HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations




I have many concerns about the Roman Catholic Church. I fear that fanaticism starts off with bizarre teachings such as that the bread of communion can be equal to a human being for it is a human being who is also God, Jesus Christ. When you can get people to believe that you could have got them to believe in sacrificing homosexuals to God just as easily for one seems as hard to believe as the other. The purpose of this page is to make people decide for themselves whether or not sending their children to the Catholic Church for religious instruction is a good thing.

The thesis of the book: Roman Catholicism is the religion of the Bible which is the word of God. It is the religion the Bible teaches.
The truth: The book distorts the Bible to make it seem so. The Bible contradicts and therefore God condemns nearly every major doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith.
LIE 1, Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe that Catholics are going to Hell because they try to earn their salvation (page 16).

THE TRUTH: All Evangelicals believe that there are Catholics who have trusted in Jesus alone and not good works for salvation but hold that this happened in spite of their faith and not because of it.
LIE 2, The doctrine of separation which forbids Evangelicals to work with liberal ministers, and even conservative evangelicals who work with liberals (second degree separation) is not biblically justifiable (page 21).

THE TRUTH: Because the Bible says that loving God alone is the chief commandment it is clear that believing in God is more important even than loving your neighbour as yourself. So when belief comes first anybody associating with liberals and working with them is advertising the lack of faith and increased scepticism which characterises liberalism so the Bible does forbid it. The Bible demands that heretics be thrown out. A book that wants homosexuals dead and barred from the kingdom for once-off harmless sexual act couldn't have it any other way.
LIE 3, The Catholic Church regards evangelicals as 100% brothers in Christ (page 33).

THE TRUTH: The Catholic Church regards them as branches partly broken off the vine for only those who know and accept the full Catholic faith and who are free from serious sin are proper members of the Church. They are more like defective Catholics than full brothers.
Evangelicals believe there is always sin in us and they believe that all sin is mortal and deserves Hell and rejects God totally. So how could Evangelicals be brothers in Christ with this belief for it means they claim to be mortal sinners all the time which means they are guaranteed Hell as long as they do that according to Roman theology? The Roman Church refuses to call evil baptised people Christians. The deliberate hypocrisy of the Roman Church is plain.
LIE 4, At the last supper had Jesus meant to teach Lutheranism, that the Eucharist contains the body of Christ but does not become it, he would have said, "This bread contains my body" or evangelicalism he would have said, "This bread represents my body" but he said it was his body so that is what it is (page 35).

THE TRUTH: Too bad Jesus couldn't use symbolism with people trying to read too much into it. The Bible never gives any hint that Jesus meant this literally. The Calvinists say, "This is my body," over bread without believing it becomes the body of Jesus and we don't say they should be saying, "This represents my body". So when they can do it why not Jesus?
And even if the Catholics are right it doesnít prove their doctrine of transubstantiation to be true. Luther seems to have believed at times not that the substance of the bread turned into Jesus but that Jesus made the bread a part of him like your fingernail is part of you. This theory is called incarnationism.
LIE 5, Jesus' saying we must eat his body and drink his blood took place near Passover time just about a year before Jesus celebrated the last supper. This was to indicate that what would happen at the supper would be transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus (page 35).

THE TRUTH: Evidences like that are so weak that they are useless. The crowd were not at the last supper so there is no value in the books reasoning.
LIE 6, Jesus saying he was the bread of life was just an analogy. He says he will give this bread as his flesh for us to eat and that it is the same flesh that will be nailed to the cross (page 37). If the flesh we are to eat is figurative so is the flesh for the crucifixion (page 38). Jesus physically died on the cross so we physically eat his body.

THE TRUTH: The discourse never mentions that Jesus will die or become a sacrifice. The Roman Catholic faith teaches that it is Jesus' body and blood as they are now in their supernaturalised and resurrected state that is the Eucharist. So there is no need for Jesus to be dead or have been dead to feed us with his body and let us drink his blood.
He says his flesh will be given up for the life of the world which does not amount to saying he will be crucified or sacrificed.
He told the Jews that they cannot be saved unless they eat his body and drink his blood. If you take the passage literally then take this literally too. It was spoken to Jewish people who would mostly never become Christians. It is likely that none of them would when they all went away because of Jesusí silly talk. If you are a missionary you do not tell you hearers to go to communion to be saved for they cannot do that unless they are believe repent and are baptised first. You give them the minimum. You certainly do not suggest anything that will puzzle them like yarns about food and drink becoming God or a man. The way Jesus spoke shows the passage is not literally true. When Jesus came close to teaching the Roman doctrine in this passage and retreated it shows only one thing: he does not want us to believe in it and it is blasphemous.
Eating the body of Jesus is a synonym for believing and drinking his blood is a synonym for accepting the suffering and love he offered to God to atone to him for sins.
LIE 7, The eating of flesh is literal for Jesus used the word chew for eat (page 38). This word was never used symbolically anywhere.

THE TRUTH: Any word can be used symbolically - that is what symbols mean: using words that are literal in a non-literal way! So he never used it symbolically anywhere you say! Jesus never wrote cookery books so what would you expect?
He would have to use the word chew in a literal context elsewhere so that we would be able to tell he meant it all literally according to the books logic. But he didn't so what does that say?
LIE 8, He who eats the bread without discerning the body eats judgment to himself 1 Cor 11) so this is clearly saying that we must see that the bread is the body of the Lord (page 39).

THE TRUTH: There were heretics around who didnít believe Jesus was a man but thought that he was a vision. Paul could have meant without discerning that Jesus had a body not that the bread was the body. Paul would have written he who eats the bread without discerning that it is the body had he believed the bread turns into Jesus.
Discerning the body could also mean that the substance of the body of the Lord is fed to the soul of those who take the bread without it being in the bread. It could mean that the body of the Lord is spiritually fed to the eater of the bread which means eating the bread is as good as eating the body though the substance of the body is not eaten or given to the soul.
LIE 9, Satan worshipers parody the Mass because they know there is something in it and that Jesus established it as the centre of Christian life (page 45).

THE TRUTH: The Eucharist is the ritual at the heart of Christianity and naturally anti-Christians would parody it. Nearly all Satan worshippers believe that Christianity is superstitious nonsense. The use of real wafers consecrated at Masses is rare which illustrates the point. Their use is not an essential. Would Satanists believe that there is power in having the real body of God on the altar and desecrating it? If they believed it was God they would know that he would thwart them every time!
Spiritualist mediums do more to convince their flocks that they commune with the dead than priests ever do that Jesus becomes the communion wafer and yet they encourage the flock to disbelieve in mediums! It is frightening that people would believe the priests so easily and it is bigoted how they encourage it. The mediums have more right to the respect the priest demands. They are more believable in every way.
LIE 10, Melchizidek was said to be a priest forever and he offered bread and wine to God. Jesus was called by God a priest like Melchizidek so he offered bread and wine to God at the last supper (page 47).

THE TRUTH: Jesus did not offer bread and wine at the last supper - he just used them. How could you offer God created things? He owns them to start with and has no need of them. It would be a bizarre and eccentric thing to do. Melchizidek brought out bread and wine to Abraham for he was priest of God the Bible tells us. That does not mean he offered them to God.
LIE 11, Hebrews 10:3 and Leviticus 24:7 use the word remembrance to mean sacrifice so when Jesus said at the last supper do this in remembrance of me he meant offer this sacrifice for me (page 47).

THE TRUTH: Hebrews only says there is a reminder of sin in the sacrifices which does not mean that sacrifice and remembrance are necessarily inseparable. Remembrance and sacrifice are two separate activities. Jesus lived in different times from Leviticus and different times use words differently. Worse Leviticus was written in Hebrew and the gospels were written in Greek and worse again Jesus had been speaking in Aramaic! So there is no reason to believe the words for remembrance mean sacrifice as well.
LIE 12, The sacrifice of the Mass and the food and drink being literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ were unanimously believed in by the early Christians (49).

THE TRUTH: We know the early Christians had many divisions and we have barely any statements that show the Church believed what this crazy book says and yet it has the cheek to say that the early Church was Roman Catholic in its eucharistic theology.
LIE 13, The Law of Moses has so much missing in it that God through Moses must have wanted the people to get the rest of his word through oral tradition (page 52). Jesus defended the oral tradition of the Pharisees and the scribes in Matthew 23:2,3 when he commanded his hearers to do all they tell them but not to do what they do. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says people must obey the apostles teaching in word of mouth or in letter.
Incidentally, this would mean Jesus agreed that homosexuals should be put to death for that was part of what the Pharisees and scribes would have instructed the people what to do.

THE TRUTH: When the Law claims that nothing must be added to it and it needs adding to it only means that the Law is wrong not that the Law expects to be supplemented by oral tradition. Oral tradition is always dangerous for nothing is as easy to fabricate as a false oral tradition. Catholicism knows this which is why it claims it has the charism of infallibility to protect itself from false tradition but Judaism was never infallible or claimed to be.
As an ex-evangelical the writer of this evil book knows fine well that Evangelicals hold that 2 Thessalonians refers to what people heard the apostles say and what they wrote not traditions. He's lying. He also knows that Jesus condemned Jewish tradition (Mark 7). Jewish tradition condemned him as a false Messiah so if he was the true Messiah then this shows how dangerous it is. Jewish tradition expected a warlike Messiah empowered by God who would lead his people successfully into triumph over the enemies of the Jews. Jesus didnít fit the bill at all.
LIE 14, when the apostles chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts 1 that shows they had the power to pass on their office. The bishops have inherited their authority from the apostles. The Bible never says that any Christian at all can administer the Eucharist or the sacrament of absolving sins. Only properly ordained men can do it. The doctrine that the Church is the body of Christ means that when the Christian acts in the name of Christ it is really Christ who is doing the good work so in this context priest forgiving sins makes perfect sense.

THE TRUTH: They did it because they thought the scriptures told them to do it and predicted the event. Acts quotes a scripture that runs, let another his office take. They did not claim to make this man an apostle - they thought God had already chosen him as one and they were only acknowledging that. Also, it is stated in the Bible that Matthias, the replacement, was an eyewitness, being an eyewitness was essential for being an apostle. The Matthias episode has nothing in common with Roman Catholicism picking clergy who are not predicted in the Bible, who have never met Jesus and who do not claim to be apostles but the mere inferior stand-ins for the apostles.
In Catholicism, you feel a call from God. The Church will then ordain you. This is not recognising you as an apostle but making you one. It is entirely different.
To say that it is really Christ who does the good work is to deny human agency. If priests forgiving sins like they were Jesus makes sense because they are parts of the body of Jesus then they are Jesus and so their claiming to be God would make perfect sense. The distortion and obfuscation in this book is horrendous.
LIE 15, Evangelicals are shocked at how the Catholic Church wont throw out wicked Christians. But Jesus said we must let them stay in the Church and leave it to him to throw them out on the last day (Matthew 13).

THE TRUTH: The real reason the Church behaves so generously is because it is the key to much of its power and money. A corrupt Church that invites bad morals is sure to be popular.
Jesus said that he did not want the weeds pulled out for some of the wheat would be pulled up too. All he is saying is that there are times we must give the sinner the benefit of the doubt for he or she might be trying to be loyal to Jesus and holy. He is not saying that we must let evil people do what they want in the name of the Church. He would want us to throw them out.
LIE 16, The priest is just the assistant of the bishop and has no right or authority to teach anything that does not fit the teaching of the bishop (page 69). When Jesus said call nobody teacher he did not mean this literally for even Evangelicals talk about Sunday-School Teachers.

THE TRUTH: These teachers do not see themselves as teachers but as vehicles through which Christ teaches so that Christ is the only teacher. So they are not literally teachers.
LIE 17, Since Jesus called Simon rock or Peter that was showing that Peter had a new role as the rock (page 75). Evangelicals argue that Peter's faith was the rock not Peter to avoid saying Peter was the first pope. But theirs is a strange interpretation.

THE TRUTH: Peter could be the rock without having a role. We must remember that Peter was chosen as the rock because of his faith meaning that the faith was the real rock so the Evangelical interpretation is not strange. Even Catholics hold that a pope without faith isn't much of a rock and that only a man of faith should be elected to the papacy. They agree with the Evangelical interpretation. The other ten or so Evangelical interpretations are conveniently omitted.
LIE 18, No group taught that the rock was anything other than Peter in the first few centuries (page 76).

THE TRUTH: Some fathers taught that the rock was Peter's faith or Christ himself.
Why is the fact that even the pope cannot be the rock without rocklike faith not mentioned? Because it shows that being the rock is conditional on faith. If Peter lost his faith he would be the rock no more. This would mean that Jesus could not have a papacy in mind for you can't appoint a new pope every time you think the pope has betrayed the faith or showed lack of faith.
LIE 19, Isaiah 22 speaks of the key representing the power to rule and pass on that power in reference to the Prime Minister Eliakim. This was the meaning Jesus had when he said he gave Peter the key of the kingdom of Heaven (page 80). It shows that Jesus meant for Peter to have a successor.

THE TRUTH: There is no evidence that Jesus was thinking of Isaiah 22 at all. Peter and the popes could not rule the kingdom of Heaven. They just had the key to open it up by their teaching.
LIE 20, Clement of Rome, a pope, wrote to the Church of Corinth and gave it commands (page 89). This would have been interfering had he not being the head of the Church.

THE TRUTH: The book assumes that because there is no record of Corinth being offended by these commands from Rome that it was accepted that Rome had authority over it. Silence in this case is no help for most ancient records have been lost. We only have a few documents from Clementís day that have to do with the Christian religion so this argument is totally worthless. When we don't know if the Corinthians were offended clearly the author has no right to dare to say that this silence means they did approve.
Maybe Clement was asked to write to that Church. Many leaders in the early Church considered themselves as a invested with the right to rule the church as a unit so leaders/bishops could lecture Churches that were on the other side of Europe. Bishops did have to step in if the bishop of an area was not carrying out his duties properly.
In the letter Clement gave out about schism in Corinth. He uses the scriptures of the Christian religion and the traditions to justify what he says to them so he does not claim any authority of his own. He is only telling them what scripture commands. He is not acting like a pope. To act like a pope would involve claiming that God has put him in a position of authority so he should be obeyed. Clement doesnít tell them that if they go into schism they are breaking away from him and he is the head of the Church. The letter has nothing to do with defending the papacy at all.
Clement uses we and not I like a pope would. He is speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of the other bishops as a whole. He is only spokesperson. When the other bishops like Clement could preach at other cities why couldn't Clement do it without being pope? I mean if you are pope you are head of the Church, the one that does the commanding. Bishops were also missionaries in those days and the diocese system wasnít set up. They could preach and write to whatever city they wished even if there were bishops already in that city.  
And when Clement wrote that the apostles had all their doubts laid to rest when Jesus rose from the dead it shows that he had no links with the apostles though he claimed to have traced his succession from them. He would not count as a true pope because there is no way if the gospels are true that Jesus raised people from the dead and did incredible miracles before the resurrection that anybody could possibly wait until the resurrection to have their doubts cast aside.
LIE 21, The evil Vigilius stole the papacy to teach heresy and yet when he became pope he did the reverse and taught the correct doctrine (page 95-6). This indicates that God protects the pope from error.

THE TRUTH: There is no evidence that Vigilius did this because of virtue or because he let God be his guide.
What about the fact that many Catholics say they are unsure if Vigilius was a real pope? Some rock for the Church to be built on when nobody knows for sure if all the listed popes were real popes! Yet Catholics give this rock of theirs the right to advocate hatred against homosexuals and contracepting couples and divorcees!
What if the Great Western Schism when there were two and then three claimants to be the true pope had never been healed? There was no proof that any of them was a fake. The schism was started by cardinals who claimed they had rigged the election of the Roman Pontiff. You would have three men giving out allegedly infallible statements so what use is the papacy as a tool for uniting the Church and ruling it and keeping its faith pure? What use is infallibility when nobody knows which one is infallible? The fact that another schism like that could happen is proof enough that the papacy is a conscious deception. Men of outstanding craftiness and malevolence, Pius XII, John XXIII and John Paul II, have been popes.
Roman Catholics tell us about heresy against the Catholic faith being avoided by the popes. But what about their heresies against humanity? Catholicism is a cult. It tells you that instead of worrying about what the neighbours think, you should worry about God for God is all that matters - that is dangerous for affection for God is volatile and it is the fear of what others think that often keeps us civil. It makes it impossible to care if anybody dies young and tragically because the person is better off being away to meet God. It means that you can only be a Catholic who helps people the less you believe in your faith though nobody dares admit it! Putting God first just means you are willing to put a concept first no matter how much you feel you have met God in life. Its an intrinsically fascist idea and calls the world to hatred. That is what hatred is, putting an idea before a person and wanting the person hurt for the idea.
The Catholic Church excommunicates any Catholic who rejects the notion of Mary being assumed into Heaven. If the same Catholic is a terrorist and maims and kills women and children in explosions he will not be excommunicated. That is warped. Of course he will be excommunicated if he kills a bishop!  
LIE 22, Protestants recognise the book of Ezekiel as scripture but not the portions from the Apocrypha added to the book of Daniel. The Catholic Church accepts the portions as scripture. The prophet Daniel was only a boy when Ezekiel wrote so when Ezekiel 14 mentions Daniel it can only be the other Daniel from before Ezekiel's time who was mentioned in the Apocryphal part of the book of Daniel (chapters 13-14) which shows that the Apocrypha is the word of God (page 104).

THE TRUTH: The Catholic New American Bible footnote says that this Daniel is the one mentioned in Canaanite literature. It only says it is possible that he is the one in Daniel 13-14 which is the apocryphal part of Daniel. Maybe he is but if he is that does not make the two chapters to be scripture especially when Daniel chapter 14 has a dragon in it!
LIE 23, When Peter the apostle gave messianic prophecies that Jesus was the Messiah he would have used the Apocrypha which contains many such prophecies (page 105).

THE TRUTH: the Apocrypha does not present the material taken as messianic prophecy as prophecy. Don't assume predictions when you don't need to. And even if it did, the prophecies could have been plagiarised from the prophecies in the real Bible. And there is no evidence that Peter considered the Apocrypha as scripture or quoted it as such. Even if he had quoted it as the word of God that would not mean it was infallible scripture for all false scriptures contain some value and may have pieces in them that originated with real prophets.
LIE 24, Only people who did not want to see the truth would agree with Christians who do not believe in the Apocrypha as the word of God (page 106). The Septuagint which contained the Apocryphal books was without a doubt the Bible used by the apostolic Christians (page 106)

THE TRUTH: The evidence in the book for the Apocrypha is sub-standard so how dare its author attack those who disbelieve in the inspiration of these books.
Currie has a nerve trying to get us to believe in the Apocrypha for the reason he gives for he knows fine well that Rome rejected the Prayer of Manasseh and other books in the Apocrypha as scriptural. The attraction about the Septuagint was that it was in Greek which suited a Gentile audience and its careless and loose translations of the Hebrew original fitted Christian propaganda better. The altered prophecies allegedly about the Messiah were easier to fit into the Jesus story than what the Hebrew original had. Does the Church of England favouring Bibles with the Apocrypha in it mean that that Church accepts the whole lot as scripture?
LIE 25, James 2 teaches that justification is by faith and good works and not faith alone (page 114). Evangelicals ignore the James passage because it contradicts their theology (114).
The parables of Jesus eg of the good Samaritan and the talents teach salvation by faith and works (page 115). Jesus said that those who cry Lord but who do not do the will of God will not be saved which rejects salvation by faith only.
"Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" rejects salvation by faith only for only those who forgive will be forgiven. Paul would not have called us to work out our salvation by fear and trembling if faith alone saves for then there would be nothing to fear.

