RELIGION....(part 2)

[richard79]

---

Ganahan nako ni i reopen ni nga topic kay gi close man to ni pnoize and i already permission from him about this one. Please don't do name calling nalang unya mag respetohay ta sa atong isig views ok? dili ta mag cge og panghapak og laing relihiyon kay naa sad na silay laing beliefs.

ang ako lang questions lang kay ngano usahay lisod kaayo pasabton ang taw sa mga ingon ani nga in fact what has been stated in the bible klaro man kaayo ngano ila man gyud libog libogon ilang utok unya mag create pa gyud og ilahang doctrine in which they would always declare nga ang ilang doctrine is based sa bible where in fact most of those stuffs sila sila ray ga interpret. Ang atong Pilipinas usahay pwerting lisora pun an pa gyud sa atong tuhotuhoon nga panghuna huna samotan pa gyud og panghuna huna nga kay Tungod mao man ang TRADITION or naandan.... didto nalang ta! dili nalang ta mo grab kung unsay kamatooran nga dapat nato focusan sa pagtuon.Â*

[Cardinal Bunal]

The Ten Primitive Persecutions

The First Persecution, Under Nero, A.D. 67
The first persecution of the Church took place in the year 67, under Nero, the sixth emperor of Rome. This monarch reigned for the space of five years, with tolerable credit to himself, but then gave way to the greatest extravagancy of temper, and to the most atrocious barbarities. Among other diabolical whims, he ordered that the city of Rome should be set on fire, which order was executed by his officers, guards, and servants. While the imperial city was in flames, he went up to the tower of Macaenas, played upon his harp, sung the song of the burning of Troy, and openly declared that 'he wished the ruin of all things before his death.' Besides the noble pile, called the Circus, many other palaces and houses were consumed; several thousands perished in the flames, were smothered in the smoke, or buried beneath the ruins.

This dreadful conflagration continued nine days; when Nero, finding that his conduct was greatly blamed, and a severe odium cast upon him, determined to lay the whole upon the Christians, at once to excuse himself, and have an opportunity of glutting his sight with new cruelties. This was the occasion of the first persecution; and the barbarities exercised on the Christians were such as even excited the commiseration of the Romans themselves. Nero even refined upon cruelty, and contrived all manner of punishments for the Christians that the most infernal imagination could design. In particular, he had some sewed up in skins of wild beasts, and then worried by dogs until they expired; and others dressed in shirts made stiff with wax, fixed to axletrees, and set on fire in his gardens, in order to illuminate them. This persecution was general throughout the whole Roman Empire; but it rather increased than diminished the spirit of Christianity. In the course of it, St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred.

To their names may be added, Erastus, chamberlain of Corinth; Aristarchus, the Macedonian, and Trophimus, an Ephesians, converted by St. Paul, and fellow-laborer with him, Joseph, commonly called Barsabas, and Ananias, bishop of Damascus; each of the Seventy.

More HERE

[Cardinal Bunal]

Papal Persecutions
An Account of the Inquisition

An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy

THE ANTICHRIST REVEALED

[Empress_Of_Drac]

What can you say about this article?

Religion: The Scourged of Society

I loathe religion. I loathe it with a passion. Since its conception, it has inspired
foolishness, destruction, and needless death. The bible, Talmud, and Koran all speak of great battles. Many of these battles were fought by people disagreeing over the existence of God. Or their God. The Greek and Roman civilizations destroyed native cultures by the handful to assert their culture and religion over the natives. The Romans slaughtered Jews and Christians. The Crusades were all fought to claim a 'holy land' which killed 500,000 people. In a population
of just a few hundred million, that’s a huge amount. The inquisitions held in Western Europe decimated anyone who wasn't a Christian. The Holocaust was genocide of a religious group. Ireland, Israel, the entire Middle East... all up in arms over whose God is better. And how many cultures are still hurting from the influence of religion? How many countries in Africa fighting after western missionaries set up societies for the native cultures and fled? The Sudan, Rwanda... just a few still embroiled in conflict. Religion is the cause of death in every part of the world.

