William,

"What kind of religion revels in the keeping of body parts to revere their "saints"?"

That would be the Catholic religion. The propensity of Catholics to collect relics (body parts) of the saints is a practice I have always found to be a bit morbid to say the least, but it has long been a peculiarity of Catholicism. To each his own, I guess!

Oh good gosh.... Few Catholics today imbue any mystical properties to objects, however, these ARE objects that speak to their history. FYI - I'm NOT Catholic.

The Christians since the very begining have been colelcting relics. As a note for accuracy, there was essentially only one Christian church for a thousand years which was happens to be the Catholic church, save various offshoots until the protestant "reformation". It is a mystical religion because by definition the Holy Trinity is mystical. It fascinates me how new-agers and non-religous bash away claiming nonsense and cultism, when they lack the most basic sense of history and disregard the essential root claims giving rise to Christianty. God incarnate coming to earth and being raised from dead (with ample testimony of the event) would likely give rise to a beleif in the supernatural, as it should. Either you beleive or you dont.

As a note for accuracy, there was essentially only one Christian church for a thousand years which was happens to be the Catholic church

That is a Catholic teaching.

The Catholics aren't alone in following their heritage all the way back.

-C.H. SPURGEON:

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

Notice when he says:

nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man.

It is unfortunate that the Baptists of today have gone away from that principle.

JOregon,

"That is a Catholic teaching."

It is indeed the Catholic teaching, and it is also pretty much a historical fact. There have always been smaller groups of Christians since the first days of Christianity such as the Arians, the early Gnostic groups, the Bogomils, the Catharii, etc., but they all either died out or were stamped out of existence by the growing power of the Catholic Church. Most modern denominations of Protestantism would like to trace their ancestry back to the time of Christ, but there is little historical evidence to support their claims to any ancestry prior to Martin Luther and the Reformation. There is a great deal of historical evidence to support the claim of the Catholic Church, at least back to the 4th. century AD, if not actually back to the time of Christ. The belief that the Popes are direct inheritors of the office of the apostle Peter is, however, more a matter of faith than of fact.

It is indeed the Catholic teaching, and it is also pretty much a historical fact.

It is a historical fact only because the Catholics controlled much of the early history. By threat of death and violence the early Catholic church stomped out all that did not follow their ways.

It was at these times Spurgeon notes the Baptists were like a river going underground.

As far as reformers Wycliffe was a reformer before Luther or Calvin were ever born. Even

Augustine taught Calvinist principles.

JOregon,

"It was at these times Spurgeon notes the Baptists were like a river going underground."

Again, as I said with the Pope being in the shoes of Peter, that's more a matter of faith than of historical fact. An underground movement leaves few historical traces.

You can view Wycliffe as a reformer if you wish, but I think he is better known for his translation of the Bible than as a reformer. As for St. Augustine, you can find traces of many theological strands in his writings. When you say that he taught Calvinist principles, I think you are referring to the doctrine of predestination, and you are correct in that belief. Augustine did believe in predestination.

I concur with the comment above. What kind of religion revels in the keeping of body parts to revere their "saints"? Just plain backward cultists would do this right?

Makes you think what kind of atheist would think of nothing but robbing a church? If atheists are supposed to be so moral and civil ( at least according to the news), then what does this say about someone stealing something to be used for profit. And don't give me that crap that it is the Catholics Church's fault. When you atheists think of criticizing, you should start with your own people first.

Mickey-1983943 Catholicism is not a religion Christianity is, Catholicism is just one more rite (the Roman Rite) of the Christian faith. You are just an ignorant.

Backwards?... Scientist preserved Einstein's brain? For what purpose? They assume to re-animate him someday? I don't hear anyone complaining about that. You look at others and call them backwards, until you realize your just like them.

the "Non-religious" are so quick to judge these days. They feel they're immune to prejudice, hate, intolerance, and fanaticism because they don't belong to a declared religion. That arrogance, however, is what makes them so intolerable.

You can view Wycliffe as a reformer if you wish, but I think he is better known for his translation of the Bible than as a reformer.

While we know him for his literary work he was a mostly a reformer, condemned by the Pope.

Wycliffe influenced Jan Hus. Hus was a significant influence for Luther.

Here is a nifty timeline:

http://www.reformationtours.com/site/490868/page/179570

An even earlier reformer was Peter Waldo 1140 - 1217 who I didn't know about until I stumbled upon this page.

romilio,

"Catholicism is not a religion Christianity is, Catholicism is just one more rite (the Roman Rite) of the Christian faith. You are just an ignorant."

That's one way of looking at it. However, I think the insult was unnecessary. Remember the Code of Honor.

Unhappy-1583758

You said:

"Makes you think what kind of atheist would think of nothing but robbing a church? If atheists are supposed to be so moral and civil ( at least according to the news), then what does this say about someone stealing something to be used for profit. And don't give me that crap that it is the Catholics Church's fault. When you atheists think of criticizing, you should start with your own people first"

I have read the article, and found no supporting evidence that the crime was committed by an atheist. Can you please link me supporting evidence from the article? Or were you just fabricating this out of thin air?

I think if you could go back in time and ask Augustine what he considered himself, I am pretty confident he would tell you he was a Catholic. Baptists may have adapted some of his ideas, but they came from the mind of a Catholic. I am afraid you will have to face the fact there are basically two kinds of Christians. One being Catholic, the other being former Catholics. The head of the Catholic has always the Bishop of Rome, that title first given to St. Peter. Baptists can trace their origins back to 1609 with their first pastor being John Smyth, and that is as far back as they can legitimately go. BTW, not that it matters, but I am a historian, but am not a relgious person of any faith.

Catholics can't trace themselves back to Jesus. That is their problem. They can trace themselves only to the Nacean Creed. A set of doctrines forced upon the people (force is not what Jesus taught by the way). The only historically legitimate christian church is the one Jesus himself set up.

You guys want to leave their body parts in their for respect for the dead, right? Not for some other reason?

JOregon,

Thanks for the link. I looked at it, and I noticed that it classifies John Hus, Wycliffe, and Peter Waldo as "Pre-Reformers"; not as reformers. Why they make the distinction between "Pre-Reformers" and "Reformers", though, I'm not sure.

@John Doe: Hello!!!Einstein's brain was preserved because the scientists wanted to exmine it since they were amazed on how intellegent he was. It is a totally different story with this so called "saint" whose heart was preserved. For what purpose???

The head of the Catholic has always the Bishop of Rome, that title first given to St. Peter.

There is no evidence ZERO that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul went to Rome, Peter did not.

You need to understand the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has manipulated history. A good example of that is the Peter in Rome thing.

The Pope had immense military and political power to kill torture and destroy anyone that he deemed a problem.

If you were a true believer you had to hide from the Pope, or die.

Why they make the distinction between "Pre-Reformers" and "Reformers", though, I'm not sure.

I think because we have historically considered the Reformation to be in the 16th century.

The website also seem to focus on Lutherans.

I have read the article, and found no supporting evidence that the crime was committed by an atheist. Can you please link me supporting evidence from the article? Or were you just fabricating this out of thin air?

Unless there was some kind of monetary value attached, not too many people would have the need to steal this. People of other religions, even if they don't agree, would not steal another religion's artifact, especially if it were considered worthless. The only people who would consider stealing something that had no value and that belongs in a church would be an atheist. Since they don't value other people's beliefs and have no fear of God, it stands to reason that they would be the next logical choice.

Look at the fact that the Pope ordered the extermination of an entire Holy Order with the Knights Templar, because it was feared that they might have more sway with the people, more wealth than the Pope in Rome, more actual military power than the Papacy....