THE TRUTH: James teaches salvation by faith that is expressed by good works and says that faith without works is not a gift from God and cannot save. The mark of faith that is a gift of God is that it produces good works. When he says we are not saved by faith alone he means the kind of faith the Devil has, a faith which does not change the heart.
The assertion of the book that evangelicals ignore James is simply a slur. It shows how Currie's agenda is to smear his former faith to make the Catholic Church look good. I have read many evangelical studies of James and it is not ignored in their Bible commentaries. They say that Paul is speaking of a person who is made righteous by repentance and having their sins wiped away - they are saved without any requirement for good works. They James is discussing a person who has already been justified this way. This person is not genuinely saved if they don't do good works for good works are the fruit of faith that saves without good works.
Believers in justification by faith alone hold that though they are guaranteed heaven they still need to repent the sins they commit after they are justified not because God rejects them as sinners but because they are not getting the best out of God. Sins are forgiven before you repent them if you are saved in this theology but in the fellowship sense forgiveness is still required. In other words, God does not hold your sins against but you still have repent and be forgiven in the sense of restoring your fellowship in the practical sense with him.
The good Samaritan parable (Luke 10) never mentions salvation and all it says is that everybody who needs help is your neighbour. Currie must see that. That doesnít stop him trying to use it against the Protestant theology of justification by faith alone.
The two sons parable (Mt 21) does not defend salvation by faith and works. Currie says it does. There Jesus says that one son said he would do what his father asked and didnít. The other refused but then had a change of heart and did it and got a reward while the other didnít. Then he said that tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before the respectable Jews. Currie seems to think that because the son who repented pleased his father that the parable is saying that the works pleased the father. But Jesus doesnít use this as a strict analogy of what will happen with God for God is not a man. Not too much can be read into it. But undeniably, the parable is compatible with Protestant theology which would say that the son repented and accepted his fathers will by faith and acted out that faith and the resulting works pleased his father not that the works earned a Heaven or salvation though they might have earned a reward.
The parable of the Sheep and Goats (Mt 25) which is another attempt by Currie to prove salvation by faith and works fails to do what he wants. In it Jesus says he will reject those who have done no good works. But Catholicism and Christianity have always taught that deathbed repentance without good works will save.
The Catholic and evangelical faiths teach that without faith you cannot do good works that please God. They say that works done without the grace of God are unacceptable to him and he doesnít reward them. Therefore Jesus could be taken by them to mean that those who are barred from Heaven for not doing good works were barred because they failed to do the good works that result from proper faith. Perhaps they did do good works but were not purified so that the Lord could accept their works.
The Bible never gives any hint that there is such a thing as sin that isn't bad enough to make God disown you. In other words, there is no hint of the doctrine of venial sin in the Bible. The Bible would say if there was such a thing as venial sin for it makes such a difference to understand what the Bible says about salvation. If venial sin exists then it is possible that the doctrine that Jesus imputes his goodness to the account of the unrighteous is false for then you can commit these sins and still go to Heaven. But if venial sin does not exist then all sin rejects God totally and nobody will be saved meaning that the only hope is a substitute earning salvation for sinners in their place. This is the doctrine that lies behind salvation by faith alone and not good works. The silence of the Bible on venial sin proves that justification and pardon by faith alone and not by good works as taught by Protestantism is Bible doctrine and that Roman Catholicism is apostate and dangerous Christianity for denying this. The letter to the Romans which was intended to convince Roman Christians that good works had nothing to do with salvation because all were sinners would have mentioned venial sin had it existed for it does not block salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches that good works can atone for venial sin but the Bible is clear that the blood of Jesus is the only thing that can atone for sin. Hebrews 10 even says that the sacrifices of animals the Jewish priests offered to God for atonement did not work and stresses that there is no need for anything added on to the blood of Jesus to atone for sins. Rome certainly agrees that the blood of Jesus is more than enough to atone for all the sins ever committed. But to say that sins are cancelled and paid for by doing good works is to say that God wants more atonement than he needs which makes him a vindictive and unfair God. You can't pay a penalty for sins for which the price has been fully paid.
Hebrews 10 says that Jesus offered one sacrifice that perfects the forgiving of sin by forgiving all sin and that when all sins have been pardoned there is no need for any more sacrifices. The purpose of the letter is to stop us thinking we can be pardoned by Jesus and need to make more offerings to God for sin. We would not be thinking that unless we had sinned since we accepted Jesus and his mercy. But these sins have been forgiven anyway meaning the substitution theory that Jesus has done it all for us is true according to the Bible.
LIE 26, Saying believe on Jesus and be saved in the Bible was a shorthand way of saying believe and be baptised (page 139).

THE TRUTH: Speculation. The Bible never says that Baptism has anything to do with salvation. It says baptism pictures God cleaning you from your sins. But it never hints that baptism was so important and as important as faith that one can't be had without the other. It would need to make them inseparable if belief could mean belief and baptism.
LIE 27, The doctrine that each person is a member of the body of Jesus shows that the idea of an invisible true Church is unscriptural (page 152).

THE TRUTH: the body parts are physically separate from the head so only the head knows which person is really a body part. The concept supports an invisible Church. A fake Christian cannot be a member of the body of Christ though he or she seems to be but to all practical intents and purposes he or she can be a member of a visible Church.
LIE 28, The doctrine of Evangelicals that man can do nothing good does not fit what we see of people (page 170).

THE TRUTH: Evangelicals teach that even if we seem to be good we are not being good. We want good on our terms not on God's so the good is really evil.
LIE 29, the woman in Revelation wears a crown of twelve stars so she must be queen of Heaven - so Mary is Queen of Heaven.

THE TRUTH: You can wear a crown without being Queen or King. Many royals have their own crowns though it is the king or queen who has the authority. The lady could be queen of Israel which is represented by the twelve stars but Mary was never that and the Church holds that her queenship over the world and Heaven is what counts and should be emphasised. If the Church's interpretation were right that would be emphasised in the chapter.
Rome calls Mary the mother of all Christians. It alleges that Jesus gave us his mother to be our mother too. The pagan origin of this notion is obvious from the following observation. Mary is not just our mother in name but in fact according to the Church. We are adopted by her as her sons and daughters. She looks after us then. She can do this only by interceding with God for us for she supposedly has no power of her own. But if that is how she looks after us then it follows that St Martin de Porres is our father for he is doing what makes her a mother! There is a major contradiction then in Roman theology. Calling Mary mother in Roman theology despite their denials must be an attempt to make her a goddess for she cannot be mother just by interceding. She must have magic power of her own and perhaps the power to force God to do things against his will. Satan must be working behind the apparitions of Mary in which she calls for her flock to acknowledge her as mother.
LIE 30, Natural Family Planning leaves sex open to creating a new life if God so wills (201). It does not try to stop God creating life like contraception does. The main purpose for having children is so that they will be able to praise God forever in Heaven for that is what God wants (page 202). The main reason should be nothing else not even love for the children. Artificial birth control is selfish (page 206) and Onan was put to death for committing that sin by God. To want the pleasure of procreating and not the responsibility that comes with it is selfish (page 207).

THE TRUTH: It is selfish to decide there is a God and to put the children you can see and touch second to him. That is putting something you like believing in before what you can sense is real. After all there might be no God at all. If God wants to be praised let him make his praisers himself.
If it is wrong to try and stop God creating life then it must be wrong to try and make it harder for him as well. If condoms are sinful for they stop God creating life then it follows that using Natural Family Planning makes it harder for him to create life. If stopping God creating life is bad then making it harder for him though less bad is bad too.
An all-powerful God can make sure a woman gets pregnant even if condoms are used. Yet the Church forbids condoms even if the users believe they are open to letting God create life. If the condoms are immoral then so is any attempt to make it harder for God to make babies. You are not allowed to use a condom when you put a pin prick in it so that God may still be able to create life though pregnancy is unlikely.
If you use Natural Family Planning it is certainly true that you want the pleasure of sex but don't want the responsibility of a child. You are taking the risk that life will occur but you are minimising that risk. You still don't want a child. Yet people who use birth-control are criticised for this. Damn the hypocrisy of Currie and his Church!   They say that even if you use Natural Family Planning what you are doing is wanting the responsibility of a child only if God wills. That contradicts their view that Natural Family Planning may be used if the wife cannot have another child for it will kill her and is an act of love wishing to keep her alive. The man who wants the responsibility of a child under any circumstances when he has sex with his wife under such circumstances doesnít think much of her. He should go and live with the pope for the pope comes first anyway. And if the wife has any sense she will help him pack.

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the most remarkable religions of all time. Not only are nearly all its major doctrines not in the Bible but they do not stand up to the scrutiny of history or commonsense. The doctrines have sinister implications and religions that teach such should be abandoned.
No matter what book you read on Catholic Apologetics the same thing is true, they all depend on lies and errors to look like a defence of that faith. What does that say about the Roman Church? What needs to be defended by lies is false. Roman Catholicism admits that most of its doctrines cannot be found in the Bible. It supplements the Bible with tradition that is said to be the word of God too. But the Bible claims to be the word of God in the strongest possible way. It says it is god-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). That means it is as much the word of God as would a word breathed out by God in speech would be. Tradition never claims to be god-breathed or that God literally inspired every word it says so it stands to reason that the Bible is the supreme authority and anything that it is not in it should not be binding for belief. Currie of course refuses to mention all this (page 55) as Catholic apologists do when they come up against what unsettles them.
* BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, by David M Currie, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996