The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 110

Anti-atheisation institute in Poland emerging


Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #31
The problem is 'morality', meaning and/or perception, can vary from one person to another

I think when you strep it to basic it is pretty clear.

I just think that Christianity, especially Catholicism (and its morality), has a hard time adapting to today's world.

People are the same regardless of times, some bad some good some stupid and some wise - simple as that.

Humans will always question things. It's in our nature. We can't base everything (or almost) on a book and traditions that are thousands of years old.

Would they?Sacred Cows exists even in secular non-religious reality.
If something is has been good for thousands or years what change it?

What is wrong to you about secularism?

but for the fact they promise neutral state to produce secular dictate?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,446
17 Jun 2013 #32
However neutral state can be achieved with the laws based on Christan morality.

The problem is that Christians themselves don't agree on what is "moral".

How many times have we seen attacks on the Church by people who proclaimed themselves to be Catholics? I seem to remember some absolutely hideous abuse handed out to those that tried to remove the cross in Warsaw. Don't you remember?
Polson 5 | 1,770
17 Jun 2013 #33
I think when you strep it to basic it is pretty clear.

Then what is basic? Don't steal, don't kill, we don't need any Bible/Torah/Quran to follow these 'principles'. Well, that's my opinion.

simple as that.

The thing is: nothing's really simple. Theories can be simple. Reality is reality, and it's rather complex.

If something is has been good for thousands or years what change it?

Good for who? Christianity history is not all bright, we all know that. And it's not really about 'changing' stuff, but more about 'adapting' to what is today's reality.

Everything evolves. Everything but Christianity, esp. Catholicism. And this actually goes for other religions. Traditions are often considered as unquestionable truth.

to produce secular dictate?

Could you elaborate?
delphiandomine 88 | 18,446
17 Jun 2013 #34
Traditions are often considered as unquestionable truth.

And yet they can be changed. The Second Vatican Council showed that in modern times.
Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #35
Everything evolves. Everything but Christianity, esp. Catholicism.

Seems to me that you don't know much about you are criticizing.

The thing is: nothing's really simple

It is simple enough.

Good for who? Christianity history is not all bright, we all know that.

Well secularist and atheist surpassed all dark shadows in the Church history in 20 years and then repeated that trick few times since. So who is talking?

Could you elaborate?

As I said - deciding what is moral and what is not.

The problem is that Christians themselves don't agree on what is "moral".

I don't know what you are talking about?

I seem to remember some absolutely hideous abuse handed out to those that tried to remove the cross in Warsaw.

There were no need to aggravate those people which was done by so called President and mass media.With help of some leftist thugs.
Do not about attacks on the Church - criticizing some priest or other is not attack on the Church as much as you would like it to be.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,446
17 Jun 2013 #36
I don't know what you are talking about?

Take Poland. The actions of a vocal minority that shout about TV Trwam and so on are not supported by other Catholics. I know many Catholics that consider Rydzyk to be the Antichrist for his behaviour - and consider his actions to be nothing short of immoral. Others regard him as being a source of truth and justice.

There were no need to aggravate those people which was done by so called President and mass media.With help of some leftist thugs.

See Ironside, unlike you, I was there. I saw thugs 'defending' the cross with violence, I saw one woman physically attack a child because he eloquently told her that he didn't agree with her hatred and so on. Trying to claim that "leftist thugs" were involved with the abuse towards people and the Church on that occasion is nothing short of lying.

Do not about attacks on the Church - criticizing some priest or other is not attack on the Church as much as you would like it to be.

It wasn't criticism, it was an attack on the those priests involved. Do you need to be reminded how they were screamed at and told that they were Jewish and so on?
Polson 5 | 1,770
17 Jun 2013 #37
Seems to me that you don't know much about you are criticizing.

Then please enlighten me, that's all I'm asking for. Show me the light.

It is simple enough.

Again, 'show' me.

Well secularist and atheist surpassed all dark shadows in the Church history in 20 years and then repeated that trick few times since. So who is talking?

Could you stop throwing stuff without explaining? It's just pointless. And would you like to discuss about the 'christianisation' (a synonym for murder and slavery maybe) in South America and Africa for instance? How many crimes in the name of God? We can go for hours.

As I said - deciding what is moral and what is not.

That's a secular dictate? That's not different from your Christian based law. You probably got mistaken somewhere tho...
Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #38
Take Poland. The actions of a vocal minority that shout about TV Trwam and so on are not supported by other Catholics. I know many Catholics that consider Rydzyk to be the Antichrist for his behaviour - and consider his actions to be nothing short of immoral. Others regard him as being a source of truth and justice.

Typical Democratic differences in the community. Not mindless homogeneous blob of secularists. :)

See Ironside, unlike you, I was there. I saw thugs 'defending' the cross with violence, I saw one woman physically attack a child because he eloquently told her that he didn't agree with her hatred and so on. Trying to claim that "leftist thugs" were involved with the abuse towards people and the Church on that occasion is nothing short of lying.

well if the child of 12 vulgarly is vulgarly assaulting oldish women who done nothing to him the only proper response is to smack the bastard. It is not what our fathers have been fighting for, stupid brats insulting women.

Well i have read reports from that events and I do not agree with you, you maybe not lying but you cannot be everywhere at once.

Also the fact remains that those people where there for a reason of somebody came to say something it means came there with the intention of doing something - so please do not present them as victims.

Those were people instigated to hate by the media and shyty government.

It wasn't criticism, it was an attack on the those priests involved. Do you need to be reminded how they were screamed at and told that they were Jewish and so on?

In this a way group of people tell others they do not agree with what they are doing. I see nothing wrong with that, it is basic democracy in action.

Telling off to clergy - you should be overjoyed.
jon357 72 | 21,228
17 Jun 2013 #39
What part of ''eloquently told her he did not agree" don't you understand?
Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #40
Could you stop throwing stuff without explaining? It's just pointless. And would you like to discuss about the 'christianisation' (a synonym for murder and slavery maybe) in South America and Africa for instance? How many crimes in the name of God? We can go for hours.

I have no time to spend on educating people on PF. If you are looking for answer you can surely find them.
As for the above - The French Revolution - the rivers of blood.
The Mexican Revolution and 70 years of them in power - prosecutions and rivers of blood.
The Russian Revolution - millions of victims
The Church in 2000 years of its history cannot be blamed even for a fraction of those murdered in the name of secularism and reason. Million upon million of prove how good the enlightenment , secular state and atheist reality are for humans.

That's a secular dictate? That's not different from your Christian based law. You probably got mistaken somewhere tho...

No, but Christianity has at lest some consistency and experience in that. You seems not to understand what came with people deciding what moral or not according to their whim or majority in parliament vote.

Think on it.
Specially on Soviet morality.

What part of ''eloquently told her he did not agree" don't you understand?

What part for sending kind to aggravate older women you don't understands. kid had no place in there.
As for him being vulgar.
I read reports from there and I have no reason to not believe them.

What part of sending kid to aggravate older women you don't understand. the kid had no place in there. What was he doing there in the first place. Maybe she should take all abuse with a smile but that is not the point
delphiandomine 88 | 18,446
17 Jun 2013 #41
What part for sending kind to aggravate older women you don't understands. kid had no place in there.

Ironside, the kid wasn't a kid, he was about 12-13 and more than able to make his mind up about politics. I was deeply into politics at that age, as were some of my peers.

As for him being vulgar.

He wasn't vulgar. He was actually very polite.

I read reports from there and I have no reason to not believe them.

In other words, reports from some people are more important in your eyes than the video of them screaming abuse at priests and so on?

I saw it with my own eyes Ironside. There were some people possessed with hatred, and others who had absolutely no idea why they were there. I saw the saddest thing there - an old man, clearly clueless about what was going on, with a rosary praying. He didn't know why he was there or what he was "defending".
Polson 5 | 1,770
17 Jun 2013 #42
The French Revolution

The French Revolution was necessary. Unless you prefer an oppressed, ignorant, starving population.
The Terror period is an awful side effect of it. Don't mix up everything.

The Church in 2000 years of its history cannot be blamed even for a fraction of those murdered in the name of secularism

I agree on that, the Church can't be blamed for secularism... Or maybe it does. If people turned their back to the Church, there must be reasons.

Apart from that, the Church can be blamed for many other things in its 2000 years of history.

Specially on Soviet morality.

