Secular Society Threatened?

[Centurion1]

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 like my traditions thank you very much. predestination on the other hand is pure hogwash.

[Centurion1]

i hate my computer soooo slow sooo slow stupid double post AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!11

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.

[HoreTore]

It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.

Not if he keeps his religion inside the walls of his home.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not if he keeps his religion inside the walls of his home.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems to required to be pointed out this is a thread on how secular society is threatened by religion which would include yourself.

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.

or worse actually killing each other in my country.

What an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

But you have done it Britain HAS institutionalised its beliefs and so on ad infinitum.

an ironic comment given the man you celebrate in your sig...

Not really they were all fools following there skygod both Cromwell and the Royalists and the Confederetes

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you have done it Britain HAS institutionalised its beliefs and so on ad infinitum.

And that has what to do with me personally?

Not really they were all fools following there skygod both Cromwell and the Royalists and the Confederetes

I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.

[gaelic cowboy]

And that has what to do with me personally?

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.

I don't see how that makes it any less ironic.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“the Polish resistence fighter” Jaryzelski? Oh, no, you probably speak of II, Jean Paul. The one who made nazi Saint (cf Croatian Aloysius Stepinac).
The problem with the high Catholic Clergy is so much anti-communist that they are loosing (if they ever get it) the plot: Nazism is bad.

Can be say the same for the Russian Orthodox one, mind you: They made Nicolas II a martyr and a Saint. The guy who ordered to shoot at a crowd demonstrating for bread…

So.... John Paul didn't fight the Nazi's in WWII? Also, I looked up the Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac

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 is a bit of a problem. At every provocation, I explode into a barrage of 'reactionary fascists Catholics'.

Whereas, in reality, for the past five decades or so, the church at the base is rather left wing, progressive. It's the churches that collect for the third world, that have done a lot to protect the weak, from the homeless to the illegal immigrant. With a theology that stresses solidarity, not exclusion.
Every church you enter, there is, apart from a collection to restore the church (the physical building), a collection for some project in some poor country. Not all of which can be brushed aside as winning souls when they're down and destitute.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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 Ballymena

[Rhyfelwyr]

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 Ballymena

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

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.

[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.

[gaelic cowboy]

Also, what's with the bashing of 'Bible-bashers', you telling me a Christian has to be a pacifist?

Quite simply yes or they risk the fictional hell of there particular brand of religion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Quite simply yes or they risk the fictional hell of there particular brand of religion.

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?

[gaelic cowboy]

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?

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

Which might be a relevant point if the war was fought on the grounds of revenge. But in most cases, they're not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

Which might be a relevant point if the war was fought on the grounds of revenge. But in most cases, they're not.

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 so

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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!

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 so

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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!

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.

I.e. to drive the interlopers from His/His Father's house.

[Centurion1]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

I.e. to drive the interlopers from His/His Father's house.

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.

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.

I say let the Brits cling to their last little piece of Empire.

That's not a very accurate way of viewing the situation.

[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.”
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…

[Louis VI the Fat]

I shall have to rectify that Frenchie's bollox:






(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.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I shall have to rectify my post:






(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 credible these pictures are. I've been had with the picture above already.
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....

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.

[Strike For The South]

()

At the YMCA, everybody loves the YMCA

(which the French invented, along with bathwater, and freedom in 1789)

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.