The Truth Within

[BootCampJr]

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered died, and was buried. On the third day He rose in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Maher]

I recommend searching the past threads on this site for similar discussions. Here’s a headstart:

CAF Google Search: Bible contradictions

That does not explain how men lived to 900+ years and how it is possible for someone to live in a large fish for three days, and how a man can be made from dust, and how a woman can be made from a man’s rib.

As well as, the unoriginal story of Christ. The book, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead” is identical to the story of Jesus Christ, apart from the small issue rolleyes: ) of it being around hundreds of years before the Bible. It’s as credible as the Bible. Are you not worried that the Bible has incited and exploited a fom of plagiarism? Perhaps you were brought up into the world of religion without being open to all possibilities, or more importantly, being open to reality. In that case, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Once more, I have no evidence that the Bible is credible and genuine. I’m not surprised.

 

[Maher]

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered died, and was buried. On the third day He rose in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

You seem like a really nice person. How can you believe this stuff without an ounce of evidence or credibility? There’s more chance of Snow White being a genuine story.

He has spoken through the prophets?

He’s in heaven? Where is Heaven?

You would think someone who has devoted their life to religion would be able to show a minuscule amount of evidence to back up the ludicrousness of what they believe in.

Why is there no evidence?

 

[Maher]

OK, time for you to stop blowing off steam and to prove your point. Go back for the past 100 years and document all the armed conflicts around the world in that time. Then break them down as to major causes, and show us what percentage of people who died in these conflicts, died as a result of religious conflict.

Then remove militant Islam from the mix and show us those new numbers. After all, you’re posting on Catholic Answers, not Muslim Answers.

I predict a number below 1%…

I’m posting on a Christian forum, but I’m talking about religion. I’m saying religion brings about hostility, violence and death. Admittedly, religion is not all at fault for this, but it plays a massive part.

While Stalin, Mao, and company were certainly among the most of insidious of historical figures, those who claim they killed because of their atheism failed to show any connection between their atheism and the massacres. The historical truth is that they killed to eliminate political opposition. Moreover, they forbade religion so they could, in essence, establish themselves as God-like leaders, as many Chinese who suffered Mao’s tyranny will tell you. Kim Jung Il continues this strategy in North Korea.

Regardless of how evil these men were/are, they did not kill in the name of atheism. They were merely atheists who killed. This is a huge logical difference-- not that religious people are generally persuaded by logic. For example, in the Bible, which Christians say is the perfect word of a perfect God, God says “Thou shalt not kill” in the same section in which he says that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed. Would a perfect God contradict himself like that? Jesus also commanded his followers to slaughter anyone who does not accept him as the son of God. (Luke 19:27–“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”)

Just look at the loving history of Christianity. What better way to represent a loving God than with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake?

History is replete with examples of religious people using violence to force their beliefs on others. Humanists don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people in public places in the name of their scepticism, nor do they crash planes into buildings, nor start wars against people in other countries because the people there don’t share their non belief.

Scientists, who overwhelmingly tend not to be religious, are responsible for nearly all of human progress. That’s because they utilize reason rather than the silly superstitions on which most people rely. It’s religion, not science, that threatens people with violence, torture, death, and even eternal damnation if you don’t agree with its ideas. Physicists never bullied people into believing Einstein’s Relativity Theory, and did you ever hear of Catholics falling victim to a Galilean inquisition? When was the last time a war was fought over some scientific dispute? When you think about it, wars are much more likely to be fought over stupid religious differences, not over who’s the most logical.
**
Definitions of “superstition”:**

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Religion will no longer cause such harm only when it’s widely scorned and ridiculed as the abject superstition that it is. The Bible, Quran, and other fairy-tales do not prove the existence of God any more than Japanese monster movie’s prove the existence of Godzilla.

 

[Maher]

Has anyone ever heard of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland? Well let me entertain you.

“The Troubles” refers to approximately three decades of violence between elements of Northern Ireland’s nationalist community (principally Roman Catholic) and unionist community (principally Protestant). The conflict was the result of discrimination against catholics/nationalist by the protestant/unionist majority,[7] nationalist opposition to “British rule”,[8] and the question of Northern Ireland’s status within the United Kingdom.[9][10] The violence was characterised by the armed campaigns of paramilitary groups, including the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of 1969–1997 intended to end British rule in Northern Ireland and the reunite Ireland politically and thus creating a new “all-Ireland” Irish Republic; and the Ulster Volunteer Force, formed in 1966 in response to the perceived erosion of both the British character and unionist domination of Northern Ireland. The state security forces —the British Army and the police (the Royal Ulster Constabulary)— were also involved in the violence.

