Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion
<3 </3
Reply
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Offline
I think John Cornwell, author of Hitler's Pope, recanted. He is now authoring a book on the life of Pope JP II.

I don't like to be suspicious, but in past debates, there were no hedging around with the use of Hitler's Pope as a source. I would always denounce it as the work of a reporter, not a historian. Then have the dance around as to whether the statements in Hitler's Pope were verifiable or opinion.

Catholic Answers
JOHN CORNWELL, author of a new life of Pope John Paul II, would have made a fine devil's advocate when the pope's name is one day advanced for sainthood. Unfortunately, he will not be chosen, for John Paul II himself, some two decades ago, scrapped the custom of having a devout Catholic question the virtues of a candidate for beatification or canonisation. The old job of devil's advocate is now, in effect, performed by committee.

Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

Chastened by this experience, Mr Cornwell is now a better biographer. In this life of John Paul II, he celebrates his subject's achievements as well as deploring the mistakes. The pope's heroism is affirmed. As a young would-be priest in occupied Poland, Karol Wojtyla was not intimidated by Nazi efforts to liquidate the Catholic clergy. A priest under Communism, he was again courageous. When the Soviet system imploded, “few would dispute that the inexorable and bloodless process had been initiated by the Polish pope.”. .


I hate it when people accuse me of being disingenuous, so I will try to offer Lord Setar the same as I wish he would offer to me.

Offline
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Lord Setar

Then it will be disregarded, considering:

1. Hitler did not attempt to suppress Christianity as claimed by Benedict in the part of his speech that you are attempting to sweep under the rug.

2. Stalin and Mao were concerned with upholding their particular brand of communism and suppressed dissidents regardless of religion. Where Stalin is concerned, he re-established the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942 which means you have no argument as he embraced Christianity rather than suppressing it. I am not as familiar with Mao's policies, however, I have never heard anything about attempts at suppressing religion by Mao.


You are mistaken that I am sweeping his statements under the rug. I have every intention to promulgate his words.

You are naive in regards to the reestablishment of Roman Catholicism in Poland and Russian Orthodoxy in Russia as being anything more than a means to pacify the people once they were subdued.


As you are not familiar with Chairman Mao, would you be willing to acknowledge that you might not know everything about what Pope Benedict meant when he spoke?

Would you please source your information regarding the Vatican foreign policy which tips a hand of Nazism there?

I'll fill in the blank there. The Reichskonkordat was a document signed between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in order to continue the Church's activities in Germany. With this preferential treatment, they chose to accept the regime rather than to attempt to change or remove it. One of the signers from the Catholic side is even alleged to have said 'with the treaty, we are hanged. Without it, we are hanged, drawn, and quartered'. It's showing a complete lack of effort to go against policies the Church did not agree with. Also notable, many clergy had access to knowledge about what was happening in the concentration camps even a month after they began being filled, but were not vocal about such things.


Will you now source the scholar who has provided you with these intrigues?

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211

I read the concordat.



And the concordat contains the motives behind the Church in this?

Perfect Winner

Offline
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

...I'm fairly sure that, by your definition of 'extremist atheists' and the criteria you just gave, there are very few, if any, extremist atheists.


I agree.

Then I don't understand why you're addressing a group of people that by all means doesn't exist, and I question why Benedict has chosen to do so as well.


"Very few" is common sense. There are very few members of the Skin Heads, KKK and other such extremists. Why we have at times listened to those voices and made way for their moments in history has to do with our own internal struggles with selfishness and scapegoating; our fears that we won't have enough and someone unworthy is going to "get ours."

You didn't answer me, you went on a philosophical meandering.


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.

Perfect Winner

Offline
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Lord Setar

Then it will be disregarded, considering:

1. Hitler did not attempt to suppress Christianity as claimed by Benedict in the part of his speech that you are attempting to sweep under the rug.

2. Stalin and Mao were concerned with upholding their particular brand of communism and suppressed dissidents regardless of religion. Where Stalin is concerned, he re-established the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942 which means you have no argument as he embraced Christianity rather than suppressing it. I am not as familiar with Mao's policies, however, I have never heard anything about attempts at suppressing religion by Mao.


You are mistaken that I am sweeping his statements under the rug. I have every intention to promulgate his words.

You are naive in regards to the reestablishment of Roman Catholicism in Poland and Russian Orthodoxy in Russia as being anything more than a means to pacify the people once they were subdued.


As you are not familiar with Chairman Mao, would you be willing to acknowledge that you might not know everything about what Pope Benedict meant when he spoke?

Would you please source your information regarding the Vatican foreign policy which tips a hand of Nazism there?

I'll fill in the blank there. The Reichskonkordat was a document signed between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in order to continue the Church's activities in Germany. With this preferential treatment, they chose to accept the regime rather than to attempt to change or remove it. One of the signers from the Catholic side is even alleged to have said 'with the treaty, we are hanged. Without it, we are hanged, drawn, and quartered'. It's showing a complete lack of effort to go against policies the Church did not agree with. Also notable, many clergy had access to knowledge about what was happening in the concentration camps even a month after they began being filled, but were not vocal about such things.


Will you now source the scholar who has provided you with these intrigues?

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211

I read the concordat.



And the concordat contains the motives behind the Church in this?

Yes, it states quite clearly that the intent is for the continuation of the activities of the Catholic church under the Reich. In doing so, they have naturally rejected the idea of going against the Reich. By collaborating, they are not resisting.

Offline
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

Then I don't understand why you're addressing a group of people that by all means doesn't exist, and I question why Benedict has chosen to do so as well.


"Very few" is common sense. There are very few members of the Skin Heads, KKK and other such extremists. Why we have at times listened to those voices and made way for their moments in history has to do with our own internal struggles with selfishness and scapegoating; our fears that we won't have enough and someone unworthy is going to "get ours."

You didn't answer me, you went on a philosophical meandering.


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

There are enough of these croping up to warrant a direct address: ARIZONA ATHEIST. Here he writes about Justin Martyr quoting out of context and then applying his own interpretation of what is meant rather than to look at the scholarship of others.

He speaks to the "new Atheists" who frankly have very little information by which to screen mistakes and opinion.

Offline
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

I'll fill in the blank there. The Reichskonkordat was a document signed between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in order to continue the Church's activities in Germany. With this preferential treatment, they chose to accept the regime rather than to attempt to change or remove it. One of the signers from the Catholic side is even alleged to have said 'with the treaty, we are hanged. Without it, we are hanged, drawn, and quartered'. It's showing a complete lack of effort to go against policies the Church did not agree with. Also notable, many clergy had access to knowledge about what was happening in the concentration camps even a month after they began being filled, but were not vocal about such things.


Will you now source the scholar who has provided you with these intrigues?

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211

I read the concordat.



And the concordat contains the motives behind the Church in this?

Yes, it states quite clearly that the intent is for the continuation of the activities of the Catholic church under the Reich. In doing so, they have naturally rejected the idea of going against the Reich. By collaborating, they are not resisting.


I see! Interesting. I am def going to have to keep my own eyeballs on Concordat Watch.

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Offline
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.

Perfect Winner

Offline
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

Then I don't understand why you're addressing a group of people that by all means doesn't exist, and I question why Benedict has chosen to do so as well.


"Very few" is common sense. There are very few members of the Skin Heads, KKK and other such extremists. Why we have at times listened to those voices and made way for their moments in history has to do with our own internal struggles with selfishness and scapegoating; our fears that we won't have enough and someone unworthy is going to "get ours."

You didn't answer me, you went on a philosophical meandering.


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

It's my belief that he intended to address the 'new atheism', which would be the particularly vocal atheists nowadays who actively speak and write against religion. This seems like a much broader spectrum to be dealing with, and much more pressing than 'extremist atheists'. This may very well be pointing to scholars, but I would disagree with him even then. Intellectual pursuits and discourse make the world go round, and I would call it healthy to be skeptical of claims until you check them for yourself.

Offline
Melly Kwistmass
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


The pontif cannot be accurately characterized as an "ignoramous." Have you had a chance to see his Curriculum Vitae?

You are right that he is a Shepherd over the flock of Christ's sheep. As Jesus repeatedly said to Peter: "Do you love me? Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs."

I don't find your statement regarding Papa Bene's motivations to be persuasive either.

Offline
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

You didn't answer me, you went on a philosophical meandering.


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

It's my belief that he intended to address the 'new atheism', which would be the particularly vocal atheists nowadays who actively speak and write against religion. This seems like a much broader spectrum to be dealing with, and much more pressing than 'extremist atheists'. This may very well be pointing to scholars, but I would disagree with him even then. Intellectual pursuits and discourse make the world go round, and I would call it healthy to be skeptical of claims until you check them for yourself.


This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.

Perfect Winner

Offline
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

It's my belief that he intended to address the 'new atheism', which would be the particularly vocal atheists nowadays who actively speak and write against religion. This seems like a much broader spectrum to be dealing with, and much more pressing than 'extremist atheists'. This may very well be pointing to scholars, but I would disagree with him even then. Intellectual pursuits and discourse make the world go round, and I would call it healthy to be skeptical of claims until you check them for yourself.


This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.

No, that would be criticism. It serves a different purpose entirely, that being pointing out flaws. I'm not a fan of Benedict's conduct in handling the situation in question either, honestly.

Offline
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

It's my belief that he intended to address the 'new atheism', which would be the particularly vocal atheists nowadays who actively speak and write against religion. This seems like a much broader spectrum to be dealing with, and much more pressing than 'extremist atheists'. This may very well be pointing to scholars, but I would disagree with him even then. Intellectual pursuits and discourse make the world go round, and I would call it healthy to be skeptical of claims until you check them for yourself.


This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.

No, that would be criticism. It serves a different purpose entirely, that being pointing out flaws. I'm not a fan of Benedict's conduct in handling the situation in question either, honestly.


There is a difference between pitchfork and torches and registering our valid concerns in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. The preceding is an example of hate-mongering. Before getting to the point of her confusion about *****, took the opportunity to malign Catholicism in general. Or was her use of "sheep" meant in the same way as Jesus did? blaugh

7,350 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Offline
mrsculedhel

This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.


This is the same man who discouraged Africans from using condoms to reduce the spread of AIDs. I'd hardly call that intellectual either.

Offline
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel
Fighting Fefnir
mrsculedhel


Very few does not equal "doesn't exist." The set of [very few] is not he same as the set of [ ]

This is fair enough. However, to say that there are enough skinheads and klan members to merit a papal proclamation about something that they do not directly address in their belief (you're saying they're extremist atheists, when they enact social Darwinism and may or may not be atheists) seems ridiculous.


When put that way, it is indeed worthy of ridicule. I believe he is pointing to something among a segment of our scholars, not among the lowly-most-likely to be thugs for potential regimes.

It's my belief that he intended to address the 'new atheism', which would be the particularly vocal atheists nowadays who actively speak and write against religion. This seems like a much broader spectrum to be dealing with, and much more pressing than 'extremist atheists'. This may very well be pointing to scholars, but I would disagree with him even then. Intellectual pursuits and discourse make the world go round, and I would call it healthy to be skeptical of claims until you check them for yourself.


This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.


You say that making room for intellectual pursuits is what makes the world go-round in a glorious fashion. But I ask you, what have negative criticisms couched in anger and hatred resulted in the past?

How is the pretense of fully comprehending another's motives different from pretending to comprehend for example, "Jewish motives" by the National Socialists? When we go about demonizing others by attributing evil motivations we create boogeyman for whom the masses are whipped into massacring.

Offline
Melly Kwistmass
mrsculedhel

This:

Quote:
A glorified ignoramus who controls a mass following of sheep who kiss his arse when he reads bible verses out loud.

And yes, he should answer for the years of child abuse he enabled. Boys have gone to grow into men who've killed themselves after watching their abusers go unpunished while they suffered years of psychological damage. The man could've done more about it but no, he chose to ignore so that the Church's image could be kept squeaky clean.

It was only until people started pressuring him that he finally started making apologies.


is not intellectual pursuit.


This is the same man who discouraged Africans from using condoms to reduce the spread of AIDs. I'd hardly call that intellectual either.


The Pontiff stated that the use of Condoms is not the answer to AIDS yes. And someone else has agreed with him in this: LINK. We all make mistakes.
Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaian's
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More