the wisdom of maintaining a global empire. This is because they believe that American global hegemony is a good thing and receive campaign contributions from multinational corporations that benefit from empire.


Transcript of President Barack Obama's Remarks to the Intelligence Community at CIA Headquarters

To see video of the remarks, visit the White House YouTube Channel.*



TO summarize OBAMA


Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have to resort to simply repeating yourself you've lost. You indicated a Catholic could only be saved if they reject their church's doctrines, thus most will face damnation and the same applies to Orthodox Christians, Mormons and non-Christians. What about the various Protestant denominations, do the followers of some of them have to reject their churches' doctrines to be saved? Which denominations are close enough to your interpretation that their followers can go to heaven?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO summarize OBAMA




The Wide Gate or the Narrow Gate

Matthew 7:13-27

by Paul George

The Lord Jesus Christ, in this great Sermon on the Mount, has distinguished His kingdom from that of contemporary Judaism, while identifying it with that spoken of in the Old Testament. As He concludes this sermon, we come to the bottom line, the destiny-deciding hour of decision. It is not just enough to hear His words; they must be acted upon. In this concluding section, Jesus put before His audience the choice which every man must make, the choice between mere religion and Christianity. In verses, 13 and 14 we have the two gates, in verses 15-23 we are encouraged to distinguish between the two kinds of guides, and in verses 24-27, we see the two foundations upon which men build their lives.

Many people today believe that God’s kingdom is governed on the same basis as our nation, democracy, if this was true then the right way to heaven would be that of the majority. Although the nation Israel knew nothing of democracy as we have it, they, too, were inclined to follow the majority in spiritual matters.

When Jesus concluded His message, He told His listeners that if they were to enter into His kingdom, they must “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

Jesus made it clear that there are only two gates, only two paths, only two destinies before every man, and each of us must choose one or the other. This may seem surprising to some. Many believe, even in the Christian community, that men are confronted with an almost infinite number of alternatives to them. It is not a choice between only two options, but of many. Among so many alternatives, how can a man choose the right one? Because of this dilemma, many have concluded “all roads lead to heaven” and that it matters little which one we would choose. However, Jesus narrows our choices to only two: religion and Christianity. Religion, in brief, can be defined as man’s efforts to reach God, while Christianity is God reaching down to man. Religion rests upon man’s work for God; Christianity on God’s work on behalf of men.

The small gate is the entrance to the narrow way, the way which leads to eternal life. That gate is our Lord Jesus Himself. In the words of the Savior: “… Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep… I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture… I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:7, 9, 11).

In another place, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). God’s only provision for man’s salvation and entrance to the kingdom is through faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah and our Savior.

However, why is the gate small and the way narrow, simply because it is restrictive. It is not that the gate is poorly marked, for Jesus publicly pointed out that He was God’s provision for the forgiveness of sins and entrance into eternal life. The gate is narrow only because it is exclusive and restrictive. Men can approach God only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:11). Furthermore, men enter into the kingdom one at a time, as through a turn-style. This is because men must be saved by a personal act of faith. We are never saved in clusters, but individually. To be saved men cannot add to or take away from God’s one way of salvation.

While God’s way of salvation is exclusive and restrictive, the gate to hell is broad and inviting. You can go to hell as an atheist or an agnostic. You can go there under any denominational label. You can go as a preacher, priest, rabbi or layman.

If you want to enter God’s kingdom, do not follow the crowds, but trust in the Son of God who died for your sins and who offers to give you His righteousness. Do not attempt to add to or take away His means of salvation, for in this God is rigid and unbending. He will not tolerate or accept any other means of salvation, for He must receive all the glory and the praise. “Salvation is of the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us (Psalm 3:8).

Now this is precisely what really irritates unbelievers, “Why do you Christians think you have the only way?” The answer, God has declared in His word that there is no other way of salvation than through faith in His Son. While Christians may wrongly convey an exclusive and superior attitude, God has declared that there is only one way to heaven. Men would gladly choose any other way than God’s way because all other ways allow men to keep their pride, their possessions, and their preferences. God will have none of that. Men are not perturbed at the fact that there is really only one answer, but over the realization that this way is not one that appeals to them in their sinful state. The way of our Lord is not that of the majority.

Your eternal destiny hangs upon your choice between two alternatives. You may go the tolerant and accommodating way which is well traveled and on which you will have a great deal of company. However, in the final analysis you will find this is the way of destruction. On the other hand, you may take the narrow and restrictive way of faith in Jesus Christ. This is the way that leads to life. You will never walk alone, but neither will you be with the majority. Your path may be narrow, but your destiny is sure. Jesus Christ confronts every man with this choice.

The decision that every man must make is not an easy one, for there are many godless guides who would lead us to the wide gate and the way that leads to destruction. These false prophets are not only blind themselves, but they lead others to destruction with them. Those who submitted to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day followed them on the path that led to destruction. Above all else, the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and put Him to death. No wonder we find our Lord warning His listeners about false prophets: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

False prophets are particularly dangerous because they appear to be genuine. They seemingly have the credentials of authority. What are these credentials? Jesus calls them ‘sheep’s clothing’ (verse 15). The outward forms would incline one to believe these false prophets to be reliable guides. They may wear distinctive clothing that sets them apart as leaders. They may have the title “reverend.’ They may be men who hold positions of religious leadership. They may well have graduated from a divinity school. Indeed, they might even be seminary professors. Judging based on external indications we might wrongly assume them to be reliable guides, but we cannot evaluate on such external evidence. Judging by external forms is risky; judging, if you prefer, discerning, based on the fruits they produce is accurate. “The proof of the root is in the fruit.” Good trees produce good fruit, and rotten trees, bad fruit. A dependable assessment of those who would be guides is that of their fruits (v 20).

What are these fruits? One must be very careful here, for false prophets are not without religious activities. A false prophet is often accompanied by deceptive signs and by seeming wonders. Some of these are suggested in verse 22: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’” We should expect false prophets to engage in acts of kindness and charity. We should expect them to perform deeds that suggest miraculous power. In addition, we should expect that these deeds be performed under the pretext of being done by God’s power and to His glory.

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

We should expect false prophets to be accompanied by religious works. If these religious activities are not the fruits of which Jesus spoke, what are they? The Scriptures frequently describe the fruits of the false prophets, so that we are left with little doubt as to what we should look for, first, false prophets speak from their own delusion, not by divine command (Jeremiah 23:16,21,25; Ezekiel 13:2). They do not proclaim or defend God’s word, but deny it (Jeremiah 23:17). In particular they deny unpleasant subjects such as impending judgment (Jeremiah 6:14; 28:17; Ezekiel 13:10). They offer temporary and partial relief to pressing problems (Jeremiah 8:11). Mainly, they tell people precisely what they want to hear (1 Kings 22:8, 13; 2 Timothy 4:3-4). Concerning the way of salvation they deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and they reject the work of Christ on the cross (2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:2-3).

Second, the teachings of the false prophets invariably leads to a rejection of God’s word, a rejection of biblical authority, a division among the saints (Jeremiah 23:2,14) and a life of sensuality (2 Peter 2:2). They attempt to lead men away from the truth of the gospel (Acts 13:8), and to deceive genuine Christians (Mark 13:22).

Third, the false prophets are easily distinguished by their pride (2 Peter 2:10), their greed (Jeremiah 8:10; Titus 1:11; 2 Peter 2:3, 14) and immorality (Jeremiah 23:11, 14; 2 Peter 2:14). They are men dominated by the flesh (2 Peter 2:10, 12; 3:3). They prey upon the weak and the guilt-ridden (2 Timothy 3:6-7; 2 Peter 2:14, 13). While they profess to know God, by their deeds they deny Him (Matthew 7:22-23; 2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:16). While they delight in authority, they refuse to submit to it (2 Peter 2:10).

The primary purpose of these teachings of Jesus in these verses is an exhortation to put into practice, to apply the teaching of Jesus Christ in a personal way.

The wise man is he who hears the teaching of Jesus and applies His teaching to the matter of his personal salvation. We must take the step of entrusting our eternal destiny to Jesus Christ based on His word and His work. Beyond this, we must continue to endeavor to apply His teaching in our everyday lives.

The reason why one house fell and the other stood is that one had a sure foundation, while the other did not. The solid foundation is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man (v 24).

Both men built a house. The only difference in the houses is the foundations. One was built upon rock, and the other on sand. The one house was built upon our Lord’s teaching, while the other was built apart from it.

The sad fact of life is that men and women are building their entire lives, they are staking their eternal destiny, not upon the Word of God, but on their own pre-conceived notions and preferences. “Well, I like to think of God as …” Here is the bottom line. Here is what distinguishes true Christianity from every other religion, its foundation, its ultimate source of authority.

Whether we enter either the narrow gate or the wide one the end of each pathway is still well out of sight. In the case of the false prophets, their ultimate identity is not certain until our Lord in the Day of Judgment judges them. So also, the foundation upon which one builds his life is not tested until the great storm comes. We will not learn the folly of choosing the wrong gate, the wrong guide, or the wrong foundation until it is too late to reverse our destiny.

May I ask you, my friend, what gate you have chosen? You must choose one and your choices are limited to the narrow gate of salvation through faith in Christ or the wide gate which leads to destruction by trusting in whatever you choose.

Just as there are two gates, there are two guides. Based on surface appearances, one cannot tell the difference. However, when their fruits are examined the false can always be identified. Their doctrine does not conform to the Word of God. The Scriptures condemn their moral lives. The impact of their ministry to others is devastating and destructive.

Our Lord did not leave us this sermon to satisfy our curiosities. What He taught demands decision. His Word points out the narrow gate as the way of salvation. It also exposes false guides who would lead us astray. Finally, it provides us with a sure foundation on which to build our lives.

Have you passed through that narrow gate? Have you trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as the door of salvation? Do you believe in Him as the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)? Is the Word of God your foundation and your guide?

Someday we must all stand before the One Who uttered these words and give account to Him as the God and Judge of the universe. May it be that He shall say, “Well done, good and faithful servant enter into the joy of your Master” (Matthew 25:21).

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the dodge Gaal? You're the one who injected religion into this, you told us a Catholic can only be saved if they do “not accept offical Catholic doctrine”. I asked you if this applies to Orthodox Christians and Protestants from denominations different from yours. Why can't you give us a straight answer? Members of which Protestant denominations have to reject their churchs' doctrines to be saved? How can you worship a God you believe will condemn the vast majority of humanity to eternal damnation (suffering) based on accidents of birth? The vast majority of people follow their parent's religion, which in turn is normally shaped by geography and ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wow a reply in 8 minutes, it seems you have unlimited time and use it to constantly monitor and make posts on this site. You posted the above before 8AM your time shouldn't a good bible thumper like you be at church? // END COLBY POST # 13

POST # 27 COLBY You're the one who injected religion into this



very complex question by Colby answered.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wow a reply in 8 minutes, it seems you have unlimited time and use it to constantly monitor and make posts on this site. You posted the above before 8AM your time shouldn't a good bible thumper like you be at church? // END COLBY POST # 13

POST # 27 COLBY You're the one who injected religion into this


That was a rhetorical question.


very complex question by Colby answered.


Still doesn't account for people exposed to Christianity but choose to practice other religions and for Christians who don't adhere to the right denomination(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not surprised? Meyers isn't a scientist POST #23 //end Colby


Stephen C. Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and a founder both of the intelligent design movement and of the CSC, intelligent design’s primary intellectual and scientific headquarters. Dr. Meyer is a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, the author of peer-reviewed publications in technical, scientific, philosophical and other books and journals. His signal contribution to ID theory is given most fully in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, published by HarperOne in June 2009.

While other scientists and writers on the general subject of ID have debunked Darwinian theory by focusing on discrete aspects of life’s history and complexity -- the Cambrian explosion, gaps in the fossil record, irreducibly complex features like the bacterial flagellum or the mechanism of blood clotting, and the like -- Meyer’s research goes to the very source of the mystery of life: its origin, and more specifically the origin of biological information as represented in DNA. Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but of a fundamental constituent of the universe, namely information.

Meyer has argued that the intelligent design field is still in its infancy and that vital evidence of a designer’s “signature” on life only emerged as recently as just 10-15 years ago. His work in biological information represents the cutting edge of the argument for design.

Graduating from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science, he later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation. As a Rotary International Scholar, he received his training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, earning a PhD in 1991. His thesis offered a methodological interpretation of origin-of-life research.

He returned to Whitworth College in 1990 to teach philosophy. He left Whitworth in 2002, giving up a tenured position, to found and direct the CSC at Discovery Institute.

Prior to the publication of Signature in the Cell, the piece of writing for which Meyer was best known was an August 2004 review essay in the Smithsonian Institution-affiliated peer-reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article laid out the evidential case for intelligent design, that certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

Because the article was the first peer-review publication in a technical journal arguing for ID, the journal’s editor, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, was punished by his Smithsonian supervisors for allowing Meyer’s pro-ID case into print. This led to an investigation of top Smithsonian personnel by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, widely covered in the media, including the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. The federal investigation concluded that Sternberg had been wrongly disciplined and intimidated. The case led to widespread public indignation at the pressures placed on Darwin-doubting scientists not only at the Smithsonian but at universities around the U.S. and elsewhere.

Meyer’s many other publications include a contribution to, and the editing of, the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004) and the innovative textbook Explore Evolution (Hill House Publishers, 2007).

Meyer has been widely featured in media appearance on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, PBS, and the BBC. In 2008, he appeared with Ben Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. He’s also featured prominently in two other science documentaries, Icons of Evolution and Unlocking The Mystery of Life.


SEE http://www.icr.org/

see also



Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...