Christians in India again - Orissa.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Heresson


So the problem is that the missionaries appear?
OMG it should be banned.

Please stop being deliberately dense.

[Kuciwalker]

Clearly whatever the radical missionaries are doing deserves pogroms.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Please stop being deliberately dense.

I don't think there is anything deliberate about it...

Just like his moronic comment about the IRA not mattering in England.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Heresson


So the problem is that the missionaries appear?
OMG it should be banned.

I'd like to ban them from coming to my door and bothering me at home.

[MOBIUS]

****ing Christians, it's enough to turn you into a mass murderer...

[Heraclitus]

Exactly!

Mark my words if Christians try to convert people next up the Jews will think they can intermarry with the gentiles and even convert some of them!


Clearly wir mussen der Juden und Christians austroten!

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Clearly whatever the radical missionaries are doing deserves pogroms.

[MOBIUS]

Kill all Christians!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


city elite, people rich enough. Not the common folk.

The funny thing is that most of the protestant heretics burned by Mary were commoners. http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dy...et/%7Eelisale/

caused by political reasons - Mary's unpopular marriage to the spanish king?

Because such a marriage would certianly mean the imposition of Catholicism, and the institution of the Inquisition in England.

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/wyatt-rebellion.htm

That's not what I referred to. I believe protestants were on no higher ground than catholics. And used lie and deceit to fight catholicism. So did catholics.

No, you said that Protestant ideals were silly, and I pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church has since embraced most of the reforms instituted by Elizabeth - just 400 years too late.

I got this idea from university lecture, a passage about Netherlands, that it was a century or so before protestants really became a majority in Netherlands... There were new, protestant, elites, but it took time to actually convert the populace. It seems completely logical to me. That was the case with other religions as well.
For example, when Poland elected Sigismund Vasa, it got ultracatholic ruler, why the gentry was in large part protestant... but it took him and his successor over a century to make Poland a catholic country.

What makes you think that conditions which applied in the Netherlands pertain to England? The Eighty Years War for Dutch independence began when Phillip II sent the Duke of Alba to deal with the problem of rising Calvinist activity in the area. Finding that some nobles had been too soft on the dissenters he executed the nobles, even though they were Catholics. Following that the body count began to rise without regard to whether or not the victims were Calvinists or not. There was an opportunity to resolve the situation when Alba was replaced by a more moderate commander, but unpaid Spanish mercenaries sacked Antwerp and took 8000 lives. The atrocities committed by the Hapsburg armies forced the northern provinces, Protestant or Catholic to join together.

Wikipedia claims she got parliament's approval for her religious policy...

Mass arrests preceded her bills. Yes, the Parliament held out for not returning Church lands, largely because if they hadn't many of them would have been arrested.

uh, You are aware that protestants did exactly the same?
Protestants were killing catholics, converting them by force, taking catholic property for themselves, banning catholics from the states they took posession of etc.
the situation of protestants in catholic countries was bad, but much better than situation of catholics in protestant countries.

It's estimated that a million people died in the Albigensian crusades, a crusade aimed at rooting out a small obscure cult never numbering more than 5000 followers. By the 16th century protestant knew that the principles with which the Catholics would deal with them were those enshrined in my sig, a quote from the Abbot of Arnaud-Amaury, the papal ligate who guided the Albigensian Crusade and the first officially designated Inquisitor.

don't you see a difference between a majority and a minority on one side, and a weaker and a stronger state on the other? And canfederacy wasn't outnumbered 40x times, as christians in India.

That's not what you said. You said that anytime a smaller opponent fought a larger one, the larger one must have started it. I'm merely pointing out that that isn't always true. Also when said this you made no indication that you were talking about the incident in India.

Again, it's not a matter of minority/majority thing, and Israel was stronger militarily than all its neighbours, despite being smaller.

No one was certain of that until after the fact. Theiur opponents had more numerous troops, tanks, and planes. The Israelis had better troops, tanks, planes, not to mention better training, doctrine and leadership. These last three attributes are hard to quantify.

You know exactly what I mean, but I'd like to tell it otherwise: being catholic without a pope is like being USA citizen, but denying the president and congress authority. It's simply a revolt.

The Holy Trinity ( and the Holy Bible ) is the President, Congress, and the source of authority of the Catholic Church. To assert that the Pope has authority above Them is treason!

protestant bias

Dude. Your church has embraced all of those principles, the abolition of indulgences, the removal of fake relics, the translation of services and the Bible into the vernacular of the people now. Are you saying that teh Roman Catholic Church has teh Protestant bias?

[Heraclitus]

The real question is why does the Anglican church still exist. Any reasonable person would either have converted to a more coherent protestant sect or would have (since Vatican II) converted back to Catholicism.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
The real question is why does the Anglican church still exist. Any reasonable person would either have converted to a more coherent protestant sect or would have (since Vatican II) converted back to Catholicism.

Most of the other Protestant sects are whacko fundies.

It took the Catholics 400 years to see the error of their ways and institute the reforms we began in the mid 16th century. We're still making progress, and it will still probably take the Roman Catholics centuries to catch up. Why should we take a giant leap backwards?

[MOBIUS]

Exactly, the priesthood numbers of Ireland is currently falling off a precipice! I think the average for a priest is something like 62!

Until they're allowed to get married and have a family like the protestants, they will continue their downward decline.

Why is it that Catholic priests aren't allowed to have sex anyway, apart from with young boys?

[Heraclitus]

1. Jesus wasn't married
2. Confession is hard to do if you should in theory share everything with your wife
3. The Church would no longer "inherit" property from its dead priests

BTW You do know that statistics proves that child abuse rates are no higher in among the Catholic priesthood than among any other profession with ready access to kids including Protestant priesthood.


In any case with a billion Chatolics world wide maybe the church should solve this problem by going cyber?