Printable View
i like my traditions thank you very much. predestination on the other hand is pure hogwash.Quote:
I don't regard all Catholics as reprobate, since the word is still preached in their churches. My issue is with the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Bible says even the very elect will be deceived. As with Louis, my problem is with the upper echelons of the Vatican hierarchy, and the political and theological decisions they continue to enforce.
i hate my computer soooo slow sooo slow stupid double post AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!11
It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Not if he keeps his religion inside the walls of his home.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Unfortunately thats not the case as evidence I present to your honour this link The Whore of Babylon as evidence he believes in a literal interpretation of said book. One minute he says its ok I don't really believe and then a minute later he says "oh but it cannot be dismissed so easy" etc etc this kind of thinking is why people go around padlocking swingsets in playgrounds or worse actually killing each other in my country.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, I don't agree with Catholicism, so obviously I'm going to institutionalise my beliefs in the political system and persecute everyone I don't agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
What an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
But you have done it Britain HAS institutionalised its beliefs and so on ad infinitum.Quote:
Yes, I don't agree with Catholicism, so obviously I'm going to institutionalise my beliefs in the political system and persecute everyone I don't agree with.
Not really they were all fools following there skygod both Cromwell and the Royalists and the ConfederetesQuote:
an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...
And that has what to do with me personally?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Same as you claim for me even though I don't believe in your man in the clouds watching me all day. You have been on here in this forum for two or three days now writing religious fairy stories and quoting from Ian Paisley websites if don't mind anyone who take that stuff too seriously which you seem too needs to chilll out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Of course you wouldnt when you hold an historcist position on revelations the line in question is a fragment of a poem, an interesting historical footnote nothing more.Quote:
I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.
So.... John Paul didn't fight the Nazi's in WWII? Also, I looked up the Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_StepinacQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
He condemned genocide during the war and managed to save many of the country's Jews. There doesn't seem much justice to his trial and imprisonment, and the whole thing looks like a half-hearted political move that even Tito wasn't really willing to carry through.
So I think you're wrong here.
It's an ulgy fact if you want to see religion die; relgion does a lot of good. There was a chap wrote an article in the Times a few years ago where he admitted that, despite being an atheist, he had come to believe what Africa needed was Christianity. He said he had been forced to accept that it was the specifically Christian ethos and charitable imperative that made people's lives better; not the charitable projects alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I still can't make sense of what you are saying giving what we were actually talking about, but as for the Ian Paisley thing, so what, it's an upgrade from when I quoted Ken Ham once before lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Seriously though, my views are inspired by the readings of various Reformation-era figures, I was just looking up stuff on Reverend Paisley after I saw that video of him denouncing the Pope as the antichrist in the EU Parliament. What a guy, even if you disagree with him, you've gotto admire his conviction.
I detest him because of his convictions they are laughable but unfortunately also have to be taken seriously due to his influence with people. That frightens me massively the Pope is also a danger but he is far away in Rome but Paisley is only up in BallymenaQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Personally, I am much more worried of atheists both in Ireland and Ulster. The paramilitaries on both sides were always dominated by them. The major religious denominations always condemned the violence, but when church attendance declined, people turned to some crazy ideologies. Marxism on the Republican side and the far-right with the Loyalists. Makes me wonder if atheism is really compatible with the concept of liberal democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
You think Pearse or De Valera and Collins where atheist hmm interesting I dont know specific names for the opposite side but I doubt Carson was one either. Church attendence was at it's highest in the early twentieth century in Ireland it did not stop the violence on any side of the troubles. What could be more crazy than the militant protestants of the Ulster bible belt bashing there bible and pulling the triggers at the same time or the blood sacrifice ideas or Pearse.
Carson was a religious nut much like myself. Interestingly, even as the founder of the UVF, he always argued that Catholics must be allowed to be an included part of Norther Ireland, with full political freedom, something apparently lost on his successors to the detriment of all parties. Also, what's with the bashing of 'Bible-bashers', you telling me a Christian has to be a pacifist? The original UVF was a perfectly legitimate milita (1912 Solemn League and Covenant laid down the justification, and recognised by the Conservative government), and Gusty Spence and his crew who decided to attack Catholics for fun from 1966 are in now way their successors.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Quite simply yes or they risk the fictional hell of there particular brand of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Hmm, I haven't heard this from a single moderate or fanatic from any major denomination. Only some obscure anabaptist sects. Can you justify this claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I believe your supposed to turn the other cheek or am I wrong cos I doubt it seeing as its attributed to Jesus it would be pretty copperfastened in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Which might be a relevant point if the war was fought on the grounds of revenge. But in most cases, they're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Actually, you've heard it from me, and almost every non-Reformed denomination. However, violence is accepted as a necessary evil when confronted with a greater evil. Even so, the principle that Violence is wrong stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
So thou shalt not kill is out too I take it I cant believe I nearly forgot that one how do you explain that one soQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I knew you would say violence is bad, but not always morally wrong. Otherwise, Jesus was a sinner. We always hear about how he condemns his disciples for defending him with their sword, but why did they have swords in the first place? Because he told them to buy them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Other translations say the word is 'murder', not 'kill'. It has been argued that kill is indeed more appropriate given the wording, but given the context with a vast number of examples and stories from the Bible such as the one with Jesus himself mentioned above, it would appear pacifism is the wrong conclusion to take from reading the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
No, it's always morally wrong, but sometimes necessary nonetheless. as to why Jesus told his disciples to buy swords, it was so the prophecy should be fullfilled, not so they could do violence. The only time when Jesus engages in anything likeviolence, or really loses his temper, is in the temple. The important thing then is that he takes up a whip, a tool of chastisement but not a weapon. He uses it to drive the moneylenders from the Temple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I.e. to drive the interlopers from His/His Father's house.
Lol, the IRA is almost celebrated by many Irish-Americans. Im sure you hear the stories of American businessmen supplying the IRA with money. Those are mostly exaggerated of course.
I of course see it for what it is terrorism. I say let the Brits cling to their last little piece of Empire.
Bah self defense and sometimes even aggression can be forgivable if the conditions are just right.
I wouldn't have used the example of Jesus trashing the temple anyway, due to the fact that he never harmed any people in the incident. But still, when Peter strikes the authorities that come to take Jesus, he doesn't condemn him outright as he does with any other sin, he simply tells him to stop, since it was Jesus' fate to be arrested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Also, the first Gentile to be baptised was a Roman Centurion. He was described as being a God-fearing soul before he received his baptism, and this while he was actively stationed in Judea. The early Christians seem to have taken no issue with soldiers, which they surely would have done if violence is always morally wrong.
That's not a very accurate way of viewing the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
“He condemned genocide during the war and managed to save many of the country's Jews. There doesn't seem much justice to his trial and imprisonment, and the whole thing looks like a half-hearted political move that even Tito wasn't really willing to carry through.”
Croatian re-writing history I am afraid, in Franjo Tudjman’s style.
Of course I went in this link…
Stepinac received the highest decoration from the Ustasa Regime and gladly approved the extermination of the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia.
He save no Jews, and was a willing partner of a Regime which not only gladly joined the Nazi Crusader but, and that is exceptional, ADDED their own list of people to exterminate, the Serbs.
Is there hard fact how he saved Jews? No. There are little evidences he did so.
Twice in 1970 and 1994, attempts were made to the Yad Vashem Holocaust to get Stepinac added to the "List of the Righteous" - which includes people like Oskar Schindler, but this was turned down. Interestingly, the request was sent by private Jewish citizens from Croatia and not the official Jewish organization in Croatia, which has never sent such a request Explaining the refusal, an official of the Yad Vashem explained that:
"Persons who assisted Jews but simultaneously collaborated or were linked with a Fascist regime which took part in the Nazi orchestrated persecution of Jews, may be disqualified for the Righteous title".
Do we have pictures of him with Ante Pavlevic: Yes.
Do we have letter from Cardinal Simic (?) to Stepinac reproaching his silence: Yes.
"God, who directs the destiny of nations and controls the hearts of Kings, has given us Ante Pavelic and moved the leader of a friendly and allied people, Adolf Hitler, to use his victorious troops to disperse our oppressors... Glory be to God, our gratitude to Adolf Hitler and loyalty to our Poglavnik, Ante Pavelic." Alosious Stepinac, 1941.
“So I think you're wrong here” Unfortunately, I am not. Stepinac was a Criminal and is now a Saint.
I met the last (if not only) survivor of Glina Church. He passed away lat year, his son is a friend.
What the ones like Stepinac did shouldn't be forgotten and certainly not be rewarded…
I shall have to rectify that Frenchie's bollox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/...ordination.jpg
(Not that I disagree with Louis. There are pictures of Ratzinger were he does present the nazi salute. Considering that both Nazism and the Vatican are the two top subjects of consipracy theories, I am not sure how credible these pictures are.
As a general statement: it is neither pictures withput context, nor Ratzinger's actions as a young man (a long time ago, in complicated circumstances) that lead me to conclude he harbors fascist sympathies, but his recent actions as cardinal and pope.)
Right....Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I think the claim he is a facist is without any real foundation if you discount his youth. Right-Wing, yes. Conservative, definately. Willing to forgive facists, it appears so.
Unfortunately, none of this makes him a facist, which is not to say his is not unpleasent. Personally, however, I think he's just the wrong man to be Pope. He is aggressively conservative and a much more divisive spiritual figure than his predecessor. Though it must be remembered that said predecessor was also a hardline anti-Liberal and staunch traditionalist who voted against most of Vatican II.
At the YMCA, everybody loves the YMCAQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
(which the French invented, along with bathwater, and freedom in 1789)
This is why JP2 will be welcomed back from the dead by Catholics to be the next Pope when he is impersonated by the devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla