If a civilization from outer space asks us to provide examples of our most wonderful people.
would you send the pope list? or would you want to hide the list at any cost?
what would we do if they wanted to imitate the popes in order to blend in with our society?
When we are told by our politicians not to offend, and when the islamists and even the pope get on the bandwagon and demand that we must respect religion.....is that what you want?
Ought we not to be allowed to think for ourselves and be able to criticise...
are we supposed to remain silent and allow ourselves to be brainwashed...
Is it just fine to be dragged into court because we have offended? Is it not more like we have shed some light on the reality...and are forcing people to think and change...
atheling do you think that it is fine to eliminate religious heretics because they wish to simply deviate? Like the waldesians, bogomils, cathars, hussites...did they deserve to be savagely murdered, literally ripped open of their lives because these papists decided they were heretics?
and by the way...tell me of a group of christians whom the Papacy did not call heretics, and were allowed to be independent of the papacy?
You will find none... because anyone who did not wish to be under the Papacy WAS A HERETIC.
There are lots more, and it only gets worse...I will continue later.
Ah, here we go again ladies and gentlemen. Yitzhak wants to start the usual "pick your Pope"-contest (sure 'Yousef' is not the more truthful nick? ;-).
Perhaps he didn't want to make his posting too elaborate. He might even want to extend his to-think-about list with an even more lengthy one of popes who where decidedly philo-semitic? But then again, I reckon he might not. Nor would Herr 'papist' Steiner I guess.
Well, allow me to add some conveniently overlooked facts, to make the overall picture a little more complete. "Truth" is something one can only aspire to approximate as close as possible. Anger or fanaticism is usually not the best way to accomplish this. So dear Yitzhak und Herr Steiner, cool down, sit down and try some decaf for a change or whatever, and let me entertain you.
Jewish historian Rabbi David G. Dahlin states unequivocally that papal-Jewish relations are far better than most people think. A telling quote from historian Thomas Madden: "of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions." Prof. Madden adds to this: "the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope."
Renowned scholar in Jewish history Cecil Roth, editor in chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica also has some well-researched facts to add to Yitzhak's/Herr Steiner's picture. Roth was the most prolific Jewish historian and 20th C's preeminent Jewish scholar of papal-Jewish relations. And what was his verdict?
Roth: "Of all the dynasties in Europe, the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews.. but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews. The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."
Note that this highly esteemed Jewish scholar also speaks about 'the truth', but my guess is that he has put reason before anger in his scientific effort the get close to it.
I'll add a shortlist of some philo-Semitic popes troughout history in part II.
It’s not just WWII bit before that lets just say starting from 306 A.D besides I am not angry or frustrated I am simply skeptical … You just can’t hide your Anti-Semitic bigotry…..can’t you…. leftist or rightist a Jew is simply a Jew..............
Yitzhak is the product of his own peculiar imagination.I'm still awaiting his apology from previous run-ins with him when he accused me of anti-Semitism.Which reminds me,Yitzhak,if you're still out there...
I am happy to let fellow thinkers read what Yitzhak presents as 'evidence' in support of the thesis that Hitler was a Christian (in any meaningful sense of the word) and the counter argument to it.
Yitzhak is a product of a very angry and frustrated people, and rightly angry about what happened to them in WW2, who try to hit at everybody in sight to blame them for their suffering.
You know and I know that Hitler was a diabolical psychopath who, for some reason or another escaped the lunatic asylum.
The catholic church has tried to stay on course of it's beliefs in the middle of this turmoil and they did more for the jews during the war than the US, which sent the ships with jewish refugees back to where they came from.
Attacking the US would not be very wise today for Israël and attacking Russia for what they did to the jews during their history would also be counterproductive, so therefore, and certainly for leftist jews, attacking the catholic church is "gefundenes fressen".
We, as Flemish with the least jews being betrayed percentagewise during WW2, are used to this kind of attacks, we are just again accused of being nazis by leftist jews in Antwerp.
The jews in Europe would better serve their own cause by joining the right against the Middle Eastern mafia. The left has already chosen for the Arabs.
Enough said, blinkered leftists will never learn.
Indeed Taurus, this Imam in Irak is quite a sight. I call him the I-MAM. The Martial Arts Mufti on the internet ;-)
One of his predecessors had a direct link with Adolf Hitler. The in-famous Jerusalem übermufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This fine specimen of the "inner spiritual struggle" advised and assisted the Nazis in carrying out Hitler's Final Solution, on the promise it would in due time be applied to the Middle-East.
Oh, how the sword-wielding Iraqi mufti is convinced of the truth from where he stands, swinging his sword that's slightly too big for his moderate posture (of course when he tries to free the sword from its shaft, he'd like it to be a smooth move, one big heroic gesture. But the picture gets a bit clownesque when it turns out that his arms are just a little too short [6:27, part 12]. Poor guy).
There are other jihadists though, who might display less "enthusiasm" (in the literal meaning of en-theos-iasmos: posessed by a god). But they are just as dangerous, if not more, to what's left of our freedom. That is what I would like to see discussed in a sequel-docu with the same speakers: the day to day islamization of the West, by hard-working 'moderate' islamists who use other means besides overt violence. This is partly a silent takeover by non-violent islamists that fill the space opened-up by the small 'avant garde' of terror, but on the other side also partly a high-handed & high-minded give away by our political elites. This step by step sell-out is backed by self-proclaimed "progressives" of all sorts (religous-dialoguers, enlightened 'savoir faire' atheists) and the "chattering classes", i.e. most of the mainstream media.