Another example is the practice of eating fish on Friday...which was due to the fact that they were trying to build the Basilica in Rome, and the Church controlled the fishing fleets in the Mediteranean, and therefore, if everyone ate fish, the fishing fleets thrived and the Pope collected a goodly portion from the thriving business. Peter, the apostle, was a fisherman by trade, but other than that, I find nothing in the Bible to suggest that God indicated that people should be eating fish on certain days of the week in exlcusion to other things. Why do you think that the Seat of the Roman Catholic Church is considered the wealthiest nation state in the world...The actual wealth, as well as the perceived wealth of artifacts and art are immense and I am not sure that any outside of the immediate circle in Rome have any concept of what all is included in that catalog of wealth.

Regard to JOregan, (by threat of death or violence) The Jewish faith still exists and the two faiths are mending their ways. I'm certain that was an oversight. Initially it was the chriistians themselves who had to hide and carry the faith in Christ for some 3centuries I believe, suffering much. Not an excuse for the many wrong they themselves hd taken part in. Love is harder than it seems wouldn't you say?

I had it some Fava Beans and a nice Chianti...

JOregan,

More than one early Christian writer spoke of both Peter and Paul in Rome in 67 AD as you can see in the following paragraphs...which also include sources. The Catholic Church, although not perfect by any means has done an excellent job of documenting the history of Christ's Church.

Peter and Paul foretold at Rome, that it would shortly come to pass that God would send a

king who would overcome the Jews and who would lay their city level with the ground. He

would besiege them until they so pined with hunger and thirst that they would start eating one

another. Finally, they would fall into their enemies' hands and would see their wives most

grievously tormented in their sight and their virgins violated and prostituted. Their sons would

be torn asunder and their little ones dashed to pieces. All things would be destroyed by fire and

sword and they would for ever be banished from their own lands. All this would happen because

they exalted themselves above the most loving and approved Son of God. {Lactantius, l. 4. c.

21.}

6946. At Antioch, Vespasian gathered together the Roman forces and the auxiliaries from the

kings. From there he went to Ptolemais and recovered Sepphoris which favoured the Romans.

6947. Titus came to his father at Ptolemais sooner than could have been hoped for because it

was winter. Their combined forces and the auxiliaries numbered 60,000 cavalry and foot

soldiers besides their servants and the baggage.

6948. Vespasian invaded Galilee and burnt and wasted the city of the Gadarenes which he took

at the first assault. From there, he went to Jotapata on the 21st day of May and he fought against

it.

6949. On the 29th day of June (which was last day of that month that happened within the reign

of Nero) Paul was beheaded at Rome as the records both of the eastern and western church

confirm. Thereupon Chrysostom undoubtedly affirmed that the day of his death was more

certainly known than that of Alexander the Great himself. {Chrysostom, 2 Corinthian Homily,

26.} Dionysius, the bishop of the Corinthians, affirmed in a letter to the Romans that Peter also

suffered martyrdom at the same time with him. {*Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, l. 2. c. 25.

<1:79,80>} Origin also stated {Origin, Commentaries upon Genesis, tome. 3.} that at Rome,

Peter was crucified with his head downwards (as he had desired.) {*Eusebius, Ecclesiastical

History, l. 3. c. 1. <1:82>}

JOregon, I think you've got it backwards. Since Calvin came many centuries after Augustine, it would have been Calvin teaching Augustinian principles and thought.

It's worth noting that the Catholic Church looked into Luther's protests and found that more were correct than incorrect. The unfortunate thing is, at the time of the Reformation, many of the brilliant people chose to reform the Church from outside, rather than inside, the Roman church. The Council of Trent wasn't just called to deal with the Protestant Reformation, but also to deal with internal reformation that was badly needed.

The Catholic Church as a baseline saying, "Semper Reformanda," or "Always Reforming." The church is both a divine institution (founded by Jesus) as well as a very human institution, always in need of reforming.

Regarding the heart (the reason why we all ended up in the comment section), it's pretty amazing that the heart is (was?) still uncorrupted by decomposition after so many centuries. Makes you wonder what's up with all the non-decomposed saints that the Catholic Church has had over the centuries...

Unless there was some kind of monetary value attached, not too many people would have the need to steal this. People of other religions, even if they don't agree, would not steal another religion's artifact, especially if it were considered worthless. The only people who would consider stealing something that had no value and that belongs in a church would be an atheist. Since they don't value other people's beliefs and have no fear of God, it stands to reason that they would be the next logical choice.

Unhappy, you obviously have a significant misunderstanding of Atheists.

And don't forget. Once people found out Catholics would pay good money for relics, the industry boomed. And it's not just body parts. It's splinters from the "true" cross, scraps of textiles, hair--about the only thing I haven't heard of is finger/toenail clippings.

Vincent

The RCC killed those that opposed it.

The RCC created the history that suited it.

The RCC used their power and authority to control people and gather wealth.

The RCC used it's powerful military force for purposes that go against the doctrines of Christ.

Love is harder than it seems wouldn't you say?

Love really isn't that hard, it is just that the RCC didn't follow it. There have been individuals within the RCC that have loved, but the origin and development of that church was based on terror, manipulation, and intimidation.

Redjoe

Lactantius was from the 4th century according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. In other words he wasn't there.

Chrysostom 4th and 5th century. Wasn't there.

Eusebius late 3rd to early 4th century. Wasn't there.

Did you catch a pattern there? All at about the same time several Catholic writers declare Peter to have been in Rome.

Unhappy - my first thought was that it was someone who was indeed religious/Catholic. Since it has no monetary value, perhaps someone thought they could use it for healing themselves or a loved one, or for some other "miracle". Hence the two peace candles being lit - to ease the minds of fellow worshipers/clergy/etc? Otherwise, I agree with Flbikerchick - it would have monetary value to Catholics who wanted a piece of the relic.

But, really, why the need to single out atheists? Many, many religious people have no regard for others' beliefs...that's not an atheist's calling card. Having morals and respect for others doesn't require a belief in a god.

JOregon, I think you've got it backwards. Since Calvin came many centuries after Augustine, it would have been Calvin teaching Augustinian principles and thought.

lol

Certainly the way it should have been. Today though we think of predestination and election as being something Calvin developed so it is called Calvinism.

The opposite thought that salvation is made by a freewill choice is called Arminianism. It is named after Jacob Arminius who opposed Calvin. It is very likely Arminius was the originator of this doctrine, as a response to Hyper Calvinists.

All very confusing to most.

it's pretty amazing that the heart is (was?) still uncorrupted by decomposition after so many centuries.

Mummification isn't anything new.

Yep, them thar Catholics is a strange bunch. Nothin like us snake handlers. We knowd old tymme religion!

As to the question as who would do something like that?

Answer: A hungry person.

Shortbeardedduck,

"Just about every crusader that returned from the Holy Land had a piece of the 'True Cross" to bring back to his church or bishop"

That's true. I once heard it said that if all the pieces of the "True Cross" were genuine pieces of it, the cross would have had to stretch from the Earth to the Moon.

izmee.

You are very fortunate that this is not Saudi Arabia or that you utter such stupidity and blasphemous nonsense. Perhaps the fact that you have to stoop to such depths in your rantings is indicative of a total lack of respect for another's beliefs. You do not have to believe but when you pass on, perhaps you will discover too late that what you were denegrating will now accompany the final Judge at your hearing before the High court of God. What could you say except claim total ignorance and a lack of any morality.

However, we who pray and genuflect and light candles will pray for your soul. You did not know you had a soul? That is what separate us from the animals. May God bless you and forgive your disrespect.

Tamarindtrees: You are wasting your time with people like izmee. He's obviously an atheist. Like I said in my post above(2.21), atheists spout only their version of what's right and wrong and is indifferent to the belief's of others.

Atheists have just as much right to be extremist nutjobs as anyone else.

Then stop acting like you are better than anyone else.

How did you get from an artifact found in a box to ground up monkey penis? You think someone took a human heart and ground it up so that someone else could have a better heart? Again, I never really could tell how you atheists thinks. Just proves again the fact that an atheist did this. So much for your morality, huh?

Unhappy,

Do you often run your mouth about how everyone who doesn't think like you do, is an atheist?

Is that the rant of a cocksucking christian or just what the @!$%# is your problem?

Labeling everyone you disagree with, to be an atheist would be a lot like us labeling you a child molester.

Do you often run your mouth about how everyone who doesn't think like you do, is an atheist?

Don't like how you are portrayed? Too bad. When bastards like yourselves are allowed to go unchecked then, there is a problem.

Ya, Im not sure what athiests have to do with this. As someone already said: you clearly do not understand what athiests are about.

Athiests do not believe in god, they arent against him. Nor do they believe that the religious pose some sort of threat or competition. The competition lies amongst those of various religions, athiests couldnt care less. And if they dont beleive in him then why would they bother trying to mess with some religious artifact that means nothing to them? Athiesim is not a religion so, quit trying to pit it against your religion(s).

Youd have better luck, and make more sence, pointing your finger at the antichrist.

And stop insulting everyone as if YOU are better than everyone else.

And if they dont beleive in him then why would they bother trying to mess with some religious artifact that means nothing to them? Athiesim is not a religion so, quit trying to pit it against your religion(s). Youd have better luck, and make more sence, pointing your finger at the antichrist.

That is exactly what atheists try to do.They believe they are better than everyone else and do try to shove it down other people's throats. If you consider atheism not to be a religion then what is it? An idealogy or a belief system? Sounds like religion to me.

Athiests do not believe in god, they arent against him. Nor do they believe that the religious pose some sort of threat or competition.

Oh, so I guess you haven't seen the banners yet? The only difference is when " American Atheists" put up those banners in Brooklyn,NY and in Patterson, NJ it sounded to me like they were trying to advertise against their competition. Maybe you should read more without first giving your opinion.

And stop insulting everyone as if YOU are better than everyone else.

I don't know where you're from, but in NY that's exactly what atheists do.

Wow unhappy, obsessed much? Nearly every post you have on these forums blames atheists for something. You type the word "atheist" more than atheists do. I don't usually step in when a debate opponent is doing such a good job of proving my point, but you're not even getting that right.

How do I go from heart in a box to ground monkey penis? Easy, Superstition: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. See also Pareidolia. Don't blame me, that's straight from Miriam-Webster.

As for the rest: if you don't get it, it's not anyone's fault but your own.

Atheism is the absence of religion. It is the exact opposite of religion. They have nothing to shove down anyones throat. WTF are you talking about? It’s kind of hilarious that you have turned that “shoving religion down throats” accusation around like that though.

You clearly need to read more in order to develop an informed opinion.

For you, the parts represent the whole. That is shallow minded.

New York is not representative of the world.

Catholic Church is still doing it.

They have a vial of Pope John Paul 2's blood that they display.

You are right there is nothing in the bible to justify this, but then the Catholics have their own set of rules.

O'Toole's heart was saved when this church was Catholic, they are part of the Church of Ireland today.

So are you going to cite something, or are you just going to say it loud and hope someone else agrees? II Corinthians 1:11 is often used do defend veneration of saints via there arability to intercede with Christ. The idea behind relics is that the bodies of saints are presumed pure, and thus are starting places to build churches. It's a dogmatic issue you don't have to believe in.

Your first commandment actually references "false idols". The bones of ancient prophets (Elisha for one) were collected as relics and venerated by Christ, who was a rabbi.

