Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Clydeside_Sheep]

conceivably rubbishing the likes of Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

These things have their worth - they are interesting, attractive, colourful, sensual even - but they are clearly flawed.

 

Go to india for example, you will see people lying dying in the street. This is shocking to us westerners, but its normal in india - because they have the concept of karma, where you "get what you deserve in life".

 

Therefore, people dying in the street is what these peoples neighbours feel they deserve. You dont get that here, because our society is founded on the Christian concept of mercy. Even if someone did deserve to die in the street, our values would reject leaving them to such a fate.

 

Additionally, some Hindus believe you cannot become a Hindu, you have to be born one. If there is indeed a "true religion" then I firmly believe it would be an eglatarian one, open to anyone, not a strictly exclusive one. The latter doesnt make sense at all.

 

Mercy > Karma. Christianity > Hinduism.

Additionally you rubbish Protestantism.

Look at the kind of things protestants would say, before they went into large decline:

 

Every word in the bible is absolutely true and is the supreme authority on human matters is it? No - actually thats just a silly thing to say, isnt it?

 

"God hates fags" does He? No - thats a silly thing to say as well.

 

And many of these denominations over-rule what JC said or did, purely for secular approval, meaning their claim of being "Christian" is pretty hollow.

 

A few examples are enough, but you could go on all day.

 

Its protestantism which has rubbished itself, in my view. This is why people in Scotland (and elsewhere) have rejected it.

Now, imagine yourself as someone looking in from outside the west of Scotland, as I am doing now (and incidentally I lived there for a number of years), and consider if publicly voicing such an opinion in a place where said denomination is the majority (to a lesser extent in Glasgow than in the rest of Scotland admittedly), can you understand how the sectarian spiral continues?

- I would think Secular people are now the majority in Scotland, not any denomination of protestant.

 

- I am entitled to freedom of speech to criticise any religion (just as people criticise mine - indeed no religion is attacked half as much as Catholicism, which is a great indicator of its authenticity)

 

- Sectarianism does not continue because people criticise religion; its because a significant amount of Scots (at least in the west) have an identity founded on anti-catholicism. We will never be free of sectarianism, till we can first be honest about it.

 

- there is no problem with us Catholics. We do not have animus for anyone. The Scottish Governments figures show that over 50% of Scots Catholics marry non-Catholics. It is not us who are hateful and parochial. It is not us whose identity consists only of hatred for others.

I believe even moreso that it should exist in a secular society as we have been moving towards for years.

Yes I agree - Scotland is an increasingly plural place and accordingly must be one which can accomodate all of its people fairly.

 

(I do not agree with secular totalitarianism though, thats as bad as a theocracy).

Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fairly commonly held view in architectural circles that the most important building constructed in Scotland in the twentieth century is St Peter's Seminary at Cardross which is sadly now just a ruin.

It was on the radio that this "modern ruin" is to be turned into a visitor attraction. Part is to be restored to act as a visitor centre, the rest left as it is for people to tour.

 

It will stand as a great monument to the incompetence and failings of the Scottish Catholic hierarchy over the last 50 years or more.

The objectives of most religions are fairly common to each other, it's the means of getting there that differs.

Yes there is much in common, in terms of values etc.

 

Good post, I enjoyed reading that. Cheers!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The question really should be, who shares pints? that's the sort of things women do when they are out for "cocktails" with two straws.

 

Aye, I think people who share pints do so because a full pint is too much for them on their own

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Utter horseshit.

 

You're not going to get away with telling me there was any difference between the philosophy of Rome regardless of whether we're talking about the era of the Etruscan Kings, the Republic, or Imperial Rome.

 

If anything, the reign of Augustus, three centuries earlier, is considered the high point of Roman peace and prosperity, and he was no Christian, and neither was his empire.

 

Tell me all about the 'enlightened' behaviour of Rome towards the Goths on the Danube half a century after Constanine, and tell me the Romans weren't savages.

I was talking about their values, their lifestyle, not their prosperity.

 

They were prosperous and powerful - but they were still savages.

 

Their main form of entertainmment consisted of innocent, scared people being tortured / murdered in front of a massive cheering crowd, for example.

 

It was only after the switch to Christianity that this practice fell away.

 

And 50 years after Constantine is not that long - he was the start point, not the end point. Probably relatively little conversion had occured in just 50 years.

 

I dont know much about the Romans and the Goths on the Danube, and so cant really comment there - but war is always savage.

[fatjim]

Some protestant denominations have openly gay ministers.

 

Could you say the same for priests?

[The Hulk]

 

Aye, I think people who share pints do so because a full pint is too much for them on their own

 

Not necessarily. Fatjim and I shared a pint once. When I say shared; I mean I stuck my knob in it when he wasn't looking.

[fatjim]

I jizzed in your pint as well.

[Ke1t]

I was talking about their values, their lifestyle, not their prosperity.

 

They were prosperous and powerful - but they were still savages.

 

Their main form of entertainmment consisted of innocent, scared people being tortured / murdered in front of a massive cheering crowd, for example.

 

It was only after the switch to Christianity that this practice fell away.

 

And 50 years after Constantine is not that long - he was the start point, not the end point. Probably relatively little conversion had occured in just 50 years.

 

I dont know much about the Romans and the Goths on the Danube, and so cant really comment there - but war is always savage.

 

What this is is a case of wishful thinking on your part.

 

Nothing I've read on the Romans, either pre-unification of the Italian peninsula, or post Constantine, tells me that Roman behaviour at any point makes me go.."Oh, aye.. they were MUCH better behaved after the decriminalisation of Christianity."

 

Constantine wasn't the beginning, btw. All constantine did was allow worship of the Christian god without persecution... Christianity was already a major religion in the Roman Territories. So Constantine wasn't the beginning at all, in the same way decriminalising smoking weed isn't going to be the point at which people started smoking weed.

 

As for the Roman treatment of the Goths on the Danube, this is probably the singlemost notorious incident in the History of Imperial rome, so I'm going to guess your knowledge of the History of Rome isn't that great... which would lead me to believe that your claim that the Romans were 'much less barbaric' following the Christianisation of Rome is somewhat unfounded and possibly just something someone has told you, which you are repeating here.

 

I would point you towards the actions of Rome towards the Gothic refugees, precipitating the Gothic Uprising, as but one example of Roman behaviour, post Constantine.

 

It may be true that there were less atrocities post Constantine, in the Western Empire at least, but given there was only about a century or so of life left in the Western Empire at that time, and the Romans were almost entirely on the defensive during the decline, unable to march into foreign territories and slaughter the occupants, then it comes as no surprise that instances of genocide such as with the Dacians, are few and far between. Not because of some new, civilised moral code, but because the Romans simply couldn't afford to expand... funnelling all their energy into keeping the tribes at bay.

 

It's a little known fact that during the times when Christians were persecuted in Rome, there were many Christians who voluntarily 'martyred' themselves in the arena. Following the decriminalisation of christianity they weren't going to be able to martyr themselves any more, so that was that little trick knocked on the head. Many Christians weren't 'Thrown to the Lions', they voluntarily jumped into their jaws. It should also be noted that Christians weren't particularly singled out for this treatment, anyone who pissed off Rome would find themselves in the arena, be it Gauls, Jews, Caledonians, Germans, Pagans, or otherwise. Christians like to hijack the 'Thrown to the lions' thing, as though they're the only demographic it happened to.

 

I wouldn't read too much into Constantine's dictat regarding gladiatorial games, either. The fact that he reduced the violence and frequency of gladiatorial games was hardly some ethical sea-change in the Empire's dealings with 'barbarians'.

 

That would be like saying the Mongols were more civilised after Ghengis Khan outlawed torture. I reckon the 40 million men women and children he genocided might take issue with that claim.

 

The adoption of Christianity coincided with the gradual decline of the Western Empire. I'm not saying it was responsible for that decline, but Rome stood largely on the defensive, too weak to march beyond its borders and slaughter inthe way they had during the height of Roman power. That was expedience rather than ethics.

 

In fact the latter history of the Western Empire is almost entirely dominated by the Gothic and Germanic invasions, (punctuated by Huns who ironically were NOT Germanic) which makes depressing reading for anyone rooting for the Romans.

 

One thing I'll say about the latter years of the Roman Empire is that it signalled an explosion in selfish behaviour on the part of the rich landowners, which is one of the peripheral reasons for the decline of Rome. I wonder if they were Christian or not?

 

Makes you think, doesn;t it?

 

 

 

 

,

[Ke1t]

I was talking about their values, their lifestyle, not their prosperity.

 

Then what you intended to say was that, after Constantine, I believe (incorrectly) that Roman ethics were more like my own.

 

Your own perception of what constitutes a code of ethics in no way translates into whether or not another culture is civilised or even ethically correct.

 

This also does not translate into what constitutes 'barbarism' either, since this is, like your code of ethics, entirely subjective.

 

Their lifestyle and their values, being subjective, can in no way be objectively measured... their prosperity and level of civilisation,, however, can be objectively measured,

[Guest]

Contradictory post and wrong. The "level of civilisation" is subjective and depends on an agreed definition of civilisation.

 

No biggie. I've made tons of mistakes in my posts. We all have. Apart from those who's shite don't smell.

[Jocky Balboa]

CS,

 

Now your claims are just outlandish and unsubstantiated. Christianity and Western accomplishments are NOT mutually inclusive. The European peoples have advanced throughout the ages in spite - not because of - Christianity. As just one example, the Ancient Greeks were instrumental in forging the philosophical foundations which continue to influence modern thinkers even today. You also neglect to acknowledge that Christianity is essentially the bastard child of rebel Hebrews who usurped old Pagan values and repackaged them with a universalist, almost egalitarian message.

 

You do our European heritage a great injustice by refusing to acknowledge our roots and the history and culture we had prior to the Christian invasion.

 

While you rightly stand up for your faith, you are not counter-balancing this by sufficiently addressing the oppressive pre-Renaissance climate which saw Europe in the kind of dark age that Islam has inflicted on much of its territories. Or the paedophilia epidemic in the Church. Or how many failing economies in Europe (Rep of Ireland, Spain, Portugal) and South America are Catholic countries. Or how so many of the powerful-but-damaging Christian Zionists are Catholic.

[Guest]

Brilliant JB.

 

You tell the fucking idiot.

[fatjim]

Let's not forget the Spanish inquisition and the crusades.

 

Oh so civilised.

[Ke1t]

Let's not forget the Spanish inquisition and the crusades.

 

Oh so civilised.

 

It's quite ironic that CS would claim post Constantine Rome was far more enlightened, particularly in light of later persecution of Pagans under Christian Emperors. Although I can see that persecution of Pagans by Christians is more ethical (to his frame of thought) than the persecution of Christians by Pagans.

[Master_of_Soulls]

Well, looks like the latest Pope is a little concerned regarding the child abuse scandals - It's nice that The Catholic Church refused the UN request for information on suspected Priests & Nuns

 

Deary me................

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25235724

[Master_of_Soulls]

Let's not forget the Spanish inquisition and the crusades.

 

Oh so civilised.

 

Add the Spanish & Portuguese conquistadors to that list as well. Catholic clergy helping with the administration. Positions that held political responsibility.

[Ke1t]

Well, looks like the latest Pope is a little concerned regarding the child abuse scandals - It's nice that The Catholic Church refused the UN request for information on suspected Priests & Nuns

 

Deary me................

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25235724

 

Ah, the old 'Internal Investigation' so beloved by organisations who want to sweep their shit under the carpet.

 

So ethical.

[fatjim]

Did we mention the catholic church's collusion with Nazi Germany?

[Jocky Balboa]

Did we mention the catholic church's collusion with Nazi Germany?

Hitler himself was Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated.

[Henry]

 

Ah, the old 'Internal Investigation' so beloved by organisations who want to sweep their shit under the carpet.

 

So ethical.

 

[Ke1t]

[baldrick_sheep]

I used to defend catholics schools, mainly because I went to one, and I liked my school. I didn't find it somewhere that was full of tims who hated protestants. Even though I don't believe in god, out of habit, when im at mass, I do still take part, although its very very rare im at mass, ususally weddings/funerals. Gotta say though, I am really starting to get pissed off with the church. Any respect I had for it during my upbringing is disappearing.

 

The man who confirmed there, has been found to be a complete hypocrite and has been forced into exile from Scotland. He used to be about my school quite often as he used to teach at it, Im sure I don't need to name him. I used to live in Ireland, and the things the church was doing there with the Magdalene homes, and just the general scary influence that the church had in the south, is pretty shocking.

 

The whole condom thing is ridiculous, folk are always going to have sex. Most catholics I know have had sex out of a relationship, or out of wedlock. Its real life. The former bishop or argyle was having sex out of wedlock, and the guy who confirmed me was trying to with other men. So if they are doing it, WTF do they thing the rest of the population are doing. That's not just stupid, its totally irresponsible.

 

And while I probably will continue to call myself a catholic, I am kind of embarrassed to now. I am starting to think segregation of schools due to faith is totally wrong, although this one is a difficult one for me, as, if I hadn't been to my school I wouldn't have the friends from where I am from today.

 

Clydeside Red, I think you have blind faith, maybe you should just question the church a bit more, understand its flaws.

[robbojunior]

http://freethoughtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FOTReport2013.pdf

 

Law breaking, human rights contravening, discriminatory religious cunts!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Some protestant denominations have openly gay ministers.

 

Could you say the same for priests?

 

Why would we wish to?

 

Disordered sexualities are never a good thing. At best, they are a benign thing - but often they are a dangerous and harmful thing.

 

Technically, who a man is attracted to is irrelevant to his ability to be a good priest.

 

However, if you look at the abuse statistics revealed by the John Jay report (and others) you will see that overwhelmingly the abuse has taken the form of pedestary, that is homosexual men preying on teenage boys.

 

The unhealthy "relationship" between 39 year old Dustin Lance Black and 19 year old Tom Daley is very similar to this. The media are cheering this perversion on as something wholesome, (it is not), yet if you put Black in a priests collar suddenly they would regard it as "child sex abuse". This "relationship" is the perfect example of that which the John Jay report has revealed.

 

I am sure there are many gay men in the priesthood who are good priests and who do a good job; but the massive bias towards homosexual abuse - as the stats clearly show - was a great vindicator of Benedict XVIs instructions that homosexuals should be forbidden from the priesthood.

 

Again, disordered sexualities are never a good thing.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Let's not forget the Spanish inquisition and the crusades.

 

Oh so civilised.

 

The repuitation of the Inquisiton(s) is largely a myth. You would of course know this, if you had any idea of what you talk about.

 

In its time the Inquisition was a well regarded organisations - many people prefered to be tried by it, than by secular courts, because it was seen as being fairer and less corrupt than secular courts. Many people in secular courts would deliberately blaspheme in an effort to be sent to the inqusition (as they felt they would get a fairer trial there).

 

Over the 500 year span of its existence, the inqusition(s) were responsible for approx 12 executions per annum. (6000 deaths in 500 years).

 

That is not excusable, but its far from the picture liars attempt to paint, isnt it?

 

As for "civilised" - this 6000 deaths is a tiny fraction of the death toll caused by secular nations in their illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Also, (an American statistic) the number of unborn children aborted every two days is bigger than the inqusitions death toll over 500 years.

 

You seem unable to weigh up evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. All you can do is make cheap accusations (which you never substantiate - indeed, cannot substantiate, because they are lies).

 

As for the Crusades - what about it? We are hardly the only people to have been involved in a fight ever, are we?

 

Come back when you have a criticism which isnt 1,000 years out of date

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Hitler himself was Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated.

 

He was raised as a Catholic but was not a practicising Catholic in adult life. Indeed the Nazis greatly persecuted the Catholic Church.

 

It is clear you do not understand what excommunication is / means - Oprah would call it "tough love". It only has any resonance with people who are practicing Catholics - which Hitler was not.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Did we mention the catholic church's collusion with Nazi Germany?

Honestly Jim, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for anyone whose whole outlook on life is based on lies. Many atheists (by no means all) fall into this category. Rather than inform themselves, they simply wallow in infantile bile and lies their whole lives.

 

I would encourage you to check out the real world sometime, you might find you like it.

 

Here is the view of Gary Krupp, a Jewish Historian, on the Churchs WW2 record:

Did you know (Pope) Pius XII saved more than 860,000 Jews from the death camps? I mean, I never knew that before. Its character assassination a shanda that so many Jews say he was an anti-Semite, said Mr. Krupp, using a Yiddish word for disgrace.

 

Listen to me: Pius XII was the greatest hero of World War II, Mr. Krupp said recently. He saved more Jews than Roosevelt, Churchill and all the rest of them combined

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/nyregion/08pius.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

And, at the end of the War, the Chief Rabbi of Rome Converted to Catholicism. That would be a very strange thing to do, if the Church had indeed helped the Nazis, no?

Israel Zolli (September 27, 1881, Brody, Galicia March 2, 1956, Rome, Italy) was from 1939 to 1945 Chief Rabbi of Rome. After the war, he converted to Roman Catholicism, taking the name Eugenio in honor of Pope Pius XII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zolli#Conversion_to_Christianity

 

Then we have the general persecution which the Church endured under the Nazis:

In some countries Roman Catholic bishops and even Catholics themselves had openly protested and attacked Nazi policies. For instance, in the Netherlands and Poland, where bishops and priests had protested the deportation of Jews, the clergy was either threatened with deportation themselves and kept in custody (as in the case of German bishop Clemens von Galen), or directly deported to concentration camps (as in the cases of the Dutch Carmelite priest Titus Brandsma and Polish Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, who was later canonized). The Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland: between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members (18%) of the Polish clergy, were murdered; of these, 1,992 died in concentration camps.[30] In the annexed territory of Reichsgau Wartheland it was even more harsh: churches were systematically closed and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported to the General Government. Eighty per cent of the Catholic clergy and five bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939; 108 of them are regarded as blessed martyrs.[30] Religious persecution was not confined to Poland: in Dachau concentration camp alone, 2,600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries were killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims#Religious_persecution

 

And there are any number of specific individuals who are noteworthy too from this bleak period of human history:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_O'Flaherty

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe

 

Again your cheap accusations are left looking rather shabby in the light of the facts, fatjim.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

truthloader

"Truthloader" huh?

 

Sounds like a hick UFO conspiracy website or something.

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

EDIT - I think the info I posted from respected financial institutions are more than adequate in quantifiying the Vaticans finances, which - again - do not even compare to the better premiership teams.

 

You inability to accept factual information which is contrary to your prejudices is both frustrating and greatly impressive.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The man who confirmed there, has been found to be a complete hypocrite and has been forced into exile from Scotland. He used to be about my school quite often as he used to teach at it, Im sure I don't need to name him.

 

I met Keith O'Brien a couple of times. The main time was when he came to a publicity day for a charity I volunteer for. He was there to use his (former) profile to boost the profile of the charity. I got to talk to him for a bit on that occasion, the other time it was just a quick hello.

 

I found him a kindly and down to earth man. He didnt have any airs or graces about him. I expected him to command attention and give a speech etc - in contrast he only wanted to sit and listen to what others had to say, to learn from their experiences.

 

He also made some jokes at the expense of the Queen and the Orange Order, which greatly endeared him to me.

 

He could barely walk because of his gammy knees, but he still tottered about gamely during the day (usually being held up by someone else) and really went out of his way to contribute and help.

 

This was at a dock (its a seafarers charity) and he even managed to climb up a gangplank to say mass on one of the ships. I am in my 30s and I can barely get up the gang planks (they are really treacherous). The crew on the ship (eastern europeans and filipinos) were grateful for this and you could see they felt pretty special that a Cardinal had come to see them.

 

It was a good day.

 

Obviously his homosexual behaviour was wrong - no one would dispute that. But I dont think its right to call him a hypocrite. He would only be a hypocrite if he said "homosexuality is wrong for everyone, but its OK for me". But he didnt say that.

 

Rather, he failed to live up to his own standards. I think that makes him "human" not a hypocrite.

 

At times I have failed to live up to my own standards. As have you. As has everyone on this forum.

 

The only people who will say that they have never failed or fell short, are liars.

 

I used to live in Ireland, and the things the church was doing there with the Magdalene homes, and just the general scary influence that the church had in the south, is pretty shocking.

 

Its sad how often people just glibly swallow whatever the secular press feeds them. The Magdalene homes things is pure myth, as the official Irish Government Report found, as below:

 

In the Irish mind, and in the minds of everyone else who has seen or read one of the many films, plays and books about the Magdalene laundries, these were horrific institutions brimming with violence and overseen by sadistic, pervy nuns.

 

Yet the McAleese Report found not a single incident of sexual abuse by a nun in a Magdalene laundry. Not one. Also, the vast majority of its interviewees said they were never physically punished in the laundries.

 

As one woman said, "It has shocked me to read in papers that we were beat and our heads shaved and that we were badly treated by the nuns… I was not touched by any nun and I never saw anyone touched."

 

The small number of cases of corporal punishment reported to McAleese consisted of the kind of thing that happened in many normal schools in the 1960s, 70s and 80s: being caned on the legs or rapped on the knuckles. The authors of the McAleese Report, having like the rest of us imbibed the popular image of the Magdalene laundries as nun-run concentration camps, seem to have been taken aback by "the number of women who spoke positively about the nuns".

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100202781/

 

You have bought into the anti-catholic myth of the "magdalene laundries".

 

You cant rely on the secular press for information, you have to think for yourself.

 

The whole condom thing is ridiculous, folk are always going to have sex.

 

If you look at my earlier posts in the thread you will see that global public health experts has confirmed that the Catholic view of condoms is the most accurate and, whats more, it is backed by empirical data. I quoted several scientists in support of Catholic doctrine.

 

Your opinion here is based not on facts, but on lies and propaganda.

 

Of course people will always want to have sex, but its hardly "ridiculous" to advocate that they do so in a safe and responsible manner, is it? I mean, FFS.

 

Expert opinion, empircal data, social trends, all back the Catholic position. Condoms achieve nothing and are not an effective means of fighting HIV.

 

This is the truth, only a fool would disagree. The more someones sexual behaviour is removed from Catholic doctrine (which is only common sense) then more likely it is that they will catch HIV or some other nasty.

 

This is precisely why homosexuals are being gradually consumed by HIV in the west, despite the wide and easy availability of condoms.

 

And while I probably will continue to call myself a catholic, I am kind of embarrassed to now.

 

With the greatest respect, given how lazy and innaccurate your analysis on these matters is, perhaps its better if you didnt? We would hate to think we are causing you embarassment.

 

Clydeside Red, I think you have blind faith, maybe you should just question the church a bit more, understand its flaws.

 

Clydeside_sheep goddamnit! lol

 

I think I have shown above that its YOU who needs to question a bit more, eh?

 

It seems you believe everything you read in the papers, and dont bother to check it out for yourself. (Much like the numbskull atheists we have among us.)

[fatjim]

 

Honestly Jim, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for anyone whose whole outlook on life is based on lies. Many atheists (by no means all) fall into this category. Rather than inform themselves, they simply wallow in infantile bile and lies their whole lives.

 

I would encourage you to check out the real world sometime, you might find you like it.

 

Here is the view of Gary Krupp, a Jewish Historian, on the Churchs WW2 record:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/nyregion/08pius.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

And, at the end of the War, the Chief Rabbi of Rome Converted to Catholicism. That would be a very strange thing to do, if the Church had indeed helped the Nazis, no?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zolli#Conversion_to_Christianity

 

Then we have the general persecution which the Church endured under the Nazis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims#Religious_persecution

 

And there are any number of specific individuals who are noteworthy too from this bleak period of human history:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_O'Flaherty

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe

 

Again your cheap accusations are left looking rather shabby in the light of the facts, fatjim.

 

Don't you find it ironic that your whole belief system is based on fiction and yet you tell me to check out the real world?

 

You claim that people believe things because of what they have read or heard and yet you believe an omnipotent guy in the sky runs things. This being something you heard in church and read in a fantasy book.

 

You then want us to read stuff to change our opinion. I feel sorry that your delusions make you defend an abhorrent organisation based on yea well some guys did some good shit in it's name so lets forget about all the bad shit.

 

Seriously though if the bible and wikipedia are your sources for facts then you need to have a word with yourself.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Don't you find it ironic that your whole belief system is based on fiction and yet you tell me to check out the real world?

 

You claim that people believe things because of what they have read or heard and yet you believe an omnipotent guy in the sky runs things. This being something you heard in church and read in a fantasy book.

 

You then want us to read stuff to change our opinion. I feel sorry that your delusions make you defend an abhorrent organisation based on yea well some guys did some good shit in it's name so lets forget about all the bad shit.

 

Seriously though if the bible and wikipedia are your sources for facts then you need to have a word with yourself.

 

So I proved you wrong yet again and what thanks do I get? Infantile bile. (Just like when I prove Kelt wrong).

 

I find it amazing why people are so threatend by the faith of others.

 

I respect the fact you have no faith, thats up to you - why not just get on with life, instead of getting all up tight over it?

 

My response was only to inform reasonable posters about the true record of the Church during the war. That it helped a great many people escape danger, not - as you suggested without evidence - colluded with the nazis.

 

I dont think you are able to change your opinion. That would require fair-mindedness and an ability to be reasonable, neither which you have displayed.

 

We already covered (earlier on) how you and kelt cannot even consider the fact you might be wrong, and so you would never change your opinion, regardless of what facts and evidence were placed in front of you.

 

You have your prejudices and thats that as far as you are concerned - but this is such a limited view of the world to take. Alas.