But that's not enough. Religious fanatics want to ensure the future is full of needless death too. Stem cell research is a non-issue. Why is it an issue!? There is a decision to be made. Either stem cells are destroyed in the hopes of finding cures for serious diseases. Or just destroyed. It angers me how useless this issue is. What would Jesus do? Kill babies to save people or just kill babies?! Neither choices are nice ones, but a choice has to be made. And for religious fanatics to wave off a chance for a cure for potentially millions of people's pain and suffering. We all know the story of Galileo, no? How he ventured a scientific theory that later proved to be true, but disagreed with the church? Where would we be if Galileo never spoke? If he was like the rest of the sheep,happy to be told how things were without second guessing? The church apologized for that incident 300 years later! 300 years?! That’s how long it took for the church to accept that the universe wasn't geocentric? This is the same church that told people not to bathe for several hundred years. That smell? That's the
smell of benevolence.

What religion accepts as fact is relative to the times. Before man achieved sustained flight, we thought heaven was in the skies and the angels sat on clouds. We couldn't dig too far into the ground, so of course hell was underground. Now? No, no no. Heaven and Hell are places that don't exist on the physical plane, they're another place entirely.

Granted,religion has provided a basis for society as we know it today. In the time when people were few and far from each other, it drew them together and formed communities. Religion has motivated people to help each other, provide homes and medicine, time and money for each other. And for a pre-modern society, that is a great asset. But hasn't religion served its cause? Hasn't religion outworn its welcome? There are homeless outreach programs, drug rehab programs, organizations that provide rovisions for starving people in Africa. But do we need a book to tell us that we should be nice? Sure, these are great things these people are doing, but why do it in the name of some higher power when we can claim it for the sake of humanity? “Humans can be infinitely kind�, the message should be, not “humans can be infinitely kind when receiving God's love.� It's about motivation. And there are much better motivators than religion when religion has a track record like that.

Again, war is so destructive. Not only does it cripple countries involved, it can drive civilization backwards. Lives are lost, schools destroyed, disease runs rampant. Why do we need more reasons for this? Karl Marx once said that religion and poverty go hand in hand. Another of his theories suggested that all wars have roots in class struggle. In societies with poverty, there is sure to be class struggle. Therefore, religion and war go hand in hand. We should be working for a better tomorrow, not a war-filled tomorrow.

Anyway, who needs religion when we have modern science to explain and prove its explanations for life? The scientific method allows for theories to be changed and added on to. The bible is infallible. It can't be contested. Why? It doesn't prove itself except to those who believe. Only the faithful believe. And that’s the thing about faith. It’s not proof. It is what it is. If one believes in something, it means that they aren't completely sure. It's not knowledge, it’s faith. These ancient texts, without aid from any sort of science, were created by the few people of the time who knew how to read and write. Literacy was a rare treasure 2000 years ago. Only the highest members of society had access to books and scrolls. Only a very, very lucky few knew how to write. Just a thought here, but if one has an advantage, will they exploit it? Could they write texts and tell stories to simple farmers and herders about a great benevolent creator who saves people? And threaten everlasting pain and anguish to those who disagree?

On that subject, picture this scenario: You are a farmer at the dawn of civilization. You don't know much about anything besides what you do. There are no telescopes,microscopes, medicine. You pick up a rock, and place it somewhere else. What goes through your mind? Perhaps “I put this rock here. If I didn't, it wouldn't be there. Where did I come from? Obviously, from this example, something must have put me here.� Through that rationale, pre-modern man may have come to the conclusion that they must have been created through the works of a greater being.

Either way,God is as great and kind as many would esteem him, why is he allowing all that goes on to go on? Why would I have cause to write this? Why are there millions of starving, sick, dying, unhappy, disadvantaged, disenfranchised, abused, neglected children? Why? Settle for it this way. Either God is a cruel, evil creator, or doesn't exist. And if he's a cruel evil sort of creator, I wouldn't worship him either.

In conclusion, whether or not there is a God in the end, life is what you make of it. No book needs to tell us how to be a decent human being. We don't need a higher power to direct us into being good people. To resign ourselves to living our lives being kind so we can go into heaven is selfish and wasteful. Live a good life for the sake of living a good life. Be kind for the sake of having kindness returned. Don't believe everything that it is you heard, no matter how
many times it is told. Always have proof. Worship yourself, treat yourself with ultimate respect. Be your own God.

[kyuusai]

unsaon man gud.... if i will give an example kung ang usa ka sentence kuhaan ug usa ka word so ma change jud ang meaning maoy nay gibuhat sa lain na religion....

[Cardinal Bunal]

I loathe religion. I loathe it with a passion. Since its conception, it has inspired
foolishness, destruction, and needless death. The bible, Talmud, and Koran all speak of great battles. Many of these battles were fought by people disagreeing over the existence of God. Or their God. The Greek and Roman civilizations destroyed native cultures by the handful to assert their culture and religion over the natives. The Romans slaughtered Jews and Christians. The Crusades were all fought to claim a 'holy land' which killed 500,000 people. In a population
of just a few hundred million, that’s a huge amount. The inquisitions held in Western Europe decimated anyone who wasn't a Christian. The Holocaust was genocide of a religious group. Ireland, Israel, the entire Middle East... all up in arms over whose God is better. And how many cultures are still hurting from the influence of religion? How many countries in Africa fighting after western missionaries set up societies for the native cultures and fled? The Sudan, Rwanda... just a few still embroiled in conflict. Religion is the cause of death in every part of the world.

But that's not enough. Religious fanatics want to ensure the future is full of needless death too. Stem cell research is a non-issue. Why is it an issue!? There is a decision to be made. Either stem cells are destroyed in the hopes of finding cures for serious diseases. Or just destroyed. It angers me how useless this issue is. What would Jesus do? Kill babies to save people or just kill babies?! Neither choices are nice ones, but a choice has to be made. And for religious fanatics to wave off a chance for a cure for potentially millions of people's pain and suffering. We all know the story of Galileo, no? How he ventured a scientific theory that later proved to be true, but disagreed with the church? Where would we be if Galileo never spoke? If he was like the rest of the sheep,happy to be told how things were without second guessing? The church apologized for that incident 300 years later! 300 years?! That’s how long it took for the church to accept that the universe wasn't geocentric? This is the same church that told people not to bathe for several hundred years. That smell? That's the
smell of benevolence.

What religion accepts as fact is relative to the times. Before man achieved sustained flight, we thought heaven was in the skies and the angels sat on clouds. We couldn't dig too far into the ground, so of course hell was underground. Now? No, no no. Heaven and Hell are places that don't exist on the physical plane, they're another place entirely.

Granted,religion has provided a basis for society as we know it today. In the time when people were few and far from each other, it drew them together and formed communities. Religion has motivated people to help each other, provide homes and medicine, time and money for each other. And for a pre-modern society, that is a great asset. But hasn't religion served its cause? Hasn't religion outworn its welcome? There are homeless outreach programs, drug rehab programs, organizations that provide rovisions for starving people in Africa. But do we need a book to tell us that we should be nice? Sure, these are great things these people are doing, but why do it in the name of some higher power when we can claim it for the sake of humanity? “Humans can be infinitely kind�, the message should be, not “humans can be infinitely kind when receiving God's love.� It's about motivation. And there are much better motivators than religion when religion has a track record like that.

Again, war is so destructive. Not only does it cripple countries involved, it can drive civilization backwards. Lives are lost, schools destroyed, disease runs rampant. Why do we need more reasons for this? Karl Marx once said that religion and poverty go hand in hand. Another of his theories suggested that all wars have roots in class struggle. In societies with poverty, there is sure to be class struggle. Therefore, religion and war go hand in hand. We should be working for a better tomorrow, not a war-filled tomorrow.

Anyway, who needs religion when we have modern science to explain and prove its explanations for life? The scientific method allows for theories to be changed and added on to. The bible is infallible. It can't be contested. Why? It doesn't prove itself except to those who believe. Only the faithful believe. And that’s the thing about faith. It’s not proof. It is what it is. If one believes in something, it means that they aren't completely sure. It's not knowledge, it’s faith. These ancient texts, without aid from any sort of science, were created by the few people of the time who knew how to read and write. Literacy was a rare treasure 2000 years ago. Only the highest members of society had access to books and scrolls. Only a very, very lucky few knew how to write. Just a thought here, but if one has an advantage, will they exploit it? Could they write texts and tell stories to simple farmers and herders about a great benevolent creator who saves people? And threaten everlasting pain and anguish to those who disagree?