The British government’s view was that its forces were neutral in the conflict, trying to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to democratic self-determination. Irish republicans, however, regarded the state forces as forces of occupation and “combatants” in the conflict, noting collusion between the state forces and the loyalist paramilitaries. The “Ballast” investigation by the Police Ombudsman has confirmed that British forces, and in particular the RUC, did, on several occasions, collude with loyalist paramilitaries, were involved in murder, and did obstruct the course of justice when such claims had previously been investigated.[11] The extent of collusion is still hotly disputed. Unionists claim that reports of collusion were either false or highly exaggerated and that there were also instances of collusion between the authorities in the Republic of Ireland and Republican paramilitaries. See also the section below on Collusion by Security Forces and loyalist paramilitaries.

Alongside the violence, there was a political deadlock between the major political parties in Northern Ireland, including those who condemned violence, over the future status of Northern Ireland and the form of government there should be within Northern Ireland.

The Troubles were brought to an uneasy end by a peace process. It included the declaration of ceasefires by most paramilitary organisations, the complete decommissioning of their weapons, the reform of the police, and the corresponding withdrawal of army troops from the streets and sensitive border areas such as South Armagh and Fermanagh, as agreed by the signatories to the Belfast Agreement (commonly known as the “Good Friday Agreement”). The agreement reiterated the long-held British position, which successive Irish governments had not fully acknowledged, that Northern Ireland would remain within the United Kingdom until a majority votes otherwise.

On the other hand, the British Government recognised for the first time the principle that the people of the island of Ireland as a whole have the right, without any outside interference, to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent.[12] The latter statement was key to winning support for the agreement from nationalists and republicans. It also established a devolved power-sharing government within Northern Ireland (which had been suspended from 14 October 2002 until 8 May 2007), where the government must consist of both unionist and nationalist parties.

Though the number of active participants in the Troubles was relatively small, and the paramilitary organisations that claimed to represent the communities were unrepresentative of the general population, the Troubles touched the lives of many people in Northern Ireland on a daily basis,[13] while occasionally spreading to the Republic of Ireland and England. At several times between 1969 and 1998,it seemed possible that the Troubles would escalate into a full-scale civil war. Critical times were in 1972 after Bloody Sunday,[citation needed] or during the Hunger Strikes of 1980–1981, when there was mass, hostile mobilisation of the two communities[citation needed]. Many people today have had their political, social, and communal attitudes and perspectives shaped by the Troubles.

How many were killed?

Between 1969 and 2001, 3,523 people were killed as a result of the Troubles, an average of one every eighty hours.

Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by security forces.

The database shows that 873 civilians were killed by loyalists, 738 by republicans, and 190 by security forces. An additional 56 were killed by unknown forces.

Additional Consequences of “The Troubles” Fought in the Name of Religion:

**Incident ** No.
Injury 47,000
Shooting 37,000
Armed robbery 22,500
Persons imprisoned for
paramilitary offences 19,600
Bombing and attempted bombing 16,200
Arson 2,200

 

[Maher]

Atrocities Committed in the Name of Religion

Roman Persecution of Christians

Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumours abounded that Nero himself was responsible. To divert attention from the rumours, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches. Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. Then in the mid-third century, emperors initiated even more intensive persecutions. This, “The Great Persecution”, is considered the largest. Beginning with a series of four edicts banning Christian practices and ordering the imprisonment of Christian clergy, the persecution intensified until all Christians in the empire were commanded to sacrifice to the gods or face immediate execution. This persecution was to be the last, as Constantine I soon came into power and in 313 legalized Christianity.

The Witch Hunts

When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offence. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

The Inquisition

The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.

Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.

The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.

Buddhist Burma

Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 “spotless” men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

Islamic Jihads

Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all “sinners” and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, ‘Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.

 

[Maher]

The Crusades

The great series of western holy wars were the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 until 1291 CE. The aim was to capture the sacred places in the Holy Land from the Muslims who lived there, so it was intended as a war to right wrongs done against Christianity.

The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1095. He raged at the capture of the holy places and the treatment given to Christians, and ordered a war to restore Christianity. He said that the war would have the support of God:

Let this be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!

…Whoever shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast.

The pope also absolved all who took part in the crusade of all their sins.

The first Crusade captured Jerusalem after bitter fighting, and the residents of the city were brutalised and slaughtered by the Christian invaders. The invaders’ conduct breached the principles of modern just war ethics, and the massacres still colour Islamic politics today.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

The Bible is Not Original

Does it not bother you that the life of Jesus Christ is uncannily identical to other “stories” that was going around the Mediterranean for at least 1000 years before the Bible?

Why should it ? What has originality to do with anything ?​

The Story of Krishna

1. Born in India 1000 years before Jesus Christ.
2. Was a carpenter.
3. Born to a virgin.
4. Baptised in a river.

Persian God Mithra

1. 600 years before Christ.
2. Born 25th December.
3. Performed miracles.
4. Resurrected on the 3rd day.
5. Was known as, The Lamb, The Truth, The Way, The
   Saviour, The Light, The Messiah.

The Egyptian Book of the Dead

1. Written in 1280BC, describes a God, named Horus…
2. Horus is the son of the God, Osiris…born to a virgin mother.
3. He was baptised in a river by Anup the baptiser, who was
   later beheaded.
4. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while along in the desert
   and healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and
   walked on water.
5. He raised Asar from the dead. (Asar translated into
   Lazarus.)
6. He also had 12 disciples.
7. Horus was crucified first and after three days, TWO women
   announced Horus, the saviour of humanity had been
   resurrected.

Hmm, that is uncannily identical.

It’s a pity you have to sift through three different cultures, & as many characters.​

• Anup is not Anup - he’s (name removed by moderator)u in Egyptian, Anubis in Greek; & his principal function is as a funerary god.
• As for Asar, “W-s-r” would be more accurate. Wsr = “Mighty”; Lazaros in Greek = Eleazar -in Hebrew = meaning, “God helps” in English.
  This is about as convincing as deriving the word “kilt” from Greek “Kletos”, “called”, & and arguing that to wear a kilt is an infallible sign of being “called” by God.

The Sabbath

The 7th day = rest day. According to the Old Testament there are certain actions that are punishable by death if they are carried out on the Sabbath. There are 39 of these actions that are punishable to death. Some of the following are part of this 39:

• Lighting a fire
• Planting
• Ploughing
• Tying a knot
• Building
• Pushing a button

Come on! How can people believe in the Bible?

The Story of Sodom & Gomorrah

God found out of all the evil happenings in S&G and sent two angels to S&G – one to the house of one righteous man called Laud. The town’s people tried to rape these angels. Laud did not want a bad reputation conjured of S&G, so he sent out his daughter to be raped instead. He was supposed to be the good guy.

Why would I want to put my morality in the Bible? Why?

Not “Laud” - there’s a 17th-century Abp. of Canterbury of that name: the man you want is Lot.​

It’s an interesting story: the S & G tale is similar in kind to other tales of heavenly visitors who are treated inhospitably, destroy the place that was inhospitable, & save only the one or two people who recognise them for what they were. Sometimes the destruction is by flooding - & the account in Genesis 19 is modelled on the Flood narrative.

 

[Maher]

Looking back in history, biblical history to be exact, the first religious war was fought over land. In the bible, the first chapter of Joshua tells of God speaking to Joshua telling him that he and the rest of the Israelites are to take possession of land stretching as far as Lebanon to the Euphrates. In this book, God gave the Israelites permission to destroy any opposition which mainly included the Canaanites in order for the Israelites, his chosen people to have this land. According to my research, God’s purpose for this was so that his people would have a land all to themselves apart from the idol worshipping Canaanites. God didn’t want the Israelites to bow down before false gods like the Canaanites were doing. With God’s help, Joshua conquered this promised land in 6 years and divided it among the Israelite’s 12 tribes. Ultimately what happened is that once this generation of Israelites passed, many of their children disobeyed God and started worshipping idols like the Canaanites did.

Concerning the reasons to go to war, St. Augustine is credited as the first person to create a just war theory. This doctrine has four strict conditions which include that the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain, all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective, there must be serious prospects of success, and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. According to this theory, just cause for war can be to recapture things taken or to punish wrongdoers, but the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. The theory also directs how combatants are to act in war and in recent years, some theorists have also added a guide on behavior after war which includes that just cause for termination is if there has been a reasonable vindicdation of the rights that were violated in the first place and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender.

In my research of monotheistic religions, I have yet to come across any religion where the divinity is a God inclined to war. Many would claim the Muslim religion promotes a belief in fighting according to the concept of the jihad. This is a religious duty of Muslims that translated from Arabic means strive or struggle. It is commonly used in the expression “striving in the way of Allah(al-jihad fi sabil Allah)”, but this expression can also be thought of in terms of Christians striving to be Christ-like. Considering that in mind, Allah and Christ are seen as peaceful deities. The five pillars of islam are five duties that every Muslim is responsible for and these duties are Shahadah(profession of faith), Salah(ritual prayer), Zakah(alms tax), Sawm(fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj(pilgrimmage to Mecca). Some consider the jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, but even if that was so, no other pillar mentions anything resembling war or conflict.

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19 KJV. If every biblical reference I have found from Psalms 46:9, Matthew chapter 24, Luke 3:14, to Hebrews 12:14 have all pointed to God being a Lord of peace then how can war be justified? My only answer in this is man. According to Genesis chapter 3, we are all flawed creatures and in our many flaws, we tend to twist and misconstrue words until they are bent to our own desires. So called “religious” wars have been fought and are still being fought over not just opposing ideals, but also over desired land. I further believe that there is no justification for war based on religion because every man and woman has free will and it is our free will that allows us to decide who we serve and how we intend to serve our God. Ultimately, after all the research anyone can do on this issue, it still boils down to an individual’s free will on what ideals and beliefs they choose to accept.

Do you want any more examples?

Let’s get back to what this thread is all about.

 

[Maher]

Why should it ? What has originality to do with anything ? ## It’s a pity you have to sift through three different cultures, & as many characters.​

• Anup is not Anup - he’s (name removed by moderator)u in Egyptian, Anubis in Greek; & his principal function is as a funerary god.
• As for Asar, “W-s-r” would be more accurate. Wsr = “Mighty”; Lazaros in Greek = Eleazar -in Hebrew = meaning, “God helps” in English.
  This is about as convincing as deriving the word “kilt” from Greek “Kletos”, “called”, & and arguing that to wear a kilt is an infallible sign of being “called” by God.

Not “Laud” - there’s a 17th-century Abp. of Canterbury of that name: the man you want is Lot.​

It’s an interesting story: the S & G tale is similar in kind to other tales of heavenly visitors who are treated inhospitably, destroy the place that was inhospitable, & save only the one or two people who recognise them for what they were. Sometimes the destruction is by flooding - & the account in Genesis 19 is modelled on the Flood narrative.

Right, I got a few names wrong, so it seems. (Evidence please!)

Regardless, what about all the other identical traits to the Lord Jesus Christ?

The fact the Bible story is not original should set alarm bells ringing.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m posting on a Christian forum, but I’m talking about religion. I’m saying religion brings about hostility, violence and death. Admittedly, religion is not all at fault for this, but it plays a massive part.

While Stalin, Mao, and company were certainly among the most of insidious of historical figures, those who claim they killed because of their atheism failed to show any connection between their atheism and the massacres. The historical truth is that they killed to eliminate political opposition. Moreover, they forbade religion so they could, in essence, establish themselves as God-like leaders, as many Chinese who suffered Mao’s tyranny will tell you. Kim Jung Il continues this strategy in North Korea.

Regardless of how evil these men were/are, they did not kill in the name of atheism. They were merely atheists who killed. This is a huge logical difference-- not that religious people are generally persuaded by logic. For example, in the Bible, which Christians say is the perfect word of a perfect God, God says “Thou shalt not kill” in the same section in which he says that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed. Would a perfect God contradict himself like that? Jesus also commanded his followers to slaughter anyone who does not accept him as the son of God. (Luke 19:27–“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”)

Just look at the loving history of Christianity. What better way to represent a loving God than with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake?

History is replete with examples of religious people using violence to force their beliefs on others. Humanists don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people in public places in the name of their scepticism, nor do they crash planes into buildings, nor start wars against people in other countries because the people there don’t share their non belief.

Scientists, who overwhelmingly tend not to be religious, are responsible for nearly all of human progress. That’s because they utilize reason rather than the silly superstitions on which most people rely. It’s religion, not science, that threatens people with violence, torture, death, and even eternal damnation if you don’t agree with its ideas. Physicists never bullied people into believing Einstein’s Relativity Theory, and did you ever hear of Catholics falling victim to a Galilean inquisition? When was the last time a war was fought over some scientific dispute? When you think about it, wars are much more likely to be fought over stupid religious differences, not over who’s the most logical.
**
Definitions of “superstition”:**

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Religion will no longer cause such harm only when it’s widely scorned and ridiculed as the abject superstition that it is. The Bible, Quran, and other fairy-tales do not prove the existence of God any more than Japanese monster movie’s prove the existence of Godzilla.

You are 19, maybe going to college or already in college. So let me give you a bit of advice; site your sources.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071015202431AA5HlAM

Plagiarism is frowned upon.

Unless of course you are Mr. RRRRComposer… who looks far older than 19

God bless

 

[Maher]

You are 19, maybe going to college or already in college. So let me give you a bit of advice; site your sources.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071015202431AA5HlAM

Plagiarism is frowned upon.

Unless of course you are Mr. RRRRComposer… who looks far older than 19

God bless

Yes, as you can notice, I have placed texts that are not my own in quotation boxes. I have missed the quotation boxes, but do not let that detract from the point of views being discussed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Has anyone ever heard of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland? Well let me entertain you.

How many were killed?

Additional Consequences of “The Troubles” Fought in the Name of Religion:

Not every one on this site is American. The IRA were terrorist thugs & traitors, who showed the depth of their Catholicism by ignoring the Pope’s plea in 1979 for an end to the troubles. Religion was an excuse, a cloak - not a reason. There is nothing religious in attempting to murder a Prime Minister, & nothing religious in terrorising Catholic children while they are on their way to school: the IRA Marxists & their “Protestant” counterparts deserved one another. Marxism & Catholicism do not mix: one is atheistic & materialistic, the other is neither.​

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes, as you can notice, I have placed texts that are not my own in quotation boxes. I have missed the quotation boxes, but do not let that detract from the point of views being discussed.

No I am sorry. You are calling us out for what you perceive as accepting things on a whim without any evidence all the while you are cutting and pasting entire articles and claiming them as your own.

Has anything you posted been any of your original thoughts?

How can I trust you? You have already shown me that you are dishonest.

God bless

 

[Maher]

Not every one on this site is American. The IRA were terrorist thugs & traitors, who showed the depth of their Catholicism by ignoring the Pope’s plea in 1979 for an end to the troubles. Religion was an excuse, a cloak - not a reason. There is nothing religious in attempting to murder a Prime Minister, & nothing religious in terrorising Catholic children while they are on their way to school: the IRA Marxists & their “Protestant” counterparts deserved one another. Marxism & Catholicism do not mix: one is atheistic & materialistic, the other is neither.​

Religion was not an excuse. The Unionists and Republicans still have an underlying hostility to one another, even today.

The two biggest football clubs in Scotland, Celtic and Rangers are both divided by religion. One is a Catholic based club, whilst the other is Protestant. There is a load of sectarian trouble at these matches and even violence. Celtic sign footballers from a certain part of Ireland because they are Republican whilst Rangers do the opposite.

Without religion, this would not have happened.

 

[Maher]

Not every one on this site is American. The IRA were terrorist thugs & traitors, who showed the depth of their Catholicism by ignoring the Pope’s plea in 1979 for an end to the troubles. Religion was an excuse, a cloak - not a reason. There is nothing religious in attempting to murder a Prime Minister, & nothing religious in terrorising Catholic children while they are on their way to school: the IRA Marxists & their “Protestant” counterparts deserved one another. Marxism & Catholicism do not mix: one is atheistic & materialistic, the other is neither.​

Religion was not an excuse. The Unionists and Republicans still have an underlying hostility to one another, even today.

The two biggest football clubs in Scotland, Celtic and Rangers are both divided by religion. One is a Catholic based club, whilst the other is Protestant. There is a load of sectarian trouble at these matches and even violence. Celtic sign footballers from a certain part of Ireland because they are Republican whilst Rangers do the opposite.

Without religion, this would not have happened.

Religion divides people.

 

[Maher]

No I am sorry. You are calling us out for what you perceive as accepting things on a whim without any evidence all the while you are cutting and pasting entire articles and claiming them as your own.

Has anything you posted been any of your original thoughts?

How can I trust you? You have already shown me that you are dishonest.

God bless

Erm, as you can see all the replies with quotations in them are not my own thoughts. They are merely backing up what I’m saying.

Why does it matter to you? Jesus was a murderer, racist, jealous, thug, but you still follow him.

Do you care to discuss or dispute the fact that religion has cited many wars and acts of violence?

And that the Bible story is not original?

Did God create the entire Solar System?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Erm, as you can see all the replies with quotations in them are not my own thoughts. They are merely backing up what I’m saying.

What quotations?

Do you care to discuss or dispute the fact that religion has cited many wars and acts of violence?

I thought people started wars and carried out acts of violence?

God bless

 

[Maher]

What quotations?

The work that is not my own is in quotation boxes. Somehow, I cannot edit the post you mentioned in order to insert quotation boxes.

I thought people started wars and carried out acts of violence?

God bless

Now you’re being pedantic. Religion is the source of many acts of violence and wars. Care to dispute this, considering the numerous examples I have provided?

Did God make the Solar System?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

What is it that you believe Maher?

God bless