Comment: seems you'd rather not educate yourself

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Quote from Wikipedia (see in situ)

seems you'd rather not educate yourself

Xerosum, you seem to think that you have made a point but there in not one in your whole response.

You mention Notre Dame (a Catholic school) and Boston University (a school of Methodist origin) but you fail to share how either institution is pertinent to this conversation.

You bring up cigarette smoking, the Patriot Act, and the Geneva Convention which have nothing to do with the topic and read like some rambling rant to pretend that lots of words will somehow magical make your point, but they don't. You may as well have typed, "My rag of a book is legit because cherry ice cream, Somalia, ceiling fan" because there is as much connection of my 3 objects to the topic at hand as smoking, the Patriot Act or the Geneva Convention.

I sited Ralph Woodrow because he is an Evangelical,if I'd have given you a Catholic's analysis of why the book was wrong you'd have surely discounted it because of their faith. Woodrow actually had a fighting interest in proving Hislop correct but he had the integrity to honestly look at the facts and objectively realized Hislop's book is loaded with errors. It seems you lack an equivalent interest in finding the truth.

The article you didn't bother looking at before going on tangents also sites the "World Wide Church of God" as being critical. They are an Evangelical church that is into the "end of days prophecies" that books like Two Babylons is written for.

If you just prefer a list of errors in the book look here ( ) or google a site yourself. But put a little effort into opening your eyes and not just choosing to hate Catholics because you've made a habit of it.

I heard a homily in college that explained how Jesus didn't regularly go about insulting people, but one notable term He used for opponents was "hypocrite". He pastor elaborated that "hypo-" means 'under', like a hypo-dermic needle, and crite is it root of 'critic' which originally mean a thinker.
His point was that God gifts us with an intellect and that failing to engage rational thought can poison our acts and lead to people with good intentions waste their efforts on causes that are false and often results in working against God's kingdom.

That priest's description of and "under thinker" is exactly what you are exhibiting. You don't respond to facts, you don't show any intent to understand where your position is weak or errant. Instead you close your eyes and march on until you are in the clear and there is no one around to challenge your opinions. Then of course you will declare victory to the wind or to a room of people just like yourself who are equally uninformed and intent of defending their agenda no matter how errant.