The USSR was proved not viable and rapidly disappeared. So, yes, I agree, it's not a good example of 'secular' state.
Lenka 3 | 3,085
17 Jun 2013 #43
the kid had no place in there. What was he doing there in the first place. Maybe she should take all abuse with a smile but that is not the point

He didn't broke into her house- it was a public space and he had every right to express his views as she had.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,446
17 Jun 2013 #44
In Ironside's world, the only people allowed to have views are those with the correct views.

PRL, anyone?
Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #45
Ironside, the kid wasn't a kid, he was about 12-13 and more than able to make his mind up about politics. I was deeply into politics at that age, as were some of my peers.

In Poland hes is a kid not to talk to their elders as an equal.

He wasn't vulgar. He was actually very polite.

Maybe maybe not, the point is he had no place in the public demonstration when emotion flow high. what you want to demonstrate by one example here? People were spit at, were abused verbal, cans of beer have been throw at them.

Why are we even talk about it here? It is off-topic!

In other words, reports from some people are more important in your eyes than the video of them screaming abuse at priests and so on?

So what? I mean what are you talking about? What is your point?

He didn't broke into her house- it was a public space and he had every right to express his views as she had.

Sitting on the sofa and theorizing much?
Once he was allowed to take part on contra-demonstration hes is to blame for whatever happened at least in 50%. What is so hard to understand?

Once again hes had no place there.

In Ironside's world, the only people allowed to have views are those with the correct views.

Delphin i would appreciate if you stop using your cheap Stalinist technique of propaganda and manipulation.

The French Revolution was necessary. Unless you prefer an oppressed, ignorant, starving population.
The Terror period is an awful side effect of it. Don't mix up everything.

I'm afraid that you are mixing everything.The FR can be glorified in France but let face it. It was murderous bloody regime all in the name of reason,

Murdering people and wiping out population wasn't necessary. It is called genocide.

Apart from that, the Church can be blamed for many other things in its 2000 years of history.

Name one which was worse than any of events due to direct action of secularist and anti-religious types?

The USSR was proved not viable and rapidly disappeared. So, yes, I agree, it's not a good example of 'secular' state.

It is a perfect example of a secular state. Your objection being noted and discarded as unsubstantial and immaterial.
Lenka 3 | 3,085
17 Jun 2013 #46
In Poland hes is a kid not to talk to their elders as an equal.

And that's not so good as one may think. We had Korczak but we didn't learn.

Once he was allowed to take part on contra-demonstration hes is to blame for whatever happened at least in 50%. What is so hard to understand?Once again hes had no place there.

She had a place there but he didn't? Sorry, but where is logic in it? Everyone can express their views in peaceful manner and she crossed the line. Simple really.
Ironside 51 | 11,310
17 Jun 2013 #47
And that's not so good as one may think. We had Korczak but we didn't learn.

No it is good. Teaches kid to respect other people. Not returning respect is not right.
However here we are talking about kid teaching hen how to make eggs. Not the right place to be and not the right attitude to take part in political demonstration with.

She had a place there but he didn't? Sorry, but where is logic in it? Everyone can express their views in peaceful manner and she crossed the line. Simple really.

So what that-she crossed the line? You are talking from the safety of your screen. she was taking part in political demonstration that has been going for days. She probably has been abused on a daily bases and then came that kid and is mocking her. I don't believe that he was respectful and only expressed his opinion. That is BS Lenka and you know it. So what injures did he surfed? life threatening?

Be serious for a moment.
You know how confrontational demonstration can be and are.
That event has been just used to by propaganda and that is a sad thing in Poland.
Anyway Why is has been discussed in this thread? I would say that it is off-topic.
Lenka 3 | 3,085
17 Jun 2013 #48
Anyway Why is has been discussed in this thread? I would say that it is off-topic.

True. I would argue with some of your points but we should get back to the topic.
Polson 5 | 1,770
17 Jun 2013 #49
It was murderous bloody regime all in the name of reason,
Murdering people and wiping out population wasn't necessary. It is called genocide.

No, no, and no again. It's not because of 'reason' that the Revolution happened. It's the consequence of a bunch of things. Once again, you want to make your point by trying to make simple things of complex ones.

And once again, the Terror -I think the name says it all- was an awful time, indeed, and not necessary, I agree.
Beside that, the French Revolution gave birth to something you can't disagree with (I dare hope): the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights.
It was also the end of the great privilegies that the Church and the Nobility used to have. While the country was living in misery. Yes, there was an economic crisis back then too.

Name one which was worse than any of events due to direct action of secularist and anti-religious types?

Not sure I'm here to tell which crimes were worse. Crimes are crimes. No-one is innocent.

It is a perfect example of a secular state.

No, it was a totalitatian state with no freedom. People were puppets.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
18 Jun 2013 #50
French Revolution

I would have rooted for the Vandeians (spelling?), the peasants revolting against the reign of terror. In support of God, King and the law. Sadly, nearly 200,000 of them were mercillessly slaughtered by the pre-stalinsits of the day.

The terrorists' notion of fraternity was 'Be my brother or I'll kill you!' And their much vaunted laïcité served as a smoke-screen to persecute Catjholics, guillotine clergy, rape nuns, loot and burn down churches. The Spanish Stalinist cut-throats must have been inspired by their example and the Bolshevik revolution.
Harry
18 Jun 2013 #51
persecute Catjholics, guillotine clergy, rape nuns, loot and burn down churches. The Spanish Stalinist cut-throats must have been inspired by their example and the Bolshevik revolution.

Isn't it interesting that you claim Catholics have suffered so much for their faith but still in Poland Catholics want to persecute people for their faith (or lack thereof).
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
18 Jun 2013 #52
Poland Catholics want to persecute people for their faith

Examples. Not links, just widely known facts. Do you mean the ecumenical movement where different denominations join for prayer and dialogue. Or Maybe Blessed JPII who apologised to Jews and Muslims for any wrongs suffered at the hands of Christians or his obliteration of excommunication edicts imposed on Protestant reformers?
Ironside 51 | 11,310
18 Jun 2013 #53
No, no, and no again. It's not because of 'reason' that the Revolution happened. It's the consequence of a bunch of things.

One king's brother who conspired against him, The king who refused to shoot at crazy mob of Paris,those are too my children he said if he would be willing to put cannons to good use and disperse mob he would save a many many French life. Preventing pathetic usurpers who thought that their shyte do not stinks - Like all those so called revolutionary masterminds.With laughable ideas of Voltaire. What a dick he was.

Beside that, the French Revolution gave birth to something you can't disagree with (I dare hope): the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights.

Nihil novi sub sole
That is a Christan/Catholic idea that all people have been created equal by the God. Those people were just giving it their twist and adding their interpretation and then they rendered it meaningless by murdering the king - innocent dude as he was. That crime means that the declaration it is a worthless piece of propaganda.

e. While the country was living in misery. Yes, there was an economic crisis back then too.

Actually people were doing quite well and some shortages in Paris were used to move the mob to frenzy.

It was also the end of the great privilegies that the Church and the Nobility used to have.

Yes aristocracy had privileges to which they get used to much. The Church was aristocracy as well as bishops and such - useless bunch.

Not sure I'm here to tell which crimes were worse. Crimes are crimes. No-one is innocent.

Phew! People are people but the church has been always mitigating factor and generally against bloodshed.Wheres secularist and so called enlighten were willing to kill million to bring about they fantasy or whim thinking themselves so great. Yes they were great scumbags.

No, it was a totalitatian state with no freedom. People were puppets.

wasn't that much different than French Revolution - few ruled and the rest were just puppets or else.
Soviet was a secular state which actively prosecuted religion - that the fact.
There is pattern - more secular state less freedom - people are being murdered if they resist.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
18 Jun 2013 #54
Voltaire. What a dick he was

When Voltaire was on his death bed he asked for a priest. His folowers were shocked, but he confessed and received the Eucharist. Somehow he pulled through and reverted to his blasphemous, iconoclastic and anticlerical ways. The next time he fell mortally ill, again he called for a priest, But this time his followers said 'No way, José' and he died in sin and is presumably burning in hell.

On a differetn score, Voltarie heartily congratulated his pal Friedrich der Gro├če on partitioning Poland which he hated with a passion.
legend 3 | 664
18 Jun 2013 #55
The French revolution was schemed up by Freemasons. Im not kidding.

The leading Freemasons and the Church have been enemies centuries.

wasn't that much different than French Revolution - few ruled and the rest were just puppets or else.
Soviet was a secular state which actively prosecuted religion - that the fact.
There is pattern - more secular state less freedom - people are being murdered if they resist.

Yes, many church officials were killed or imprisoned. Some of the churches were burned to the ground. People couldnt practice their religion in cases.
Most of Communistic thought is not too friendly with Church/clerics.
jon357 72 | 21,228
19 Jun 2013 #56
Nonsense. It was a result of many things over a long time.
Polson 5 | 1,770
19 Jun 2013 #57
With laughable ideas of Voltaire. What a dick he was.

Yeah, when you accomplish what he did back then, we'll talk again. Same with Rousseau. They were enemies, but both counted, and many great thinkers admire them.

When Voltaire was on his death bed he asked for a priest. His folowers were shocked, but he confessed and received the Eucharist. Somehow he pulled through and reverted to his blasphemous, iconoclastic and anticlerical ways. The next time he fell mortally ill, again he called for a priest, But this time his followers said 'No way, José' and he died in sin and is presumably burning in hell.

Fascinating. Voltaire was a deist anyway. And how many people turn to God when they're about to die? Many. But that has little to do with faith. It's fear. Fear of death. And actually many people are religious because they are scared. Of many things.

That is a Christan/Catholic idea that all people have been created equal by the God.

And that's why the aristocratic Church had so many privileges. Probably the Church was more equal than peasants ;)

Actually people were doing quite well

No, they were not. The country was almost bankrupt after spending a lot of money on the American War of Independence. Inequalities among the population were getting unbearable. And probably also poor government policies. There were a lot of tensions in the country.

Wheres secularist and so called enlighten were willing to kill million to bring about they fantasy or whim thinking themselves so great. Yes they were great scumbags.

It's a revolution, dude. Unfortunately, that's how it goes when elites (nobles, clergy) get everything and leave nothing to the population. At some point, you have to face the consequences.

The 'fantasy' has its charms tho: equality for EVERYONE, end of unfair privilegies, democracy, and later universal suffrage, free and mandatory school, etc.
But I understand your point. It's much easier for the Church to keep 'control' of people when they live in misery, sickness, and only have religion. Just have a look at the world, which are the most religious countries.

wasn't that much different than French Revolution - few ruled and the rest were just puppets or else.

French Revolution was not a state, it was a major historical event. And if you live the life you live today, it's probably partly thanks to that event. If it wasn't for that (partly as I said at least), you'd probably be dead of dysentery already, and your 12 illiterate kids would be starving.

more secular state less freedom - people are being murdered if they resist.

Less freedom? What the hell are you talking about? In religious states, people are often persecuted if they don't agree with the governing bodies.

In case you didn't know, you can practice any religion you wish in most 'secular states'. Yes, there are still churches in France. And I'm pretty sure our secular state still gives funds to the Church, and other religious organisations.
Ironside 51 | 11,310
19 Jun 2013 #58
And that's why the aristocratic Church had so many privileges.

no bishops had privileges because they were aristocrats. They were nominated by the King/state.
Pope had no much to say - and that was wrong.

Yeah, when you accomplish what he did back then,

What he accomplished? became famous story teller?

and many great thinkers admire them.

I'm not.

Probably the Church was more equal than peasants ;)

You don;t understand - equal do not mean the same and doesn't mean communism.

No, they were not. The country was almost bankrupt after spending a lot of money on the American War of Independence. Inequalities among the population were getting unbearable. And probably also poor government policies. There were a lot of tensions in the country.

For complex reasons as you said. Nobody were starving except for some low beggars in the City. People have worse in many modern countries today. it was not a real crisis but one that had been used to gain more power by certain circles and that how it started.

It's a revolution, dude.

Exactly - destruction. secularist are good at destroying things.

The 'fantasy' has its charms tho: equality for EVERYONE, end of unfair privilegies,

when unfair privileges ended and who says what fair or not?

democracy,

Democracy? Really? When you have seen rule of majority in action? Long time ago.

and later universal suffrage

Meaning women to work, more cheap labor on the market, meaning the rich are getting richer exploiting women as well - new slaves.

free and mandatory school, etc.

The church had schools for free for those willing and with promise for ages. Mandatory is modern invention to educate/brainwash plebs into being a good soldier for a government in a new total war i- conscripts.

But I understand your point. It's much easier for the Church to keep 'control' of people when they live in misery, sickness, and only have religion. Just have a look at the world, which are the most religious countries.

Where is your control? In the Marxist thesis?the guy was a loon. Religion do not control its guide and mitigate and keep the animal in check to some extend. Ruling, keeping in control those are just words in the ideological war on propaganda - not more true than claim that governments are now conspiring against people.

As for sicknesses and suffering? Christan Europe made a jump in its well-being and became land of prosperity and progress after Christianity took firm hold in the peninsula of China as some Chinese would like to see the Europe.

French Revolution was not a state, it was a major historical event.

Yeah like Holocaust or WWI.
I'm sorry but the FR build the state, one unstable and bloody whose different stages have been convulsing for two decades.

And if you live the life you live today, it's probably partly thanks to that event. If it wasn't for that (partly as I said at least), you'd probably be dead of dysentery already, and your 12 illiterate kids would be starving.

Come on? Fantasy and what if scenarios? nah ...I will pass

Less freedom? What the hell are you talking about? In religious states, people are often persecuted if they don't agree with the governing bodies.

Really? In Christan countries? where?
How disagree? the are acting against the law?
Are you telling me that if some people would act against the law today in France they wouldn't be prosecuted?

In case you didn't know, you can practice any religion you wish in most 'secular states'. Yes, there are still churches in France. And I'm pretty sure our secular state still gives funds to the Church, and other religious organisations.

How generous of them.
Polson 5 | 1,770
19 Jun 2013 #59
no bishops had privileges because they were aristocrats.

Nobility or clergy, whatever the 'family'. As you said earlier (?), clergymen often came from nobility. Not all of course.

What he accomplished? became famous story teller?

If that's only what you know about him, I suggest you read his biography. He did a little more than just 'story telling'.

I'm not.

I never said you were a great thinker ;)

equal do not mean the same and doesn't mean communism.

Why communism? All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, maybe that makes sense tho.

Exactly - destruction. secularist are good at destroying things.

So when you're unhappy, you just shup up and suffer in silence? Tell that to Polish people. Well, I guess if they are Catholic, it's not the same story.

when unfair privileges ended and who says what fair or not?

Back then, when you were born peasant, you would die peasant. There was no other possibility.

Democracy? Really? When you have seen rule of majority in action? Long time ago.

I'll just quote Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Meaning women to work, more cheap labor on the market, meaning the rich are getting richer exploiting women as well - new slaves.

Working women is not good to you?
And you are free to settle in the wood and not get exploited.
And yes, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But in between, we can find a comfy middle class. Growing.

The church had schools for free for those willing and with promise for ages. Mandatory is modern invention to educate/brainwash plebs into being a good soldier for a government in a new total war i- conscripts.

Teaching kids that they are sinners, poor little guilty creatures who have to suffer as Jesus suffered for them, is not another kind of brainwashing? You can call anything brainwashing. Teaching is rarely objective.

An educated population is necessary for a country to develop.

Where is your control?

Well, the Church lives on people who believe. If believers go away, what would happen to the Church?

Yeah like Holocaust or WWI.

No comment.

I'm sorry but the FR build the state, one unstable and bloody whose different stages have been convulsing for two decades.

Easy to judge now. The Terror should have never happened, of course. But then what should have happened? Nothing, at all? We should have kept the ancient system, that was fine to you?

Really? In Christan countries? where?
How disagree? the are acting against the law?

Before the French Revolution for instance. Death penalty for the heretics, the infidels, or misbelievers. When the law is based upon a religion, you have to follow it, no matter what you believe in.

Are you telling me that if some people would act against the law today in France they wouldn't be prosecuted?

You know what I meant.

How generous of them.

Glad you recognise it.
goofy_the_dog
19 Jun 2013 #60
The laws were made by kings not the vatican so if somebody says that cathilicism killed thousands then i laugh, it was the kings that killed.

As far as i know there about fifty cases of death penalty sanctioned by vatican the rest were "only" excomunicated. Although some would argue that death is better than being denied salvatiob.

Somebody said before about fear, that ppl join the church because they are afraid...?!?!? That is quite reasonable lol.
Catholics are God-fearing, know that phrase?


Home / News / Anti-atheisation institute in Poland emerging
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.