On that subject, picture this scenario: You are a farmer at the dawn of civilization. You don't know much about anything besides what you do. There are no telescopes,microscopes, medicine. You pick up a rock, and place it somewhere else. What goes through your mind? Perhaps “I put this rock here. If I didn't, it wouldn't be there. Where did I come from? Obviously, from this example, something must have put me here.� Through that rationale, pre-modern man may have come to the conclusion that they must have been created through the works of a greater being.

Either way,God is as great and kind as many would esteem him, why is he allowing all that goes on to go on? Why would I have cause to write this? Why are there millions of starving, sick, dying, unhappy, disadvantaged, disenfranchised, abused, neglected children? Why? Settle for it this way. Either God is a cruel, evil creator, or doesn't exist. And if he's a cruel evil sort of creator, I wouldn't worship him either.

In conclusion, whether or not there is a God in the end, life is what you make of it. No book needs to tell us how to be a decent human being. We don't need a higher power to direct us into being good people. To resign ourselves to living our lives being kind so we can go into heaven is selfish and wasteful. Live a good life for the sake of living a good life. Be kind for the sake of having kindness returned. Don't believe everything that it is you heard, no matter how
many times it is told. Always have proof. Worship yourself, treat yourself with ultimate respect. Be your own God.

Kind of existencialist.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

What can you say about this article?

Religion: The Scourged of Society....

Well, you love it so much, what can I say?

I do, however, find its claim of the Jewish Holocaust as a religious cause and its silence over the greater body count of Stalinist Russia over Nazi Germany disgustingly deceitful.

Nazi Germany was an experiment of Nietzchean \"God is Dead!\" philosophy and the practical social application of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Need I explain what Stalinist Russia was supposed to be? Perhaps Jored, NPA and S.N.M.P. can enlighten you on this.

Even if you add amaw\'s casualties during the \"Fall of Jerusalem\" to the article\'s alleged number of body bags for victims of religious wars, it is still a pitiful number compared to the blood debt of Irreligion, which fittingly describes the 20th century-- in just a hundred years.

And I haven\'t even began to mention the murder of infants yet.

The world is far, far, far better off having Religion than none.

Irreligion is the true scourge of society. Always was, always is, always will be.

Shalom.

[mannyamador]

What can you say about this article?
Religion: The Scourged of Society

If there is anything to be loathed, it is the sheer ignorance, prejudice, and stupidity exhibited in the above article. Only the most twisted and blinded mind can come up with such stereotyped lies.

[mannyamador]

The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few -- precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What’s the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good -- perhaps their best -- bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point -- that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible -- and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious -- truly civilization-destroying -- social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility -- though a decidedly limited one -- in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries -- that is, inquisitions -- be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–1. Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death -- many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered -- for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[monrose29]

O.T grabe ka tag-as sa inyong comments oyy..

pede deli mo mag base sa mga articles..kanang personal points of view bahh...

in my part.. am ROMAN CATHOLIC... gikan pagka bata hangtod karon.... ka simba napod kog lain2x nga tinoho-an.... prehas ra man sa gino-o ra man gihapon padung lain2x lang og pa agi...

so for me di na angay lalisan.... gawas lang kong na-ay mo ingon nga relihiyon nga sila ra ma langit ang uban relihiyon ma emperno.. hehehe... ma o nay dakong lalis...

usahay man gud kining pagka kuryoso sa tawo kong unsay ma basahan to-o dayon kong unsay ma dung-gan to-o pod dayon...

make it sure sa kanang mong gibasa para asa na...

kinsa ang nag suwat....
kinsa ang gi suwatan..
rason ngano gi suwat....

para ma klaro nmo ang mensahe...... basa2x ka unya deli diay to para imoha.. mura kag amaw ana.. hehehehe.