The example of Tariq Ramadan springs to mind. This exemplary "voice of Saruman", who propagates islamization 'with a human face', this gently-spoken propaganda has the potential of killing us softly, so to speak. The example of Mr. Ramadan shows perfectly how easy it is to use the postmodern deconstructivist discourse of identity-politics to adapt islamist propaganda to the elitist tastes of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The nxt docu featuring Robert Spencer c.s. should center on this link, between 'soft'-jihadi discourse that fosters the creeping islamization of our society, and the self-righteous appeasement-speak of our political and cultural elites.
”Every Sabbath on account of burial(of Jesus) is to be regarded in execration(denunciation) of the Jews....In fact it is not proper to observe, because of Jewish customs, the consumption of food and the ceremonies of the Jews.”
Pope Innocent III:
1205 C.E.: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose
Death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." thus began the slavery of Jewish people to Catholics in the 13th century.
Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (by John Cornwell)
Hitler was not Atheist he was Christian just for starters:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
---Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Just when you've wiped that egg off your face, some more gets thrown on it.
You're quoting something Hitler said in 1922. Ever hear of the word apostasy? Methinks his pathology progressed quite a bit from there.
I recall your contradictory comments stating in one thread where you invoked Mosaic Law to "justify" Christian pacifism, then in another, you blandly state that Judaism and Christianity have nothing in common.
Back to the drawing board for you. *hands him a towel*
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
In one of the segments watching and listening to the rant of that Imam in the Mosque in Bhagdad I noted how Hitlerian it was in its strident tones, intonation, and body language. If he had been speaking in German instead of Arabic he could be the reincarnation.
To paraphrase the familiar Monty Python quote: "What have the Roman Catholics ever done for us, eh?!".
Well, quite a lot I'd say. Some terrible crimes in tough times, to be sure. But for such a large org. the record is not too bad, compared to other (elitist, socialist, atheist, reformist) orgs.
But here's a selection of things from a long list, to make up for it ;-)
- preservation/copying of classical masterpieces (Aristoteles, Cicero, Vergilius) in medieval monasteries (espec. Ireland)
- philosophical foundations for free-market economy (500 yrs before Adam Smith, who side-tracked with his labour-oriented theory of value). Of course the anti-catholic bigot Weber got the spirit of capitalism all wrong (as one of his own pupils immediately showed) with his "Protestant ethic".
- European medieval universities (from monasteries; as extensions of cathedral schools)
- foundations for modern science & scientific research (basilica built as astronomical observatories, seismology was even called "the jesuit science"), partly due to the fact that Aristotle was not simply copied (like muslim scholars did), but also criticized. Aristotle who thought that a body twice as heavy should also fall twice as fast, and never checked it. It also helped that scholastics thought their God to be of the "reasonable kind", i.e. nature's secrets could be unraveled through reason. Allah never was the prime rolemodel for science, because this god was 'unreasonable' to the extreme, and proud of it ;-)
- foundations of international law (improving on their Roman heritage).
- continuous campaigns against slavery (officially sanctioned since Pope Eugenius IV wrote his "Sicut dudum", 1435) and gradual abolition.
- immensely rich culture of music, art & architecture. Alas, partly destroyed by religious fanatics and "purifiers of religion" (like what happened to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan).
- an enormous and continuing effort on behalf of the sick and the poor (that was admired even by the Romans of the [very] early Middle Ages).
- last, but not least: pushing back the muslim invaders out of France and Spain. And later the crusades (as a long overdue answer to the islamic occupation of Palestina). This, as a side-effect gave Europe some 'breathing-space' until finally the muslim armies were halted in 1683 before the gates of Vienna by troops under the command of the "papist" King of Poland.
Now it is bigotry if we criticise the papists and the wrongs that they have committed against humanity.
I am all for criticising Islamists and Islam, but to then be told that i am a bigot if i mention the truth about the Papacy, makes me wonder if fighting against islamists is worth it, when in the end, the papists are going to get the spoils and carry out the same programs of intimidation and subjugation of people at large, as they did even up to WWII.
-The good of the Papacy-...this is beginning to sound to much like islamists talking about the good that mohammed brought to the world.
I plea guilty ;-)
Saw happening what was to be expected: the Allah-jugend 'en masse' sought to bring down the rating as soon as the docu (by a 'preview-hoax') was somehow linked to the upcoming koran-clip by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
I was amazed when I was informed about online articles in some newspapers that the movie by Wilders consisted of 12 parts. The link provided, referred to the clips I posted on YouTube. So in a very short period, it got a lot of attention because of a practical joke by someone else. A lot of attention also of the "inner spiritual strugglers" among the muslim community in the Netherlands.
In short:
a substantial number of fanatical islamists soon found out that this docu was becoming quite popular among the Dutch public. From that moment on, the rating went down rapidly from a solid 4/5 star. Meanwhile, my mailbox was bombarded with the all too familiar hatemail (some even containing the usual death-threats).
All in all, I'm encouraged to see that the clips are well-viewed and favorited quite often after a few days. Correspondence with the producers of the docu. in the US indicates that the Dutch subs are soon to be followed by a lot more, perhaps even resulting in a DVD for the European market.
eg #pt 10/12 still has 5 stars.
Untill now it's viewed 1,608 times, about 5 times less as #pt 1/12.
It's obvious when you read the reactions, a lot of people didn't see all parts of the docu, and probably not even the first part till the end.
I had no idea about the hoax linked to the Wilders movie. I didn't read anything about it in online newspapers.
Hopefully it will be subtitled in more languages, and many people will see this docu.
However, even when it would be broadcasted on TV, it wouldn't reach many people, because it's too historical, political,.. . Call it "dry", if you know what I mean. Unfortunately the "grey zone" of civilians prefer to watch Temptation Island etc., or simply don't have time for these things because their state's slave status. (work, eat, sleep, and don't think about important evolutions that are an attack on their children's future.)
This isn't critic on the docu, I'll pass the link to anyone I know who wants to take the time to listen to this deeper view into Islam. Thank you very much for the translation work!
Keeping the Wilders movie in mind - I look forward to its release-, and thinking of the reactions that we are "warned" about already before anyone saw it, by the PC elite.. . Well, when you compare that with the replies you got in your mailbox, for even this honest docu, I'm very curious for the impact after the Wilders docu. It's going to be massive.
Although Judaic-Christian theology teaches the opposite of Mohammed in many things, killing heretics among them, the early Christian church was greatly strengthened by "in hoc signo vinces". But the Christian church has always been a separate institution from the state and Constantine was not God's representative. By allowing the enemies of Christ to destroy the Christian church, either from within or from without, we are in effect aiding the destruction of Christ's teaching. Therefore, in times of heresy and war it may be necessary to kill our enemies. How Popes, their advisors and individual Christians look into their souls to determine this is not for me to say but I would hazard a guess that if John Paul II had been killed there would have been some realignment of the perception of threat to Christianity. There may be some mechanism within the various branches of the Christian faith that will begin to reassess circumstances in the coming years as she struggles with her enemies.
To Steiner: Simply pointing out past behavior of Christians in times of dangerous heresy isn't valid criticism. Also, you seem to go on a bit about the Lamb of God. But there's another side in case you've forgotten, doesn't the Lord's Prayer end with ". . . for Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever." ? I'm not sure if its the same with the Catholic version but that's how I was taught it. Christian grandeur, in particular the Catholic church's influence on the arts and culture, goes a long way in my book.
gryphos, it seems that you are confused, otherwise you are simply as insane as those islamists and papists who call/ed for death of heretics.
If you are confused, it probably has to do with your misunderstanding of the role of the state and the role of the church/religious institutions. You speak about separation of these two, but then you seem to think that it is ok for the Pope and Christians to kill the heretics based on their...- soul searching?!-.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just conclude that you are confused between the role of the state and the role of religious institutions.
One of the main roles of the state is to enact laws that protect the natural and fundamental rights of the people living within its borders. The equality of humans under the law, freedom of speech , freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom to live anywhere one chooses, freedom from physical abuse, freedom to be a religious heretic…freedom to speak out against what one sees as a threat, as long as one does not condone physical attacks.
The state has a fundamental duty to protect these natural and fundamental rights. Those that do not respect the laws of the state, and to not tolerate these freedoms in others must be prosecuted. Those that attempt to set up other laws that deny these fundamental rights must also be prosecuted.
It is incumbent on the state to prosecute people and organizations who act and connive to undermine these natural human rights by the use of religion or other means.
Churches have a duty to preach the Gospel and to spread their message, as long as they do not condone physical attacks.
As regards to threats and judgment in the afterlife…I see nothing wrong with these. The laws that govern the afterlife are not temporal business, and hence no need for the temporal state to get involved. Local religious institutions also have a right to expel whom they deem unworthy of their local church.
As regards to people judging a religion historically, and the consistency of the message and the messengers….why is there anything wrong with that ?
People have a fundamental right to speak their mind as long as they do not condone physical attack.
The problem arises when the state does not protect the natural and fundamental rights of man.
Hence, the papacy sending crusades against defenseless people/heretics in Europe. Or the Islamic states conditioning the fundamental and human rights to Sharia (and the U.N. allows them to remain signatories!?and more)… This is the problem..essentially a religious/political union or in other words a fascism between church and state that rips humanity asunder.
Wasn’t Jesus put on the cross for blasphemy? Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus condemn anyone to death, nor ask his disciples to physically attack those that did not believe. He used parables to warn people of a future judgment. He also spelled out the basic principle of separation of state and religion: give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. He ate with the outcasts ..and was judged a glutton, a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners by the religious zealots of His day.
As regards to Constantine; he actually weakened the church by creating a political center for it alongside the emperors. Christianity had already reached its greatest expanse, without the Papacy.
From then on, it was downhill for the churches that were outside Rome as they were forced to submit to Romes bishops. Those who would not submit were the heretics….
In conclusion , under the Papacy, Christianity has shrunk and suffered its worse setbacks. The papacy is also responsible for the advance of Islamism as it sought to undo the power of the eastern orthodox church, and is directly responsible for the collapse of the eastern front against islamists as the Bogomils(Serbia, Albania) were being attacked from both the islamists and the crusades of the papacy…Think about that before you ever defend popery.
To Italy, the papacy has brought continuous ruin and setbacks. The Longobards had quietly achieved in uniting Italy before the 13th century, but the Pope called in the French armies to break their power, and shatter Italy into fiefdoms each less powerful than the popes.
Later, the successful city states in Italy, like Venice (who was responsible in stopping the islamists at sea) would succumb to the power of the inquisitions and allow popery to have its ways …
As regards to your quote on the Lords prayer, as being the other side...what other side? Thine refers to God, not to some Vicar here on earth.
Talk about the buckets of slime that Jinnah flung around to convince the gullible gluttons that he was a secularist. Here is Jinnah in all his glory gory and the rest:
" When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."
This is the one liner that says it all...Jinnah the great. Poor india, poor Ghandi, and poor anybody who would believe this fellows secularism. hey, Osama is trying to do one better..he is trying to bring democracy (islam style) to the whole world!!!!?
I was talking about your comments in this topic, like what you said to Gryphos.
We have agreed that we don't agree on Jinnah.
His comment about democracy was rethoric, but I am not going to open that discussion again, it is useless.
I trust that you have the skill to do some research on your own. As I have said, there is plenty on the history of the papacy and its crusades against Europeans who did not wish to submit to their arrogance.
The Waldensians, Bogomils, Huguenots, Cathars....were Europeans which the Papacy led crusades against, promising those that would kill these men and women the forgiveness of all their sins and the prize of paradise. Sound familiar?
The papacy politicised Christianity, as it sought to bring all under its fold. It led crusades against Christians, even before the crusades against Islam...
Today, its apologists wish people to believe that these murderers(the many popes) were looking out to save peoples souls from eternal damnation...
Hence, they are clothed as lambs of Christ, concerned for the souls of their enemies. So concerned that torture, burning, maiming, raping were tools of the trade in converting and saving people from themselves...
We are told that these methods were the methods of the times to keep people from sinning, hence these murderers did not know any better, but were simply trying to do the right thing by saving whole towns from eternal damnation.
How interesting that many have accepted this line of argument...they were only watching out for their souls...
Unfortunately for them, this argument does not hold true in the light of Jesus.
Jesus did not kill his enemies so that he could save them, nor did he torture them, nor did he rape them...and so on.
Hence, they cannot hide the very fact that they were UnChristian, or to put it bluntly not Christian altogether in their deeds and their gospel.
Just give some names and instances. That is all I asked for. Quit evading and obfuscating.
NAME SOME NAMES AND INSTANCES!
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
I don't have to explain anything to you as you refuse to answer my question directly. You have no credibility. You are a hypocrite.
That's my position.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
"....for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
Go and do some reading...there is enough on the web for you to carry out your duty...you have closed your eyes and shut your ears. You have become the zealous sycophant and hypocrite of a bankrupt institution and failed to do your duty to think for yourself...now go.
Anyway, look atheling, if you are still having trouble, let us go through them one by one, and one at a time.
I will choose a pope at random....we can discuss this fellow, and then move on to another and so forth. Here is one:
Gregory the XIII..
what do you think of this fellow? Is he someone that you would like to imitate?
And by the way, I am intent on hearing the answer to my last question. Do you also think that religious heretics should lose their heads, or get hung, or simply be eliminated?
If God did not allow Abraham to slay his own son Isaac…why do these deluded souls think that it is just fine to kill their sons through suicide bombings in the name of Jihad? Does Abrahams God desire human sacrifice?
Conclusion: the God of Abraham is not the same as the god of mohammed.
Still waiting for the list of "many Popes" whose reigns were as murderous and tyrannical as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc...
Before you go pontificating about "love thy neighbor" (Christian theology 405), how about mastering Christian theology 101?
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor".
Does that ring a bell?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
Something to Think about
Submitted by Steiner on Mon, 2008-01-14 15:28.
If a civilization from outer space asks us to provide examples of our most wonderful people.
would you send the pope list? or would you want to hide the list at any cost?
what would we do if they wanted to imitate the popes in order to blend in with our society?
When we are told by our politicians not to offend, and when the islamists and even the pope get on the bandwagon and demand that we must respect religion.....is that what you want?
Ought we not to be allowed to think for ourselves and be able to criticise...
are we supposed to remain silent and allow ourselves to be brainwashed...
Is it just fine to be dragged into court because we have offended? Is it not more like we have shed some light on the reality...and are forcing people to think and change...
atheling do you think that it is fine to eliminate religious heretics because they wish to simply deviate? Like the waldesians, bogomils, cathars, hussites...did they deserve to be savagely murdered, literally ripped open of their lives because these papists decided they were heretics?
and by the way...tell me of a group of christians whom the Papacy did not call heretics, and were allowed to be independent of the papacy?
You will find none... because anyone who did not wish to be under the Papacy WAS A HERETIC.
There are lots more, and it only gets worse...I will continue later.
Did somebody say "Think.."? part 1 (repost)
Submitted by Sagunto on Sun, 2008-01-13 19:56.
Ah, here we go again ladies and gentlemen. Yitzhak wants to start the usual "pick your Pope"-contest (sure 'Yousef' is not the more truthful nick? ;-).
Perhaps he didn't want to make his posting too elaborate. He might even want to extend his to-think-about list with an even more lengthy one of popes who where decidedly philo-semitic? But then again, I reckon he might not. Nor would Herr 'papist' Steiner I guess.
Well, allow me to add some conveniently overlooked facts, to make the overall picture a little more complete. "Truth" is something one can only aspire to approximate as close as possible. Anger or fanaticism is usually not the best way to accomplish this. So dear Yitzhak und Herr Steiner, cool down, sit down and try some decaf for a change or whatever, and let me entertain you.
Jewish historian Rabbi David G. Dahlin states unequivocally that papal-Jewish relations are far better than most people think. A telling quote from historian Thomas Madden: "of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions." Prof. Madden adds to this: "the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope."
Renowned scholar in Jewish history Cecil Roth, editor in chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica also has some well-researched facts to add to Yitzhak's/Herr Steiner's picture. Roth was the most prolific Jewish historian and 20th C's preeminent Jewish scholar of papal-Jewish relations. And what was his verdict?
Roth: "Of all the dynasties in Europe, the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews.. but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews. The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."
Note that this highly esteemed Jewish scholar also speaks about 'the truth', but my guess is that he has put reason before anger in his scientific effort the get close to it.
I'll add a shortlist of some philo-Semitic popes troughout history in part II.
Sag.
@traveller
Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2008-01-13 19:13.
It’s not just WWII bit before that lets just say starting from 306 A.D besides I am not angry or frustrated I am simply skeptical … You just can’t hide your Anti-Semitic bigotry…..can’t you…. leftist or rightist a Jew is simply a Jew..............
@ Traveller
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-01-13 14:26.
Yitzhak is the product of his own peculiar imagination.I'm still awaiting his apology from previous run-ins with him when he accused me of anti-Semitism.Which reminds me,Yitzhak,if you're still out there...
@ Thinkers,everywhere
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-01-13 13:11.
I am happy to let fellow thinkers read what Yitzhak presents as 'evidence' in support of the thesis that Hitler was a Christian (in any meaningful sense of the word) and the counter argument to it.
@ Atlanticist911
Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-01-13 13:51.
Yitzhak is a product of a very angry and frustrated people, and rightly angry about what happened to them in WW2, who try to hit at everybody in sight to blame them for their suffering.
You know and I know that Hitler was a diabolical psychopath who, for some reason or another escaped the lunatic asylum.
The catholic church has tried to stay on course of it's beliefs in the middle of this turmoil and they did more for the jews during the war than the US, which sent the ships with jewish refugees back to where they came from.
Attacking the US would not be very wise today for Israël and attacking Russia for what they did to the jews during their history would also be counterproductive, so therefore, and certainly for leftist jews, attacking the catholic church is "gefundenes fressen".
We, as Flemish with the least jews being betrayed percentagewise during WW2, are used to this kind of attacks, we are just again accused of being nazis by leftist jews in Antwerp.
The jews in Europe would better serve their own cause by joining the right against the Middle Eastern mafia. The left has already chosen for the Arabs.
Enough said, blinkered leftists will never learn.
@Taurus689 about the martial arts mufti
Submitted by Sagunto on Sun, 2008-01-13 13:10.
Indeed Taurus, this Imam in Irak is quite a sight. I call him the I-MAM. The Martial Arts Mufti on the internet ;-)
One of his predecessors had a direct link with Adolf Hitler. The in-famous Jerusalem übermufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini. This fine specimen of the "inner spiritual struggle" advised and assisted the Nazis in carrying out Hitler's Final Solution, on the promise it would in due time be applied to the Middle-East.
Oh, how the sword-wielding Iraqi mufti is convinced of the truth from where he stands, swinging his sword that's slightly too big for his moderate posture (of course when he tries to free the sword from its shaft, he'd like it to be a smooth move, one big heroic gesture. But the picture gets a bit clownesque when it turns out that his arms are just a little too short [6:27, part 12]. Poor guy).
There are other jihadists though, who might display less "enthusiasm" (in the literal meaning of en-theos-iasmos: posessed by a god). But they are just as dangerous, if not more, to what's left of our freedom. That is what I would like to see discussed in a sequel-docu with the same speakers: the day to day islamization of the West, by hard-working 'moderate' islamists who use other means besides overt violence. This is partly a silent takeover by non-violent islamists that fill the space opened-up by the small 'avant garde' of terror, but on the other side also partly a high-handed & high-minded give away by our political elites. This step by step sell-out is backed by self-proclaimed "progressives" of all sorts (religous-dialoguers, enlightened 'savoir faire' atheists) and the "chattering classes", i.e. most of the mainstream media.
The example of Tariq Ramadan springs to mind. This exemplary "voice of Saruman", who propagates islamization 'with a human face', this gently-spoken propaganda has the potential of killing us softly, so to speak. The example of Mr. Ramadan shows perfectly how easy it is to use the postmodern deconstructivist discourse of identity-politics to adapt islamist propaganda to the elitist tastes of multiculturalism and political correctness.
The nxt docu featuring Robert Spencer c.s. should center on this link, between 'soft'-jihadi discourse that fosters the creeping islamization of our society, and the self-righteous appeasement-speak of our political and cultural elites.
grtz,
Sag.
Think......
Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2008-01-13 12:49.
Denial Vs historical facts
http://www.hcacentre.org/ChristianHitler.html
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/1271?hr=null
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/query/4?uf=uia_KoWNpy
Think.......
Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2008-01-13 12:40.
Was Hitler a Christian?
http://www.hcacentre.org/ChristianHitler.html
Something else to think about
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-01-13 12:12.
Was Hitler a Christian?
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischadj/ca_hitler.html
Something to think about……..
Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2008-01-13 11:29.
Pope Sylvester(314-335 C.E)
”Every Sabbath on account of burial(of Jesus) is to be regarded in execration(denunciation) of the Jews....In fact it is not proper to observe, because of Jewish customs, the consumption of food and the ceremonies of the Jews.”
Pope Innocent III:
1205 C.E.: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose
Death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." thus began the slavery of Jewish people to Catholics in the 13th century.
Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (by John Cornwell)
Hitler was not Atheist he was Christian just for starters:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
---Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
@Yitzhak:
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2008-01-13 21:59.
Just when you've wiped that egg off your face, some more gets thrown on it.
You're quoting something Hitler said in 1922. Ever hear of the word apostasy? Methinks his pathology progressed quite a bit from there.
I recall your contradictory comments stating in one thread where you invoked Mosaic Law to "justify" Christian pacifism, then in another, you blandly state that Judaism and Christianity have nothing in common.
Back to the drawing board for you. *hands him a towel*
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
Of bigots and boomerangs
Submitted by Sagunto on Sun, 2008-01-13 10:17.
:-)
Mr. (or is it Ms.?) Steiner,
You pose like someone who respects the truth, but the noise you make doesn't reflect that honourable attitude. Moreover, half the truth is no truth.
Shouldn't you be a little more careful, swinging those boomerangs so eagerly? Before ya now, they'll be landing on your own head.
Just try to remember what the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner warned us about, when he sang: "Truth hits everybody". ;-)
Kind regs,
Sag.
The Imam in Bhagdad
Submitted by Taurus689 on Sun, 2008-01-13 02:36.
In one of the segments watching and listening to the rant of that Imam in the Mosque in Bhagdad I noted how Hitlerian it was in its strident tones, intonation, and body language. If he had been speaking in German instead of Arabic he could be the reincarnation.
@ Sagunto
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-01-13 01:48.
Bravo!
And,as a Turk might say,"Sag Ol !"
On sub-topic, anti-catholic bigotry
Submitted by Sagunto on Sun, 2008-01-13 01:26.
To paraphrase the familiar Monty Python quote: "What have the Roman Catholics ever done for us, eh?!".
Well, quite a lot I'd say. Some terrible crimes in tough times, to be sure. But for such a large org. the record is not too bad, compared to other (elitist, socialist, atheist, reformist) orgs.
But here's a selection of things from a long list, to make up for it ;-)
- preservation/copying of classical masterpieces (Aristoteles, Cicero, Vergilius) in medieval monasteries (espec. Ireland)
- philosophical foundations for free-market economy (500 yrs before Adam Smith, who side-tracked with his labour-oriented theory of value). Of course the anti-catholic bigot Weber got the spirit of capitalism all wrong (as one of his own pupils immediately showed) with his "Protestant ethic".
- European medieval universities (from monasteries; as extensions of cathedral schools)
- foundations for modern science & scientific research (basilica built as astronomical observatories, seismology was even called "the jesuit science"), partly due to the fact that Aristotle was not simply copied (like muslim scholars did), but also criticized. Aristotle who thought that a body twice as heavy should also fall twice as fast, and never checked it. It also helped that scholastics thought their God to be of the "reasonable kind", i.e. nature's secrets could be unraveled through reason. Allah never was the prime rolemodel for science, because this god was 'unreasonable' to the extreme, and proud of it ;-)
- foundations of international law (improving on their Roman heritage).
- continuous campaigns against slavery (officially sanctioned since Pope Eugenius IV wrote his "Sicut dudum", 1435) and gradual abolition.
- immensely rich culture of music, art & architecture. Alas, partly destroyed by religious fanatics and "purifiers of religion" (like what happened to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan).
- an enormous and continuing effort on behalf of the sick and the poor (that was admired even by the Romans of the [very] early Middle Ages).
- last, but not least: pushing back the muslim invaders out of France and Spain. And later the crusades (as a long overdue answer to the islamic occupation of Palestina). This, as a side-effect gave Europe some 'breathing-space' until finally the muslim armies were halted in 1683 before the gates of Vienna by troops under the command of the "papist" King of Poland.
Sag.
The truth is not bigotry..
Submitted by Steiner on Sun, 2008-01-13 03:04.
Now it is bigotry if we criticise the papists and the wrongs that they have committed against humanity.
I am all for criticising Islamists and Islam, but to then be told that i am a bigot if i mention the truth about the Papacy, makes me wonder if fighting against islamists is worth it, when in the end, the papists are going to get the spoils and carry out the same programs of intimidation and subjugation of people at large, as they did even up to WWII.
-The good of the Papacy-...this is beginning to sound to much like islamists talking about the good that mohammed brought to the world.
great documentary
Submitted by Citizen Z on Sat, 2008-01-12 14:35.
Wow, I am impressed, this is a great documentary!
Situations are explained very well.
Anyone knows why they disabled Ratings at youtube?
Documentary IWWNK dutch subs: about the ratings
Submitted by Sagunto on Sat, 2008-01-12 15:31.
Hi Citizen Z,
I plea guilty ;-)
Saw happening what was to be expected: the Allah-jugend 'en masse' sought to bring down the rating as soon as the docu (by a 'preview-hoax') was somehow linked to the upcoming koran-clip by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
I was amazed when I was informed about online articles in some newspapers that the movie by Wilders consisted of 12 parts. The link provided, referred to the clips I posted on YouTube. So in a very short period, it got a lot of attention because of a practical joke by someone else. A lot of attention also of the "inner spiritual strugglers" among the muslim community in the Netherlands.
In short:
a substantial number of fanatical islamists soon found out that this docu was becoming quite popular among the Dutch public. From that moment on, the rating went down rapidly from a solid 4/5 star. Meanwhile, my mailbox was bombarded with the all too familiar hatemail (some even containing the usual death-threats).
All in all, I'm encouraged to see that the clips are well-viewed and favorited quite often after a few days. Correspondence with the producers of the docu. in the US indicates that the Dutch subs are soon to be followed by a lot more, perhaps even resulting in a DVD for the European market.
Kind regs,
Sag.
@ Sagunto
Submitted by Citizen Z on Sat, 2008-01-12 23:11.
Hello Sagunto,
I see, of course, now I understand.
eg #pt 10/12 still has 5 stars.
Untill now it's viewed 1,608 times, about 5 times less as #pt 1/12.
It's obvious when you read the reactions, a lot of people didn't see all parts of the docu, and probably not even the first part till the end.
I had no idea about the hoax linked to the Wilders movie. I didn't read anything about it in online newspapers.
Hopefully it will be subtitled in more languages, and many people will see this docu.
However, even when it would be broadcasted on TV, it wouldn't reach many people, because it's too historical, political,.. . Call it "dry", if you know what I mean. Unfortunately the "grey zone" of civilians prefer to watch Temptation Island etc., or simply don't have time for these things because their state's slave status. (work, eat, sleep, and don't think about important evolutions that are an attack on their children's future.)
This isn't critic on the docu, I'll pass the link to anyone I know who wants to take the time to listen to this deeper view into Islam. Thank you very much for the translation work!
Keeping the Wilders movie in mind - I look forward to its release-, and thinking of the reactions that we are "warned" about already before anyone saw it, by the PC elite.. . Well, when you compare that with the replies you got in your mailbox, for even this honest docu, I'm very curious for the impact after the Wilders docu. It's going to be massive.
Soon we'll know.
concerning Christians and war
Submitted by gryphon on Sat, 2008-01-12 09:39.
Although Judaic-Christian theology teaches the opposite of Mohammed in many things, killing heretics among them, the early Christian church was greatly strengthened by "in hoc signo vinces". But the Christian church has always been a separate institution from the state and Constantine was not God's representative. By allowing the enemies of Christ to destroy the Christian church, either from within or from without, we are in effect aiding the destruction of Christ's teaching. Therefore, in times of heresy and war it may be necessary to kill our enemies. How Popes, their advisors and individual Christians look into their souls to determine this is not for me to say but I would hazard a guess that if John Paul II had been killed there would have been some realignment of the perception of threat to Christianity. There may be some mechanism within the various branches of the Christian faith that will begin to reassess circumstances in the coming years as she struggles with her enemies.
To Steiner: Simply pointing out past behavior of Christians in times of dangerous heresy isn't valid criticism. Also, you seem to go on a bit about the Lamb of God. But there's another side in case you've forgotten, doesn't the Lord's Prayer end with ". . . for Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever." ? I'm not sure if its the same with the Catholic version but that's how I was taught it. Christian grandeur, in particular the Catholic church's influence on the arts and culture, goes a long way in my book.
@gryphos
Submitted by Steiner on Sat, 2008-01-12 15:43.
gryphos, it seems that you are confused, otherwise you are simply as insane as those islamists and papists who call/ed for death of heretics.
If you are confused, it probably has to do with your misunderstanding of the role of the state and the role of the church/religious institutions. You speak about separation of these two, but then you seem to think that it is ok for the Pope and Christians to kill the heretics based on their...- soul searching?!-.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just conclude that you are confused between the role of the state and the role of religious institutions.
One of the main roles of the state is to enact laws that protect the natural and fundamental rights of the people living within its borders. The equality of humans under the law, freedom of speech , freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom to live anywhere one chooses, freedom from physical abuse, freedom to be a religious heretic…freedom to speak out against what one sees as a threat, as long as one does not condone physical attacks.
The state has a fundamental duty to protect these natural and fundamental rights. Those that do not respect the laws of the state, and to not tolerate these freedoms in others must be prosecuted. Those that attempt to set up other laws that deny these fundamental rights must also be prosecuted.
It is incumbent on the state to prosecute people and organizations who act and connive to undermine these natural human rights by the use of religion or other means.
Churches have a duty to preach the Gospel and to spread their message, as long as they do not condone physical attacks.
As regards to threats and judgment in the afterlife…I see nothing wrong with these. The laws that govern the afterlife are not temporal business, and hence no need for the temporal state to get involved. Local religious institutions also have a right to expel whom they deem unworthy of their local church.
As regards to people judging a religion historically, and the consistency of the message and the messengers….why is there anything wrong with that ?
People have a fundamental right to speak their mind as long as they do not condone physical attack.
The problem arises when the state does not protect the natural and fundamental rights of man.
Hence, the papacy sending crusades against defenseless people/heretics in Europe. Or the Islamic states conditioning the fundamental and human rights to Sharia (and the U.N. allows them to remain signatories!?and more)… This is the problem..essentially a religious/political union or in other words a fascism between church and state that rips humanity asunder.
Wasn’t Jesus put on the cross for blasphemy? Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus condemn anyone to death, nor ask his disciples to physically attack those that did not believe. He used parables to warn people of a future judgment. He also spelled out the basic principle of separation of state and religion: give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. He ate with the outcasts ..and was judged a glutton, a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners by the religious zealots of His day.
As regards to Constantine; he actually weakened the church by creating a political center for it alongside the emperors. Christianity had already reached its greatest expanse, without the Papacy.
From then on, it was downhill for the churches that were outside Rome as they were forced to submit to Romes bishops. Those who would not submit were the heretics….
In conclusion , under the Papacy, Christianity has shrunk and suffered its worse setbacks. The papacy is also responsible for the advance of Islamism as it sought to undo the power of the eastern orthodox church, and is directly responsible for the collapse of the eastern front against islamists as the Bogomils(Serbia, Albania) were being attacked from both the islamists and the crusades of the papacy…Think about that before you ever defend popery.
To Italy, the papacy has brought continuous ruin and setbacks. The Longobards had quietly achieved in uniting Italy before the 13th century, but the Pope called in the French armies to break their power, and shatter Italy into fiefdoms each less powerful than the popes.
Later, the successful city states in Italy, like Venice (who was responsible in stopping the islamists at sea) would succumb to the power of the inquisitions and allow popery to have its ways …
As regards to your quote on the Lords prayer, as being the other side...what other side? Thine refers to God, not to some Vicar here on earth.
@ Steiner
Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-01-12 16:04.
Could you please put in one phrase what you want to say?
@traveller...one sentence says it all on Jinnah:
Submitted by Steiner on Sat, 2008-01-12 22:50.
Hey Traveller,
Talk about the buckets of slime that Jinnah flung around to convince the gullible gluttons that he was a secularist. Here is Jinnah in all his glory gory and the rest:
" When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago."
This is the one liner that says it all...Jinnah the great. Poor india, poor Ghandi, and poor anybody who would believe this fellows secularism. hey, Osama is trying to do one better..he is trying to bring democracy (islam style) to the whole world!!!!?
@ steiner
Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-01-12 23:59.
I was talking about your comments in this topic, like what you said to Gryphos.
We have agreed that we don't agree on Jinnah.
His comment about democracy was rethoric, but I am not going to open that discussion again, it is useless.
@atheling
Submitted by Steiner on Sat, 2008-01-12 00:10.
I trust that you have the skill to do some research on your own. As I have said, there is plenty on the history of the papacy and its crusades against Europeans who did not wish to submit to their arrogance.
The Waldensians, Bogomils, Huguenots, Cathars....were Europeans which the Papacy led crusades against, promising those that would kill these men and women the forgiveness of all their sins and the prize of paradise. Sound familiar?
The papacy politicised Christianity, as it sought to bring all under its fold. It led crusades against Christians, even before the crusades against Islam...
Today, its apologists wish people to believe that these murderers(the many popes) were looking out to save peoples souls from eternal damnation...
Hence, they are clothed as lambs of Christ, concerned for the souls of their enemies. So concerned that torture, burning, maiming, raping were tools of the trade in converting and saving people from themselves...
We are told that these methods were the methods of the times to keep people from sinning, hence these murderers did not know any better, but were simply trying to do the right thing by saving whole towns from eternal damnation.
How interesting that many have accepted this line of argument...they were only watching out for their souls...
Unfortunately for them, this argument does not hold true in the light of Jesus.
Jesus did not kill his enemies so that he could save them, nor did he torture them, nor did he rape them...and so on.
Hence, they cannot hide the very fact that they were UnChristian, or to put it bluntly not Christian altogether in their deeds and their gospel.
@Steiner
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 00:51.
Just give some names and instances. That is all I asked for. Quit evading and obfuscating.
NAME SOME NAMES AND INSTANCES!
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
@atheling
Submitted by Steiner on Sat, 2008-01-12 12:02.
atheling, do you agree with Gryphon? please explain your position.
@Steiner
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2008-01-12 18:36.
I think gryphon is more honest than you are.
I don't have to explain anything to you as you refuse to answer my question directly. You have no credibility. You are a hypocrite.
That's my position.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
@atheling
Submitted by Steiner on Sat, 2008-01-12 23:33.
"....for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
Go and do some reading...there is enough on the web for you to carry out your duty...you have closed your eyes and shut your ears. You have become the zealous sycophant and hypocrite of a bankrupt institution and failed to do your duty to think for yourself...now go.
Anyway, look atheling, if you are still having trouble, let us go through them one by one, and one at a time.
I will choose a pope at random....we can discuss this fellow, and then move on to another and so forth. Here is one:
Gregory the XIII..
what do you think of this fellow? Is he someone that you would like to imitate?
And by the way, I am intent on hearing the answer to my last question. Do you also think that religious heretics should lose their heads, or get hung, or simply be eliminated?
Something else to think about
Submitted by Steiner on Fri, 2008-01-11 09:35.
If God did not allow Abraham to slay his own son Isaac…why do these deluded souls think that it is just fine to kill their sons through suicide bombings in the name of Jihad? Does Abrahams God desire human sacrifice?
Conclusion: the God of Abraham is not the same as the god of mohammed.
Re: Something to Think About...
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2008-01-11 20:15.
@Steiner:
Still waiting for the list of "many Popes" whose reigns were as murderous and tyrannical as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc...
Before you go pontificating about "love thy neighbor" (Christian theology 405), how about mastering Christian theology 101?
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor".
Does that ring a bell?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine