Posted by Job on May 14, 2008
It fits, as belief in aliens is vital to some strands of New Age. New Age and Roman Catholic mysticism are vital components to the global religion of the anti – Christ. That is a topic that Justthebook.WordPress.com investigates deeply.
This entry was posted on May 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm and is filed under Christianity, abomination, antichrist, apostasy, blasphemy, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, great tribulation. Tagged: aliens, apocalypse, cult, endtimes, eschatology, extraterrestrial, mystery babylon, mysticism, New Age, one world religion, religion, Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, space aliens. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TTM said
Hiya,
I hope you don’t mind me commenting briefly from a Catholic perspective.
The news page has expired, but I imagine that would be a private opinion of the Vatican astronomer? There is a diversity of opinions on the matter, even in non-Catholic churches. Here’s a Catholic website that calls UFO sightings, ‘the great deception’: http://www.spiritdaily.com. So to be fair, it’s at the level of private opinion rather than doctrine.
If you click on my name, the page also links to the Vatican’s document on the New Age (which is much more official), which basically says it’s incompatible with the Catholic faith. I also agree as a Catholic that the New Age phenomenon is against the Apostolic Tradition.
Hope that helps.
Independent Conservative said
TTM, is Mary a mediator between God and man?
TTM said
Hi IC,
to answer your question, allow me to ask you a question first. Do you ever pray for your friends? Have you ever been involved in intercessory prayers and ministries?
I Timothy 2:1–7 begins with this:
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men”
So how is it that Paul asks us to become universal mediators – that is, to intercede for all men to God? Does this not usurp the one mediatorship of Christ, our High Priest? (Hebrews 6:20)
I Peter 2:5 further states:
“…and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
Say, it seems that the whole People of God is a priesthood. How is this possible, since priests act as mediators between God and men?
Ah, but is not the People of God the Church, and the bride of Christ? And is not the bride of Christ one in flesh with him (Ephesians 5:21-32)? Aren’t we therefore the body of Christ for this reason (I Corinthians 12:12-13,27)?
Indeed, we all partake in Christ’s own priesthood through our union with the Head. Whatever the head does, body does also, since they are of the one person. Should this be surprising? There are more astonishing things than this: through our union with Him in baptism, (Romans 6:5) we partake in the same Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4) and divine nature (II Peter 1:4).
Now, this priesthood is the basis for Mary’s mediation – as well as all the Saints on earth, and in heaven. The body of Christ does not cease to exist in heaven – it is consummated there in the marriage feast of the lamb (Revelation 19:7-9). Is it any wonder that their absolute union with Christ would be more powerful than the prayers of the body of Christ on earth?
Why is Mary singled out, then? I think that would be a good question. One key to this is the Early Church’s regard for her as the New Eve – the new ‘helper’ fit to accompany the Second Adam, (Gen 2:18) in order to bring about the redemption of man in the same manner as the fall – a couple who complete the image of God, and are representative of the whole of mankind (Gen 1:27).
For further details, please see my posts on Saintly intercession and on the Blessed Virgin Mary. I only pray and ask for a humble openness in considering it, not for my sake but for the sake of God who, in sincerity, I believe is the revealer. You can make up your own mind, of course.
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
I looked at your website. I was particurally intrgued by your type and figures.
Unfortunately the issue of Mary is only the tip of the iceberg of problems with the Catholic Church. The whole idea that the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is troubling. Jesus is the head of the church. Popes have contradicted one another and have taught things contrary to the Bible.
I would urge you to read the New Testament and pretend that you never heard of God at all. Examine things in context and see what God has established. If I may be so bold it seems to me that you are taking an idea you wish to be true and are finding a way for scripture to validate it. You must go to the scriptures to allow them to direct you.
Mary is never mentioned as queen of heaven. She is never given power to intercede. The immaculate conception is not in the Bible nor is the assumption. Does Mary have a special place in God’s eye? Yes, but no more than any saint. (Saint used as the Bible does means a believer.)
The Pope, the deification of Mary, the office of Cardinal, Bishops unmarried, a priesthood above believers, confession of sins to a man, lack of independent congregations, worship of saints, the sacrament of confirmation, infant baptism, transubstantiation, the diabolical and anti Christ history of the church (the inquisition and crusades in particular), the holiness of a building, calling priests father, the apocrypha, the office of nuns and monks, purgatory, salvation by works, mass performed daily(which is actually thought to be crucifying Christ over) are just somethings that are in error without really getting deep into the Word of God.
The Catholic Church is far away from the Church taught about in the Bible.
Love,
John
Independent Conservative said
TTM, John Kaniecki tells you the truth. And I asked my question, to see if you were someone who stood on scripture or Roman Catholic tradition. It’s apparent you stand on the latter.
You’re trying to have it both ways, but let’s see what the scripture you cited says in full and I’ll include one additional verse for clarity:
1 Timothy 2:1-8 (New American Standard Bible)
An apostle of the Lord Jesus makes it clear, that saints (saints being all who believe on the Lord Jesus as Christ, not some group Roman Catholics deemed to be “saints”) should pray and that there is ONE MEDIATOR between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Mary did not “suffer” for my sins, Jesus gave Himself as the ransom and He paid the price for my salvation, not Mary. The first Adam needed a helper, Jesus (the last Adam) does not need a helper and your talk of a “New Eve” is ubbiblical heretical garbage. There are no “universal mediators” and the apostle Paul never says such. God, through Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit has Paul note there is ONE mediator, not a “universal” set of “mediators”. Mary is no mediator and neither are you. So you’ve embraced a Roman Catholic tradition, that fails to agree with the written letter of the apostle to his evangelist Timothy. You are out of agreement with a true letter of true apostolic office. You are promoting another doctrine, a false doctrine, that does not agree with the Word of God. Because it is God who inspired the apostle’s hand to write.
No matter what anyone before our lifetime said, once you fall out of agreement with the scriptures, you’re promoting a false doctrine. What the sum total of Roman Catholic tradition is, is another gospel, a false gospel, that claims people should send prayers through people such as Mary. That is false and idolatry. So I can only say to you, flee that idolatry, 1 Corinthians 10:14. You’re being led astray, by men who fit the mold of the Pharisees Christ spoke of in Matthew 23.
Roman Catholicism Versus The Bible. As Always, Bible Wins! (*Updated*)
TTM said
Hi John, IC,
firstly, allow me to say that there are reasonable answers to all the objections you have raised with regard to various Catholic doctrines and practices. I would not have remained a Catholic after my conversion otherwise.
Secondly, I request that if this dialogue is to continue, that it would be as objective and fair as possible, so that we listen to one-another carefully and considerately (not dismissively), being open to whatever truth that is in the other’s argument (since all truth is God’s truth). Often the a priori assumptions we have are not the genuine faith at all, but the golden calf of our own ego, and of our own making. So, please be open to genuine challenges to any presuppositions, out of humility, openness to divine grace, and respect for the truth.
Thirdly, I ask that we explore one issue at a time. It’s easy to make one’s position seem strong and the other position weak by listing a certain set of issues, without having discussed any of them.
Finally, I ask that we only continue this discussion if we can agree on the above two requests. Would that be fair enough?
TTM said
In the meantime, I’d like to offer several resources that may answer the many questions you have raised so far.
One of the principal human failing with regard to trut, it would seem, is the tendency to make hasty generalisations (or so observed Francis Bacon). As such, please keep in mind my requests above in exploring them.
• The Catholic Faith booklet – fictional dialogues collected and compiled by myself. Topics include the Papacy, Eucharist, Confession, Mary, Praying to the Saints, and Purgatory. Includes a comprehensive Scripture ‘cheat sheet’.
• Scott Hahn, Answering Common Ojbections – MP3 audio lectures, from a former presbyterian and self-confessed anti-Catholic minister turned Catholic apologist, discusses the Papacy, Saints, Mary, Eucharist, etc.
• Catholic Answers – for any other objections and questions, this site is bound to have the answers (through ‘quick search’).
I hope this helps.
TTM said
> “…with regard to trut…”
That, of course, should have read, “with regard to truth…
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
I will attempt to look into the matter if I have the time. I came from the Catholic Church and I know the scriptures. On my objections I am certain scripture is in my favor. Nevertheless I will look into your sites.
Love,
John
TTM said
John,
thank you for your humble openness. That is all I could ask for. God bless, and feel free to discuss with me anything here, or on my ‘blog.
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
I tried to access your first site and failed. I then got into Catholic answers but didn’t look at it much.
Let’s start with a very simple and clear topic Bishops. In 1 Timothy 3:2 it states a bishop must be married. Later in verse 4 and five it states he must have children. verse 5 reads (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?)
Now in Titus 1:6 it again says that a bishop must have one wife and have faithful children.
Now those scriptures are very clear and simple and are not taken out of context. Paul is directing his young friends to appoint Bishops in various congregations. Being married and having children are a required.
I will be awaiting your comments.
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
regarding the first link, try right clicking on it and downloading the linked file – it’s a PDF document. You may need Adobe Acrobat, if you don’t have it installed.
TTM said
Dear John,
you wrote:
> “In 1 Timothy 3:2 it states a bishop must be married. Later in verse 4 and five it states he must have children. ”
Let’s read 1 Timothy 3 in context. It reads:
“The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
(I Timothy 3:1–7 RSV)
As we can see, St. Paul is here speaking of the moral qualities of a possible candidate – he “must be above reproach”. “The husband of one wife,” and “manage his own household well” fall under the same category as, “temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher [a possible exception, but this may also be interpreted as being opposite a bad, temperamental one - speaking as one with a teaching diploma, I can say that ethical conduct is one of the key aspects of pedagogical professionalism], no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.”
If such is the case, “the husband of one wife,” and “he must manage his own household well,” amount to saying that he must be faithful to his spouse (‘one wife’ as opposed to ‘many wives’ or some other scandalous relations), and that he must not have a disorderly household. To take another perspective, we may ask ourselves, “would being unmarried disqualify the candidate as not being ‘above reproach’”? Quite the opposite, would you not say, to be celibate for the sake of the kingdom, as Jesus recommended (Mt 19:12)?
Now, thankfully, we have reasonably definitive interpretation of this when we realise one important thing: “St. Paul [himself] was a Bishop in the highest sense in which that word is ever used…,” but was not married (it may also be that Timothy, also bishop, was unmarried as well). Indeed, it was St. Paul’s own recommendation to remain celibate as he is:
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do… I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.”
(I Corinthians 7:8, 25–28 RSV)
Now, it would seem unreasonable to think that St. Paul would violate his own teachings by being unmarried if this was in fact a requirement that he himself taught. This seems to confirm the above interpretation from the context of the texts.
I hope that was clear and fair enough?
TTM said
Now, I hope you’ll permit me to raise some questions in response, with regards the Sola Scriptura doctrine.
How is it that the Protestant Christians base their faith upon a doctrine which, it seems to me, is unbiblical? 2 Tim 3:16-17, often cited as the ‘prooftext’ for this, does not attest to its formal sufficiency (‘profitable’ does not equate to ’sufficient in itself’). Further, basing the doctrine upon this passage and upon the passage on the Bereans (Acts 17:11) would imply sufficiency of the Old Testament, which are being referred to here – the New Testament had not been written, compiled, and canonised yet (this was done later and, remember, by the Church). In fact, the Scriptures speaks of Apostolic oral teaching as the Word of God (1Thess 2:13), and commands it to be faithfully handed on (1Cor 11:2, 2Tim 1:13, 2Thess 3:6, 2Tim 2:2). We know that this is still the case, since it abides forever (1Pet 1:25)
Now, if Sola Scriptura is right, we would know it by its fruits. However, history has demonstrated that it is unworkable, producing divisions which were so abhored by the Apostles (Rom 16:17, 1Cor 1:10, Gal 5:19-21) and the Early Church, in direct contradiction of the will of Christ, and to the detriment of the Church’s witness to the world (Jn 10:16, 17:17-23).
For further questions and information, please see:
• Scripture and Tradition
• A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well. Thanks for the reply.
Yes being unmarried would certainly disqualify the candidate. Taking the scriptures in context having a faithful wife and children are evidence that he would be a good bishop.
I understand the words of Paul and Jesus. Yet these are unrelated to the topic at hand. The office of bishop, elder or overseer is a different matter. These men would be the spiritual shepards of the church. Thus they must be able to help in all situations. How could an unmarried council married people? How could someone without children council someone with children.
Additionally Paul was not a bishop. I went to your link and I do not consider the encyclopedia as an inspired source.
Even if I agreed with you, which I don’t, and said you need not be married to hold the office of bishop then the question is ‘Why does the catholic church insist that bishops not be married?’ This question carries much wait. The two scriptures call for the bishops to be married.
It seems to me that you are not approaching scripture honestly at all. You are trying to make scripture fit your views. Many on this blog do so. Mathew 5:44 “Love your enemies.” comes to mind.
I will await your response and look at your next entry.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Galatians 1:9 says “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which he have received, let him be accursed.”
Clearly we can agree that the New Testament is inspired by God.
So if ‘any man’ teaches contrary to what is accepted we should not adhere to it.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well. I have read your two links. I have this to say.
One if you believe in Bible and tradition (which I do not) you must give preference to the Bible. That is if tradition contradicts with the Bible then the Bible should win in the dispute. The logic is simple. The Bible is given by divine authority. Therefore whatever in it is true. Therefore if as your presume it is not the complete teachings of God it should at least be the foundation. Therefore any tradition conflicting with the Bible should be dismissed.
My next point is that why do you presume the Catholic Church is the one to preserve scripture. The Orthodox churches dispute the claims of the Catholic church. They claim that their patriarchs or bishops are on an equal level with the Catholic church’s Pope. Thus how can you prove that your traditions are correct and any other traditions are incorrect.
Third I am not Protestant at all. I am a Christian. I believe in the Word of God and that the Word of God is contained in the sixty six books that make up the Bible. If there is a dispute in teachings only through that one book will the dispute be made. The Bible in its original language is perfect and infallable. Of course scripture teaches one needs the Holy Spirit to understand God’s teachings.
Also your own Popes and others in your church have taught conflicting things.
By the way when I went to your site there was something to click on that would explain purgatory and indulgences. Unfortunately there was no information just a solicitation to sell a book on the subject. So while we are at it please explain indulgences.
After that maybe we can discuss the crusades or the inquisition. I would love to hear an explantion how torturing people was in service to the God who is Love. Also during the crusades the preists would sprinkle water on those in battle before they killed them so they would go to heaven. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” That is what the Word of God says. Does sprinkling water on people give them salvation as done in the crusades. Why if you really believe that then go out and get your sprinkling thing and go to work my friend.
Excuse the sarcasm I use it only to try and drive the point home. I Love you and have a deep concern for your soul. I pray your eyes would be opened.
Love,
John
Independent Conservative said
Well John, seeing the course of dialog here, I have no more reason to continue with TTM myself.
TTM has been repeatedly presented scripture, repeatedly told the truth and repeatedly turns to the doctrines of men and even conveys the false Roman Catholic teachings via his/her own blog.
And TTM, seeing my brother John repeatedly admonish and you repeatedly avoid the truth. Save your efforts of trying to speak at my blog. John has already provided you Galatians 1:9 and I will add to that Titus 3:10-11 and even 1 Corinthians 5:11. So I won’t be granting any platform for your voice at my blog.
Some people spend much time debating the same person, I do not.
TTM said
Dear John,
> It seems to me that you are not approaching scripture honestly at all. You are trying to make scripture fit your views. Many on this blog do so. Mathew 5:44 “Love your enemies.” comes to mind.
John, I am approaching it honestly. I simply do not agree with your interpretation -this does not amount to dishonesty, or lack of love. I know the objections, and I believe the Catholic position presents more convincing answers that are in harmony with the whole of Scripture. I consider it a duty to follow the truth without bias, and it has taken me to Christ in the Catholic Church, which I believe he instituted (the only unified Church today that can historically support this claim). I would not be a Catholic today if I believed otherwise, since only truth can set us free.
Now, what I said with regards a fair dialogue still stands, perhaps as the primary concern now: “One of the principal human failing with regard to [truth], it would seem, is the tendency to make hasty generalisations (or so observed Francis Bacon). As such, please keep in mind my requests above in exploring them.” Hasty generalisation is a logical fallacy committed upon misuse of the faculty of judgement – too soon, too late, with too little information, etc. It is one of the greatest human tendencies which accompanies the darkening of the intellect due to the fall.
As such, I have made a request for the dialogue, that “it would be as objective and fair as possible, so that we listen to one-another carefully and considerately (not dismissively), being open to whatever truth that is in the other’s argument (since all truth is God’s truth).” I do not feel this request is being met, and I have to say the tone of IC’s last post seems to me to be judging my intention in a negative light indeed. In such a light, it would seem there is little point in the discussion – a dialogue cannot happen without objectivity and open attentiveness. If IC and yourself are prepared to discuss the topic itself, I would be prepared to do so as well. I am not prepared to argue at the base level of ad hominems and hasty judgements, and I fear this would be the case.
Given this, I would leave the discussion here until a above conditions are met through a greater care in the use of the faculty of judgement (I use the term in the technical sense, as a faculty of the intellect accompanying ‘understanding’, as used in logic). However, I will reluctantly continue in reply, lest an impression is given that there are no answers to the objections given above. I only ask that your replies reflect the true charity that you have requested of me. I can only testify that I have done my best to dialogue in charity and truth.
OK… taking a breath…
> “Clearly we can agree that the New Testament is inspired by God.”
Yes, but how so? I believe this, since I believe the Holy Spirit has guided the Christian Church to establish the canon of Scriptures. On what basis do you believe this, since Martin Luther himself placed certain NT books as being of lesser authority (Book of Revelation, for one), and even called the Book of James the “epistle of straw”.
> “Additionally Paul was not a bishop. I went to your link and I do not consider the encyclopedia as an inspired source.”
The Encyclopedia Britanica is an unbiased source which has examined the historical basis for such statements. You and I have our respective positions of belief, which colour our interpretations. That Paul was a bishop is my own. That Paul was not a bishop is yours. Let us not pretend that we have exclusive and direct access to the truth – if the charism of infallibility given by the Holy Spirit is operative in private interpretation, as Luther thought, how could there by such scandalous disunity among those who follow the Sola Scriptura doctrine? Luther himself was surprised and distraught at this undeniable reality of division which caused mutual slaughtering among those who professed to follow the same Christ.
The infallibility of Sacred Scripture, we both agree with, but on the question of infallibility of interpretation, we disagree. It is our interpretation that differs in this instance. Mine rests on the Church’s, which I believe is scriptural. Yours rests on Luthers, which you believe is scriptural. Let’s see who’s right, objectively, before introducing and pronouncing judgement calls (“you’re rejecting the truth”, etc.) on the other’s position based on one’s own. That means being sincere in holding to, and being open about, one’s own faith (“The truth, it seems to me, is this and that, and here is why”, etc.), but also respecting that the other is doing the same. Otherwise it is simply a series of monologue (arrogance masked as faith), not a dialogue (humility and mutual respect).
> “Even if I agreed with you, which I don’t, and said you need not be married to hold the office of bishop then the question is ‘Why does the catholic church insist that bishops not be married?’ This question carries much wait. The two scriptures call for the bishops to be married.”
The Catholic Church insists on celibacy as a matter of discipline, not doctrine. This could be changed tomorrow, if she thinks it fit. The Eastern Orthodox Church has the same discipline, I believe.
The reason is that celibacy for the Kingdom frees a person to focus on doing the work of God by giving it undivided attention, as St. Paul suggests. This became much more crucial as the Church grew, and the responsibilities and geographic areas of the bishops expanded. In the Early Church, the smaller Christian population meant that it was less prudent for her to have unmarried clergy, as the above was less of an issue, and it would have served the Church better to have a greater population of Christians.
> “Galatians 1:9 says “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which he have received, let him be accursed.” So if ‘any man’ teaches contrary to what is accepted we should not adhere to it.”
Amen, brother. Again, I agree with the Sacred Scripture, but just not with your private interpretation of it. If you examine the Early Church Fathers’ writings, they practice this by asking, “what did the Apostles teach us?” Their conclusions seem to oppose the Evangelical (if you prefer the term) position, and affirm that of the Universal Church (often misleadingly called the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church), both East and West.
> “That is if tradition contradicts with the Bible then the Bible should win in the dispute… Therefore any tradition conflicting with the Bible should be dismissed.”
Yes, but, again, you’re presuming what is being discussed here, which is, “what does the Scripture teach?”
The Second Vatican Council document on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (see especially chapter III onwards), unreservedly affirms the inspired and infallible nature of Sacred Scripture, but also affirms the need to carefully examine what is meant in the passages through attention to the intended meaning of the author.
As for Sacred Tradition, the same document affirms that, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.” This seems to me to be the most Scriptural position, in harmony with St. Paul’s exhortation: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (II Thessalonians 2:15 RSV)
So it is not an either/or situation, but both/and. Apostolic Tradition cannot contradict the Sacred Scripture, because they originate from the same source. Any contradictions, much like within the Scripture itself, are only apparent, not truly contradictory.
> “My next point is that why do you presume the Catholic Church is the one to preserve scripture. The Orthodox churches dispute the claims of the Catholic church. They claim that their patriarchs or bishops are on an equal level with the Catholic church’s Pope. Thus how can you prove that your traditions are correct and any other traditions are incorrect.”
The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church share all doctrines and sacraments in common, except on the question of Papal Primacy (but even this not absolute, since they acknowledge that the Apostolic Succession of the Pope traces back to the Apostle Peter, and that he has primacy among the Bishops – just not the manner of it). So it is hardly evidence against Catholicism. In fact, it affirms that the Eastern Church believe and practice practically everything the Western Church did, and does today, since at least the year 1057. Again, it is not an either/or position – we mutually affirm 99.9% of each other’s position. The difference, it could be said, traces back to a political – more than doctrinal – alienation, solidified in the sacking of Constantine (whereupon these soldiers were excommunicated by the Catholic Church).
> “The Bible in its original language is perfect and infallable. Of course scripture teaches one needs the Holy Spirit to understand God’s teachings.”
Again, upon what authority do you hold to this belief? If it is because of Luther, who established the Evangelical canon, then why not follow him also in downgrading the Epistle of James and the Book of revelation, among others?
> “Also your own Popes and others in your church have taught conflicting things.”
The Church does not claim infallibility on things which have not been defined solemnly, and there are no true conflicts in the dogmas that are (in ecumenical councils, for example).
> “By the way when I went to your site there was something to click on that would explain purgatory and indulgences. Unfortunately there was no information just a solicitation to sell a book on the subject. So while we are at it please explain indulgences.”
Why not look into the PDF booklet I linked to, which has fictional dialogues on most of the common objections raised against “Papacy, Eucharist, Confession, Mary, Praying to the Saints, and Purgatory”? If you can’t see the PDF, here are the links to the original pages:
• on Papacy
• on Real Presence
• on Confession
• on Mary
• on Praying to the Saints
• on Purgatory
> “After that maybe we can discuss the crusades or the inquisition. I would love to hear an explantion how torturing people was in service to the God who is Love. Also during the crusades the preists would sprinkle water on those in battle before they killed them so they would go to heaven. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” That is what the Word of God says. Does sprinkling water on people give them salvation as done in the crusades. Why if you really believe that then go out and get your sprinkling thing and go to work my friend.”
Let me ask you, do you know what the Crusades was about? Do you know how it started? Did you know that it was not an initiative of the Church, but a response to the pleadings from the Byzantine empire, where 2/3 of its territory had already been overrun by the Seljuk Turks? Do you realise the extent of the Islamic threat posed to the East and to Europe at that time? It would be fair to say that you and I may be Muslims today if it were not for the Crusades.
With regards the Inquisition, I think it’s fair to say that there are so many tall tales told about it today that the popular account of it is misleading or untruthful (some accounts number the victims greater than the population of Europe at the time!). Only the historians seem to be aware of how it really was, rather than through some unsubstantiated heresay and wishful thinking. There are historical accounts of criminals blaspheming in order to be transferred to the court of Inquisition instead of the civil court – why would this happen if the court of Inquisition was less civil than the secular courts of the day? Also, did you know that the notorious Spanish Inquisition (which is what people are usually thinking of when they speak of ‘the inquisition’) was run by the state, since heresy was equivalent to treason at that time? Did you know that the Church criticised it for its harshness?
Let me also ask you, with regards any sins committed by the soldiers at the time, do any acts of a person which contradict the teachings of his teacher prove that the teacher is a bad person? What about Judas Iscariot (whose teacher was Christ), or Cain (whose teacher was God the Father)?
For further information, see Thomas Madden (Crusade historian) on:
• The Real Inquisition
• The Real History of the Crusades
However, I think it may be more profitable to stick to the Scriptural topics pertaining to crucial and central doctrines, such as the Papacy. I’m not sure that either of us can argue using historical research, and I have to be selective with how I spend my time – I’m sure you’d understand.
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
Don’t worry about IC. He has come to a conclusion. While I respect what he has presented I still thing dialouge would be beneficial. If not for ourselves at least to present our view points so others can learn.
Perhaps I was too hasty I am sorry if I offended you. You have covered a lot of area so it may take several posts to reply as time permits.
Let’s begin with the Old Testament’s authority.
2Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is gven by inspiration of God.”
2 Peter 1:21 “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Therefore these two scriptures teach that the Old Testament is inspired.
“And He said unto them. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fufilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.”
Luke 24:44
So the Law,Psalms and Prophets spoke about Jesus.
Can we agree that the Old Testament is inspired from God?
John chapter 1 Jesus is referred to as the Word of God. This name of God is very important I will go back to it.
As far as Paul being a Bishop this a very important point. Paul was unmarried. Yet nowhere in the Bible do we see Paul called a bishop. Correct me if you can find scripture. I must still reject the encyclopedia as an authority. Just because this one mentions that do all mention it.
1 Peter 5:1 identifies Peter as an elder. Peter was without a doubt married. 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Luke 4:38.
Note that
a- the Bible is consistent. That Pual is never referred to as an elder or a synonymous word and was never married. Peter is called an elder and is married.
b- Peter, who you I imagine would claim was your first Pope, was married. Not only was he married but he kept his wife throughout his ministry.
Now let’s get to the part about why I think you are twisting scriptures to fit ideas you approve of. The two references to the qualifications of bishop state plainly that they must be married. If you disagree then you are not being honest. Now you bring in two scriptures that say being not married is better. I do not disagree with them. It is better not to be married as a Christian. But one needs to be married as an elder. Why? 2Timothy 3:5 “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”
Do you agree that the New Testament is true? I am talking in the sense that when a book of Paul begins with his name then it was written by him. If so then you must agree what is written is the law or basis of the church.
For now I will agree just for the sake of argument that tradition is a valid guide. Furthermore perhaps there are more things taught than the New Testament holds. (This I certainly agree with because John 21:25) Yet on this I will stand firm – That the teachings of the New Testament when compared to the teachings of tradition that is unwritten than the teachings of the New Testament are the trustworthy ones.
You say you agree yet you insist bishops don’t have to be married.
Regarding the catholic church history it is one full of darkness. It is important to explore this dimension. Just like a man is judged by his fruit so does a group of men. In the same way I can dismiss the so called ‘christians’ who advocated slavery and genocide in America then I can dismiss a church who tortured people and persecuted people who translated the Bible into the common language.
Gotta run.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
I am awaiting your response.
We were studying prayer in Bible study tonight. Mathew 6:7 “But when you pray use not vain repetitions…” Please explain the rosary in the light of that scripture.
When I read the scriptures what is in my mind’s eye is nothing at all like the Catholic Church. In fact out of all the organizations claiming to be Christian yours is probably the one that I think is the farthest away from the gospel message with the exception of cults. Just telling you honestly where I stand.
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
my apologies for the delayed reply. I do not always check this page everyday, and so have just read your posts today.
Thank you for your considered response. Even if we do not come to the point of agreement, I believe a dialogue that is respectful and charitable would be fulfilling the will of Christ on that point.
> “We were studying prayer in Bible study tonight. Mathew 6:7 “But when you pray use not vain repetitions…” Please explain the rosary in the light of that scripture.”
Certainly. The Rosary came out of the tradition of praying the Psalms, for simpler folk who did not have access to it (remember that books before mass production were very expensive to obtain and, in any case, many working people were illiterate).
Prayerful repetition itself is not condemned, since Christ himself practiced it (Matt. 26:44), the Psalms use it (Ps. 118), and the heavenly creatures do it, presumably for all of eternity (Rev 4:8). Rather, the admonition applies to those who pray in the manner of pagans who use repetition as a sort of magic formula, rather than as personal petition. So, it is a matter of the heart, rather than legalism (for or against repetition). Is not the parable of the persistent widow an exhortation precisely in this – “always to pray and not lose heart”? (Luke 18:1)
> “When I read the scriptures what is in my mind’s eye is nothing at all like the Catholic Church. In fact out of all the organizations claiming to be Christian yours is probably the one that I think is the farthest away from the gospel message with the exception of cults. Just telling you honestly where I stand.”
Your honesty is appreciated. I think it’s a matter of reading it in accord with the Jewish tradition, and with the early Christians, rather than through the 21st century environment of our own culture. Then, it’s a matter of seeing the scriptures through the heart in that light (the mind’s eye has difficulty seeing what it isn’t used to, I find).
Note, too, that the Church can and has evolved organically. If it is indeed the Church of the Apostles, it is the case in its essence (what it is), but not necessarily appearance. As a mustard seed may be unrecognisable through mere appearance in the mustard tree, so it would be with the Church. I think you would find, though, that it is more like a person – as one might expect from the body of Christ – whose childhood characteristics can be recognised in his adult form.
I recommend reading the Apostolic Fathers in the book ‘Early Christian Writings‘, translated by Maxwell Staniforth. It shows how the Early Church was like through the writings of the Fathers who wrote these in the Apostolic times (when at least the Apostle John was still alive).
> “Now let’s get to the part about why I think you are twisting scriptures to fit ideas you approve of. The two references to the qualifications of bishop state plainly that they must be married. If you disagree then you are not being honest. Now you bring in two scriptures that say being not married is better. I do not disagree with them. It is better not to be married as a Christian. But one needs to be married as an elder. Why? 2Timothy 3:5 “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?””
I don’t agree that I would be being dishonest in disagreeing with the interpretation you gave. The Church Fathers have given the same interpretation as mine, and I do not think they were dishonest either. They were more informed in their interpretation than either you or I though:
Chrysostom
Homily X. 1 Timothy 3,1–4—“If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work.
1001. “A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time. For “marriage is honorable,” (He 13,4) Some however say, that this is said that he should be the husband of one wife. [Note that he gives two interpretations here - my position as well as yours]
Augustine
Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy
99. …And if he speaks of a Bishop “being the husband of one wife,” and “having his children in subjection” (1Tm 3,2 3,4), this is not said, as if it were necessary he should have a wife and children; but that if any should happen from a secular life to be advanced to that office, they might be such as knew how to preside over their household and children, and all others committed to them. For if a man were both secular and deficient in these points, how should he be intrusted with the care of the Church?
> “Do you agree that the New Testament is true? I am talking in the sense that when a book of Paul begins with his name then it was written by him. If so then you must agree what is written is the law or basis of the church.”
We know, don’t we, that often such writings were attributed to famous authorities (like the Gospel of Peter or Gospel of Thomas)? We know from the decisions from the Early Church as to which were the authentic and inspired writings. That decision has been ‘handed on’ (root etymology for ‘tradition’) to us, and so is the basis for the Scriptural Canon. This is one reason why authentic Tradition and Scripture cannot be thought to be in opposition to one another.
> “Regarding the catholic church history it is one full of darkness. It is important to explore this dimension.”
Is it really? What is the basis for this claim – where did you get the information from, and how trustworthy are they in terms of their objectivity? I used to subscribe to this sort of vague generalisation, but nowadays I realise that the popular notion of this is simply residual propaganda (half truths and falsehoods) from the double filter of Protestantism and the Enlightenment.
Have you had a look at the articles I linked to above on the Crusades and the Inquisition? Those would be a couple of examples.
With regards anything Catholic (the only Politically Correct target for persecution today), there is a cultural tendency to isolate and focus on the Judas, while ignoring the other 11 good Apostles. I recommend listening to The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization
I agree about its importance, though. A moral objection is perhaps of greatest importance, since the heart guards the key to commitments involving one’s being. I ask for the openness of mind, however, since the heart tends to act on unverified emotions which may turn out to be based on mistaken assumptions and beliefs. Do this truly, and you would be fulfilling charity as well as the requests I have made above. Thanks, and God bless you.
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
If you have proved anything it is that the so called Church fathers cannot understand Greek. If we followed your logic we could knock any qualification of the list. Christ turned water into wine so is it okay to ignore the prohibition for an elder “not to be given to wine.” In fact you ignore the fact a bishop must have faithful children.
Did not the Catholic Church torture people through the inquisition, engage in wars of men in the crusades and try to kill people who translated the Bible into the vernacular. To those who think it’s a thing of the past I saw some pictures of some Catholic bishops and Nazis all giving the same salute.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html
Check these photos out.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
Greetings,
Allow me to comment on why I decided to bring up the filth of the Catholic history. The Church of Christ is something that must be above all other standards. The scriptures say that even the righteous are scarcely saved.
When a church is involved with groups such as the Nazis this is a grave evil. Furthermore in the case of the Catholic church the evil is a double comdemnation. Why? Because according to the Catholics the Pope is somehow inspired by God to speak on God’s behalf! If God is talking to the Pope or the Pope is talking to God you would think that the Pope would have enough wisdom not only to not associate with the Nazis but to fight them with every breath in his body. But no as these photographs and other evidences prove the Catholic Church worked with Hitler and the evil fascist Nazis.
This was not true of Dietrich Boenhoffer. Boenhoffer opposed Nazism and refused to capitulate. As a result he was thrown into jail and eventually executed. But I know without doubt the things Boenhoffer did were right in the sight of God. Just as I know that what the Catholics did was wrong. Christ teaches us that we will suffer persecution and that we are to bare our crosses daily. Boenhoffer did the right thing and stayed true to the cause of Christ. The Catholic church did not. They took the easy way out.
I know some Catholics were murdered in the concentration camps. Yet as the photos clearly show there was a deep connection between the Nazis and Catholicism. TBM claims that all the horror stories of the past blaming Catholics are lies. I disagree. I am just sorry there were no photographers back then to give the evidence like I have displayed before.
Love,
John
John Kaniecki said
Hi,
One more for good measure.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC.htm
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
I’m going to have to ask at this point, as gently as I could, if the dialogue seems worth continuing, since I’m sensing something of a defensiveness that seeks out to support a subjective bias at the cost of objective examination. I’m not looking for overt admissions on things that would be more profitably made privately between oneself and God, but we must be utterly honest and aware of our own bias and assumptions.
> “If you have proved anything it is that the so called Church fathers cannot understand Greek.”
Chrysostom was a Greek Father; in fact, the most prominent doctor of theology in the Greek Church. Further, he had understanding of the Jewish custom underlying this passage, which would have been relevant since the author, St. Paul himself, and those to whom Timothy witnessed were Jewish (Acts 16:3).
> “In fact you ignore the fact a bishop must have faithful children.”
No. St. Paul nowhere says that he must have children. He says that their children must be faithful (or at least that they must be respectful), which is a different thing. Why do you think the two preeminent Fathers, Latin and Greek, give interpretations of it being conditional on those who already have children? That would be because it gives no indications on the necessity of having them, since it only speaks of good management. St. Paul seems to be speaking with the assumption that most bishops would have children, since the converts in the Early Church were often already married (one only has to read about the many instances in which a man and ‘his household’ were baptised), and there was not the need or the insentive to have mandatory celibacy due to the small size of the Church.
To me, Chrysostom and Augustine’s interpretations make much more sense. The interpretation you present seems to read more into it than what the text says. The readers can make up their own mind as to which is the fairer and more objective one.
> “Did not the Catholic Church torture people through the inquisition, engage in wars of men in the crusades and try to kill people who translated the Bible into the vernacular.”
I ask you again – have you read the articles I linked to above? Please read the article first, since much of it is a case of false assumptions. The inquisition, for example, was a process established by the Church in order to intervene in a process that would otherwise be uncontrolled (and look what happened in the Spanish Inquisition, run by the state). Remember that heresy was a crime against the state under the Justinian law (again, it’s in the article above, but not usually something that a non-historian would know).
With regards the Scriptures in the vernacular, you do know that the Vulgate is a vernacular translation of its time? In any case, there were plenty of vernacular translations before the reformation. You can read about them in ‘The Cambridge History of the Bible’, and in ‘Where We Got the Bible’ (here’s a post with excerpts from the latter).
The problem with the vernacular occurs with certain groups promoting heretical and misleading ideas using their vernacular translations, such as the Albigensians (a.k.a. Catharists) who promoted the doctrine that matter is evil (and therefore marriage evil, while concubinage was permitted, and suicide was a good). There are good reasons for stopping such heresies from spreading; namely the preservation of common good.
> “The Church of Christ is something that must be above all other standards.”
Yes, but the Church of the scriptures contains tares among the wheat until the end of the world (Matthew 13:24ff), just as Judas was among the 12 until Calvary. Does
> “But no as these photographs and other evidences prove the Catholic Church worked with Hitler and the evil fascist Nazis.”
Right… like this one here that was deliberately used to mislead people? I think it’s similar to the Papal Nuncio one in your link:
http://home.olemiss.edu/~rrychlak/web20061010/morphing.htm
One can easily construe all sorts of things from supposed visual ‘proofs’. There are a lot of myths regarding the Church and Pius XII and their association with Nazi Germany; a lot of it is a slander campaign which distorts the truth. I guess those sources neglected to mention that the Allies air-dropped 88,000 copies of the anti-Nazi Papal encyclicals over Germany, or that the Nazi votes came predominantly in Protestant areas because the Pope had been actively condemning the party even before they were elected?
Again, I have to be to the point and gently be insistent that you question your presuppositions: are you really interested in the truth, or simply reading one-sided commentaries about it from biased sources? If the former, I can recommend a book written by a Jewish rabbi:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260344/lewrockwell
If the latter, no amount of discussion would bring about anything fruitful, since the mind has been made up beforehand, based on (from what I could see) erroneous data. I pray, then, that it would be the former in your case.
A couple of quotes, which can be verified in the ‘American Jewish Yearbook, 1944-1945′:
“We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims” (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).
“Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.” (Albert Einstein)
TTM said
> “One more for good measure. http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC.htm”
I’m not sure if this is worth commenting on. One can see from the last few images as to just how desperate they can be in trying to construe all sorts of things – that New York police officer is in a regular full-armour uniform which does not look anything like a Nazi uniform as the page claims. The picture of Ratzinger is obviously (well, obvious to Catholics and Orthodox Christians) is taken during mass at the time of epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit before consecration of the Eucharist), which would have been more obvious had they not cut off the left hand side of his body from the picture, which (one can still tell) is also raised.
Also, Hitler said all sorts of things to manipulate the situation (it’s called propaganda – the Nazi’s were very good at it, as a history student learns when studying Nazi Germany). He said publicly that he was Catholic/Christian to Catholic/Christian audiences. In private, though, it’s a different story.
Again, back to the central issue, which in some ways is the same as the above: propaganda, or truth? If the latter, one must be ready to be challenged in one’s presuppositions built up by cultural biases. Would you believe the testimonies from the Jews of the time, or the popular myth cultivated by a former Hitler Youth, responsible for the smearing campaign (same link as the source of Jewish quotes) of the good Pope?
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
Please click in on this
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/can-women-serve-as-pastors/#comment-34591\
We are discussing some similar things and I would like your input. You will understand when you read the posts.
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
no offence, and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but do you ever become weary and perhaps suspicious about the battles of private interpretations between a thousand parties claiming to be “Bible believing”? I believe the Bible too, but I’m not sure if I would if I was an outsider (and non-believer) observing the scandalous disunity and constant theological oppositions coming from a supposedly infallible source of Revelation.
If I may, I would like to encourage everyone to meditate on Christ’s high-priestly prayers at John 17:20-23, and view things in this light.
Now, in relation to the topic itself, I think you’ll find Augustine and Chrysostom agreeing with us in terms of male-only leadership. However, I (again) do not believe as IC seems to suggest that they must necessarily be married. I think Augustine and Chrysostom (and the Early Church Fathers) are right in interpreting that the conditions on good management are laid out as a prerequisite for married men, but that it in no way requires marriage as a necessity.
Either that, or the Spirit of Truth did not lead the Church to all truth, as promised (John 16:3), and the true Church fell away without a trace, unlike the house built by the Wise Man on the rock (Matt 7:24-27), or a city set on the hill or light of the world lit by the same (Matt 5:14-15)
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
Hi hope you are well.
Let me make this statement for your comment.
We started to discuss the catholic church’s history and you disagreed about the severity of such things as the crusades, inquisition and the persecution of people translating the Bible in the vernacular. I then posted some pictures from two web sites about the Nazi cooperation with the catholic church. You then replied once again down playing the severity of the connection.
The evidence of these photographs proves if nothing else that the catholic church and the nazis had more than a trivial connection. The photograph of the bishops right next to the nazis all giving the salute to Hitler is one example. So we know that in some degree the catholics and nazis cooperated. (I suppose you may disagree.)
Any way if the Pope is infallable why didn’t he strongly oppose the nazis. Somebody like Dietrich Boenhoeffer was very anti nazi and it cost him his life.
Finally I have found that people lie about themselves to look good. I mean nations, political parties, churches and so forth. For example if you read the history of America as taught in the schools you get a very distorted picture of what really happened.
Now then you have researched the catholic history and have found that the abominations that it has committed to be small. I would suggest to you that you research other sources.
An example of distortion is Josephus. After begining to read his discourse about the history of the Jews I put it away as his bias was clearly evident.
Finally I dismiss the catholic church as a false religion and very evil. The church does little to teach the Bible the Word of God. When you do look at the Bible you distort the truth. The catholic church has been involved in terrible and inhumane acts and have given their blessings to them. Just as I dismiss the puritan health and wealth gospel because they slaughtered the idinginous peoples in America I dismiss the catholic church.
But let me say this. I have met catholics who are fine people and very loving.
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
I would not be surprised if any Christians cooperated with Hitler. I think you may underestimate how effective their propaganda was. Do you realise that the Nazi’s were democratically elected? I mentioned earlier that it was in fact the Protestant regions that voted for Hitler into power (more info).
may I suggest the possibility that the truth has been obscured in the anti-Catholic culture we live in? The then and current cultural superpowers of England and America are both strongly Protestant, anti-Catholic, and heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Don’t take my word for it though – go back to the (unbiased) sources and research it for yourself. Do you have access to the American Jewish Year Book in a library nearby? Why not read that book by the Jewish Rabbi? Here’s a limited preview of it on Google Books. Or would you rather hold on to, and believe, the myth propagated by a former Hitler Youth? If the latter, such a bias would be quite telling! Again, I hope it would be otherwise.
So, I welcome your invitation to be objective and unbiased, and I extend the same invitation to you. This would be a better path than to be dismissive of the other party based on one’s presuppositions, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I think you’ll see that I have quoted numerous unbiased sources so far, and I pray and ask that these can taken advantage of.
John Kaniecki said
TTM,
I find your links are either obscure or from catholic sources.
I wish you the best and hope one day you will open your eyes to see. Perhaps you wish the same for me.
I wonder what books you have read on church history that were not written by catholics.
The Bible speaks of Isreal and shows its good and bad. You wish to act like there was no evil done by the Catholics. Cortez, Pizzaro and Columbus all wicked workers of genocide.
Love,
John
TTM said
Dear John,
> “I wish you the best and hope one day you will open your eyes to see. Perhaps you wish the same for me.”
Yes, I wish and pray that the Lord’s will be done to both of us, so that neither of us would call Christ “Lord, Lord,” and not do His will. Do pray for the same, and I hope, by the grace of God, that we can meet together in Heaven.
It may be – and you may agree – that this dialogue has reached its end for now, and the time has come to depend on God for the above prayer to take fruit, as we humbly and actively submit to it with our hearts fully opened to Him. Lord, give us this Grace!
> “I wonder what books you have read on church history that were not written by catholics. The Bible speaks of Isreal and shows its good and bad. You wish to act like there was no evil done by the Catholics. Cortez, Pizzaro and Columbus all wicked workers of genocide.”
I have studied Germany, England and Ireland in (a secular) high school, which included some bloody history on both sides of the divide (as you can imagine). This is to be expected, however, since wheat and tare grow together until the harvest, when the sheep are divided from the goats. One atrocity does not, however, justify another – that is, the dividing asunder of the Body of Christ – especially since such a scandalous acts act as counter-witness to the world in need of the Saviour.
If you examine the posts above, I think it would be evident that I have cited more sources unaffiliated with one’s own background, than any others. (BTW, The Early Christian Writings of the Apostolic Fathers – which is one such a source – has my recommendations, for Catholics and Evangelicals alike).
In any case, I think I have presented enough evidence here for any objective reader to examine the case for themselves (that is, evidence from secular and Jewish sources – as well as any of the Catholic links I included [many of them with citations to secular sources]), since it is evident to me that there are reasons to question the wisdom of popular cultural beliefs about the Church (the last accepted target of prejudice).