I am personally agnostic, the holes in religion of any kind offend me, but if you are going to throw a blanket insult out there, at least have the decency to acknowledge their arguments. By the way, Veneration of saints is actually bigger in the the Eastern Orthodox Church and its various branches. They are also arguably the LEAST changed from "basic Christianity," if by that you mean "what it started as," as they split from the Holy Roman Empire at the turn of the 11th century.

The bible says that all who accept Christ, Confess their sins and are baptized ARE SAINTS. This idea that a bunch of old men in fancy red and gold robes can make someone a saint it the height of insanity. Ditto the kissing of rings on the hand of some old man who is no more "holy" than a dog in the street. He is NOT the "supreme arbiter" of ANYTHING between Man and GOD. The Bible again tells you that there is NO ONE between Man and God.

EnglishLass:

Idolatry has a very specific meaning, not the meaning pushed by a bunch of protestant numbskull ministers. That whle problem with protestantism is it is merely a means to an end - the breaking away from the Christian church which persisted in unuon for 1,500 years. The idolatry claim is just part of the stock and trade to distinguish protestants from the true church. It is nonsense. If you take what is claimed literally, you must destroy and any all pictures of your family as well.

As for the old man comment, if you are so inclined to follow the bible, then you ought to follow Jesus' instruction to Peter. There is but one church given authority by Christ.

Finaly, I note, the breakaway by the Anglican Church by an English King hell bent on divorce and annullment hardly constitutes the virtuous grounds upon which disunion occurred. Protestantism is a schism seeking compliants to justify that which it cannot.

JOregon,

"You are right there is nothing in the bible to justify this, but then the Catholics have their own set of rules."

You are right about that. Catholic beliefs are derived from 3 main sources of authority: the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church), and not from the Bible alone. It is only Protestants who insist on the Bible as the only source of authority based on Martin Luther's doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" ("Only the Scriptures").

You are right about that. Catholic beliefs are derived from 3 main sources of authority: the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church), and not from the Bible alone.

And the Apocrypha

JOregon,

"And the Apocrypha"

Yes, but what you call the Apocrypha is just part of the Bible to Catholics. Protestants don't accept those books, but they are a standard part of the Catholic Bible.

is just part of the Bible to Catholics

Agreed

JOregon,

It's nice to have an intelligent discussion with someone for a change without exchanging insults. Thanks!

It is rare on these things

Take care Mickey

Through history, Catholic Church was the seat of all accepted knowlege until the age of enlightenment, and the views of the common people were shaped directly by what they learned in Church. Most could not read or write, so it was an oral tradition. There were no films, photos....and artifacts were the original show and tell, quite effective with an uneducated populace willing to believe that there were mystical, magical properties, bestowed by God, in these items....more importantly that the believers of superstition believe that the church controlled the artifacts and the power ascribed to them....Kept people in line pretty well for a long, long time.

I have a picture of my late grandfather in my home. I don't worship that picture and I don't worship the pictures and statues at church either. They are both present to illustrate history.

Likewise, people ask other people to pray for them all the time, yet when aa Catholic asks Mary to pray for them, they are accused of treating her like a God. The hate some people show toward the beliefs of Catholics puzzles me.

redjoe

Do you kneel in front of that picture of your Grandfather and pray?

Do you recite prayers such as this mentioning your grandfather instead of Mary?

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
our life, our sweetness and our hope!
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping
in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us,
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!

when aa Catholic asks Mary to pray for them, they are accused of treating her like a God.

Why not go directly to the source, pray to God. Not dead people.

Mary is no different than any other born again believer.

indeed. the "family laws" of most American States outstrip any and all other forms of nonsense religious, political, or otherwise. godspeed, william pyles.

william pyles...you are hilarious...

making fun at the pain this must have caused you...

you are one guy I'd like to meet...

so you can no longer procreate, excellent news, I will send her a thank you note.

Catholic-sandiegogirl

Mr. Pyles...We regret to inform you that your family jewels have been removed from the mantle and brought to the curb for collection, but in an act of despiration a homeless baglady snatched them before waste management could add them to a landfill. She ate them calling them "rocky mountain" something or other wasing them down with a can of heated sterno.

She may as well of had them mounted on the wall, being as you apparently didn't have any use for them.

Nice try at an unproven piece of garbage slander and nonsense.

Nothing like a left wing troll to spew lies and nonsense.

Isn't it about time we stop with the "my religion is better than yours" argument? Most social issues are red herrings to draw attention away from the fact that our rights are being taken away. Many people are unaware that, as per HR347 signed into law Mar 2, 2012, it is illegal to enter "a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance." without "lawful authority". The specific radius is not expressly designated by the wording in this law, and can shift without notice based on Secret Service perimeters. The punishment for breaking said law is up to 10 years in a federal prison, and the law does not specify that the action has to be a willful encroachment to be considered criminal.

Religion is the root of all conflict

No, power and money are the root of all conflict, but religion makes the real motive palatable and acceptable for those who wish to believe that they are above being motivated by power and money.

That is an over-generalization, American Citizen. Religion can definitely be one root of conflict, but only because it is the expression of a belief system that is all too often forced on others. Other non-religious belief systems can foster just as much conflict when they are forced on others.

Do your homework; you may be surprised! In fact, a little church history wouldn't hurt anyone.

With acquaintance goes understanding.

yes, someone was indeed very angry at something

Oh Billy, that was baaddddd. Heartwrenching, as a matter of fact.

Cold hearted.

CdB: "St Brigid, however, was never a real person. Brigid is a celtic goddess who the church later created a story around and made her a saint."

That is not true. St Brigid was a definitely a real person who existed:

Saint Brigid of Kildare, or Brigit of Ireland (variants include Brigid, Bridget, Bridgit, Bríd and Bride), nicknamed Mary of the Gael (Irish: Naomh Bríd) (c. 451–525) is one of Ireland's patron saints along with Saints Patrick and Columba. Irish hagiography makes her an early Irish Christian nun, abbess, and founder of several monasteries of Christian nuns, including that monastery of ‘Kildare’ Ireland

Which one?

I was at O'Tooles pub in Grand Rapids, MI last night...maybe it's there. If I had known, I would've looked for it!

jim 372206

I suppose that you think that that remark makes you smart? I feel sory for you if that is all that you can come up with!

Jim is a lot smarter than you tamarindtrees,

Get used to it.

I stole Melissa's cherry, she's not getting it back. I hope that makes you feel better

As devout Catholics consider that medical autopsy is a desecration of the person's remains, then how is it that they have acquired all these various bodily parts? Once again, power means that the heirarchy can do what they wish to control the masses.....Does anyone see a corrallary to our government here?

Oh I don't know, maybe it has to do with something about this being the 21st century & not the 12th century,,,,, people are either just slow to catch up or they just cannot accept reality

What is reality?

Still, why the attack?

No, Zeus is real, prove your god is more real than Zeus?

Follow the shoe, Evenstar13, follow the shoe...

You Master(bater) Bob have that right and I will not attempt to deprive you of it, however, faith is believing without seeing and those who do not, are not only faithless, but accursed. When your time is done and you stand before your creator, what will you call him, Zeus? As long as you hold your atheistic views, which is your right under mans law, you should know there isn't a sunblock in the world that can withstand the fires of hell. I pray that in time you discover that the sinful life you lead, needing your porn, etc, is nothing more than a life of destruction. And when your creator asks after all is done and laid bare, why you lived so, what will you say, "Because I didn't think you were real"? You can not find what you do not seek. "Seek and ye shall find." What you shall find is life, not death.

Okay Jim, I think you have went off the deep end.

OMG...I stepped out of the shower this morning. I'm a pedophile, and didn't know it.

Earth to jackr,

I think you're being baited...