RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

farglebargle -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:34:15 PM)

FR:

Would Jesus work for the Nazis?



LadyAngelika -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:34:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR

Interesting read: http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

I read this article. It includes a small defense section but overall it seems pretty unbalanced by basically stating he should have done more with a lot of baseless inference and vague suggestions he was lying. I'm not suggesting he is an angel but he was a fourteen year old boy living in perhaps the most vicious barbaric regime of all time.


As I posted earlier, it does go to strength of character. Some people, including 14 year olds, did resist.



dcnovice -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:34:33 PM)

It's definitely a case, imho, opinion of not judging s man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.



farglebargle -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:35:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

It's definitely a case, imho, opinion of not judging s man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.


I don't have to put on Jackboots to know that wearing them is wrong.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
So, the young teenaged male who shoved Jews into the gas chamber, he's not responsible either? I mean, they would have killed him too if he didn't do his job, right?

NOW do you understand the problem with you carrying water for Nazis? There's no such thing as "a little-bit Nazi"...

Which fucking teenage male shoved Jews into a gas chamber? The Pope certainly didn't.

Samuel Kunz was prosecuted as a minor, wasn't he?

Indeed and that was wrong, no argument there but that is a very different situation to Ratzinger.

So, one teenager gets a pass, but another doesn't? Where do you draw the line between "Good Nazi" and "Bad Nazi", then? Me? I don't see a distinction. You help Your Uncle Adolph, you're a piece of shit. I don't care if it's trying to shoot down American pilots over a slave-labor factory like ratzinger or working in a death camp. Nazi is as Nazi does, and there ain't no "Good Nazis".... As a Catholic, what did Ratzinger fear so much about going to meet his god that joining the Nazis was the attractive option? Shouldn't he have welcomed the opportunity to become a martyr?

Your posts are so absurd its actually startling. Kunz was a twenty year old, not a teenager. Its only the ridiculous laws in Germany where even a 21 year old can be tried as a minor that are to blame. Secondly he was an SS concentration camp guard who apparently killed ten Jews himself. How the fuck does that even remotely compare with Ratzinger who was drafted into the German army (not the SS) at the age of fifteen?



farglebargle -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:40:27 PM)

Remember how I think anyone over 13 is responsible for their actions? 15. 20. No difference. They're responsible for their choices. You're the guy trying to obfuscate the issue with distinctions without differences...



dcnovice -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:43:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

It's definitely a case, imho, opinion of not judging s man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.


I don't have to put on Jackboots to know that wearing them is wrong.


As Dickens says in A Christmas Carol, it's inevitably the person not in the situation who knows what needs to be done, and would undoubtedly have done it too.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:47:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Remember how I think anyone over 13 is responsible for their actions? 15. 20. No difference. They're responsible for their choices. You're the guy trying to obfuscate the issue with distinctions without differences...

And remember that I said I didn't care about your religion. Its irrelevant to the debate since few on here are Jews who accept that teaching.

The fact remains that the contrast between a fourteen year old and a twenty year old in terms of maturity is stark. Many still consider fourteen year olds as children. Secondly one was an SS concentration camp guard who killed ten civilian Jews. The other was a draftee into the German army (not the SS) at the age of fifteen who probably killed no one, and latterly deserted.

"obfuscate the issue with distinctions without differences" indeed. LOL.



Edwynn -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:55:30 PM)



The Pope has far less to do with the workings of everyday Catholics as you idiots have in being directed by your presidents or prime ministers or chancellors.

Time for you 'voters' to get caught up on things here.


You need to explain yourselves first, if you can forget your blind belligerence for ten seconds, being as that you actually made the choices we are dealing with today, quite ill-considered, and destructive as they have been.












Anaxagoras -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 7:57:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR

Interesting read: http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

I read this article. It includes a small defense section but overall it seems pretty unbalanced by basically stating he should have done more with a lot of baseless inference and vague suggestions he was lying. I'm not suggesting he is an angel but he was a fourteen year old boy living in perhaps the most vicious barbaric regime of all time.

As I posted earlier, it does go to strength of character. Some people, including 14 year olds, did resist.

I can't see the sense in criticising someone because they didn't do as much as X who lived nearby and tellingly shot himself rather than be taken away to presumably be tortured and quite possibly killed! That was one of the main contentions of the article. I remember research done on one town during that era which had official documents that survived. They revealed that people spied on each other and there was a real climate of fear. That isn't excusing people who became Nazi's but it does mean that there was real duress to conform which means people (particularly young teenagers) who did the bare minimum to get by shouldn't be condemned. I for one can't find fault with that course of action. Some people criticise him because he is now Pope as the article said. However, I feel it seems quite unfair to judge the moral courage of a quite elderly man on the basis of his youth.



Edwynn -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 8:05:01 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Remember how I think anyone over 13 is responsible for their actions? 15. 20. No difference. They're responsible for their choices.




Thanks for  letting everybody here know to keep you as far away from kids as possible, and that you have no business whatsoever in making any choices regarding that or any other issue.
           

If you are this clueless with kids, I would gladly revoke your voting card and driver's license in the same day.







LadyAngelika -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 8:24:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR

Interesting read: http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

I read this article. It includes a small defense section but overall it seems pretty unbalanced by basically stating he should have done more with a lot of baseless inference and vague suggestions he was lying. I'm not suggesting he is an angel but he was a fourteen year old boy living in perhaps the most vicious barbaric regime of all time.

As I posted earlier, it does go to strength of character. Some people, including 14 year olds, did resist.

I can't see the sense in criticising someone because they didn't do as much as X who lived nearby and tellingly shot himself rather than be taken away to presumably be tortured and quite possibly killed! That was one of the main contentions of the article. I remember research done on one town during that era which had official documents that survived. They revealed that people spied on each other and there was a real climate of fear. That isn't excusing people who became Nazi's but it does mean that there was real duress to conform which means people (particularly young teenagers) who did the bare minimum to get by shouldn't be condemned. I for one can't find fault with that course of action. Some people criticise him because he is now Pope as the article said. However, I feel it seems quite unfair to judge the moral courage of a quite elderly man on the basis of his youth.



I am in no position to condemn him for his actions. None. I would hope to think that in his situation, I would refuse to join, that I would resist. I cannot guarantee this or prove this (and anyone who says they would, isn't being very realistic). We don't know what we're made of until we are forced to face it.

But when I say it goes to strength of character, it's because they didn't just chose him to for just any leadership position. They chose him to be the representative of their god on earth. That's where it gets tricky.

Personally, I find that trying to hold him accountable for his actions when he was 14 is unnecessary since he's contributed to a great deal of the world's evil since he's been an adult, has joined the church and increasingly so since he's become Pope.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 8:45:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I can't see the sense in criticising someone because they didn't do as much as X who lived nearby and tellingly shot himself rather than be taken away to presumably be tortured and quite possibly killed! That was one of the main contentions of the article. I remember research done on one town during that era which had official documents that survived. They revealed that people spied on each other and there was a real climate of fear. That isn't excusing people who became Nazi's but it does mean that there was real duress to conform which means people (particularly young teenagers) who did the bare minimum to get by shouldn't be condemned. I for one can't find fault with that course of action. Some people criticise him because he is now Pope as the article said. However, I feel it seems quite unfair to judge the moral courage of a quite elderly man on the basis of his youth.

I am in no position to condemn him for his actions. None. I would hope to think that in his situation, I would refuse to join, that I would resist. I cannot guarantee this or prove this (and anyone who says they would, isn't being very realistic). We don't know what we're made of until we are forced to face it.

But when I say it goes to strength of character, it's because they didn't just chose him to for just any leadership position. They chose him to be the representative of their god on earth. That's where it gets tricky.

As I see it, it really depends on whether or not the ordination of the Pope is seen as a divine choice as the will of God, in which the issue of his past would be a concern. I believe though that few would judge any mature adult in their own right based on their actions in their early teenage years.

quote:


Personally, I find that trying to hold him accountable for his actions when he was 14 is unnecessary since he's contributed to a great deal of the world's evil since he's been an adult, has joined the church and increasingly so since he's become Pope.

The actions of the church are a complex issue relating to a clash between their traditional morality and reality. I feel that dragging their feet on the need for condoms in Africa is inexcusable however due to the massive loss of life due to AIDS. One of the things I could say in Ratzinger's defence though, is that he was a liberal until the effects of 1968, and he was the first of the senior Catholic hierarchy to make a serious move on the paedophile issue and the first Pope to unambiguously apologise for the actions of the church.



Jolielaide -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 9:13:20 PM)

In re:  the question asked by the OP

I have seen the segment mentioned several times.  By my scoring the team of Hitchens and Fry handily pulverized the opposition and didn't even break a sweat doing it.  Having said that, and having seen and read both men on other subjects than this one, I would think anyone who willingly took either one on, much less both, and seriously thought he/she had the chances of a snowball in Hell were delusional.  They are both that well informed and that erudite.

Hitchens and Fry both alluded to what I believe to be the fundamental failing, historically, with the Roman Catholic Church.  It was an almost immovably entrenched theocracy, inextricably tangled with the ruling courts of all of Europe for about 1500 years.  The issue isn't that it's the Catholic Church, it's that it was a monlithic theocracy.  The old saw is sadly true:  power corrupts and you don't get much more powerful than the person who has the imprimatur to send the souls every single man, woman and child in entire countries straight to Hell.  More than one Pope did exactly that, too.  All education, for more than a thousand years, lay solely in the hands of the Church.  Kings were not kings without being recognized by the Pope.  It was a custom in wealthy, titled families that the first son inherited, the second son went to the military and third son went to the Church.  ANY church who has/had that much control, that much power is probably not going to do much differently.  Just take a look at historical and contemporary theocracies around the globe.

Individuals with devout belief systems do great and wonderful things, just as they do dark and horrible things.  So do people without them.  The trick is not to let the religious beliefs of the few legislate the lives of the many.



Owner59 -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (7/31/2011 9:24:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

FR:

Would Jesus work for the Nazis?

Probbaly would have been killed by them,being Jewish.

And probably for speaking out against injustice and hate and speaking out for love and peace.

Yup,dead.



mcbride -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (8/1/2011 12:21:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I don't have to put on Jackboots to know that wearing them is wrong.


And yet, you just did.  You chose, freely, to follow Herr Goebbels in "The Big Lie". Are you over 15?

And that's amazing. You know Ratzinger didn't join the Nazis, and yet you're willing to pretend you think it's true. And several people have caught you at it. But that won't keep you from telling it again.

The church has been the planet's number one provider of food, medical treatment, and shelter for the poor for more than a thousand years, and still is. If I had to rely on Hitchens and Fry when I was sick I'd be dead now.



Aneirin -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (8/1/2011 1:18:21 AM)

Although the Roman Catholic history is rotten to fucking core, they now in the light of technology and with that world communication have the chance to show the world they are a force for good, but they don't, what they do though, is issue grudging apologies now and again only when they have been found out, grudging apologies that are more political rather than anything to do with conscience or true admissions of wrong doing.

Now we all know about the catholic work in Africa, what is the good teaching abstinence in the face of human nature, for sure their own priests can't keep in in their pants, so how can they expect those who have not took holy vows and been indoctrinated into the priesthood to do so. Now if say the Vatican had a change of heart and flooded Africa with condoms, then maybe that church might have the moral right to call themselves a force for good, but until they act positively beyond words, they are not a force for good despite what many individual catholics do, and it could even be seen that those that actually do practical good are the real church, not the shit that says it is.

But as to the ICPD in Cairo in 1994 where the Vatican allied itself with fanatical Islamic regimes in it's attitude towards women, I only wonder how it is any woman can call themselves a catholic, when it is that church has declared war on women almost from it's inception. Islamic and Roman catholic attitudes towards women are much the same, how can one criticise what happens to Muslim women when it is a western church believes the same and if it regained it's power would implement what was before, you know, the church belief that women were inherently evil and so deserved what the church did to them.



RapierFugue -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (8/1/2011 2:03:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

The actions of the church are a complex issue relating to a clash between their traditional morality and reality. I feel that dragging their feet on the need for condoms in Africa is inexcusable however due to the massive loss of life due to AIDS. One of the things I could say in Ratzinger's defence though, is that he was a liberal until the effects of 1968, and he was the first of the senior Catholic hierarchy to make a serious move on the paedophile issue and the first Pope to unambiguously apologise for the actions of the church.


He (while still a cardinal) wrote a letter to senior church members in several areas, threatening that anyone cooperating with the police investigations into child abuse allegations would be excommunicated. This one act alone should forever damn him. Oh, and that was after he claimed to be "helping authorities to root out wrongdoing within the church".

Although I grant you it was a "serious move" ... just not one with any good outcome.

He also cooperated enthusiastically in the process by which the Catholic church not only discouraged the use of condoms in the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa, but also claimed that the use of condoms increased the chances of contracting AIDS i.e. the polar opposite of the proven truth.

However, focussing on just one individual at the head of the Catholic church is, I feel, rather letting the church off the hook; it is fundamentally corrupt from top to bottom (money from poor nations is siphoned off to fund the lavish headquarters of the religion, which needs no further aggrandisement), morally bankrupt (total apathy in resistance to Nazism, as well turning over Jews to the Nazis and assisting in the seizing of Jewish assets during WWII, while almost certainly taking a cut of the proceeds) and, moreover, has assisted in the covering-up of the systematic abuse of children (read the Irish Government's report into the atrocities there - I have, and it will break your heart) and killed untold tens of thousands, possibly millions over time, in its stance against condoms to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. Oh yes, and one could easily argue the Catholic church’s definition of women as almost second class citizens leads to what could be considered an almost slave-style definition of their worth, but let’s not worry about minor details like that.

Against that little lot, setting up a few missions and feeding a few poor folk (while enslaving them to a control-based hierarchy, of course) are very small spuds indeed.

The Catholic church is irrevocably evil; shot through from top to bottom with the most heinous of acts, committed over hundreds of years, and has throughout history exerted an influence that is almost wholly malign. Thankfully, as the Enlightenment against which said church so enthusiastically fought gains an ever increasing strength and general acceptance, so it will be that the Catholic church will crumble and die out. It won’t happen in my lifetime, sad to say, but it will happen, because their basic precepts are control and slavery, enacted by keeping those they purport to “serve” ignorant, and that dog won’t hunt for much longer. I doubt they’ll go down without a fight though.



DomYngBlk -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (8/1/2011 5:11:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

From the debate hosted by Intelligence squared ltd in 2009, Actor/Author Stephen Fry locks horns with the Politician Anne Widdecombe on the subject;

Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World

Stephen fry with his hilarious succinct and intelligent wit gets across some very important points, leading one to think the catholic church is indeed a scam, a scam that is perpetuated on the poor and uneducated in the world.

Some very interesting points raised ?




If the Church is evil then the act of breaking down the Communist walls of the Soviet Union by JP2 was an evil act? That the countless lives and treasure given to help the poor in Latin America is evil?



DomYngBlk -> RE: Is the Catholic Church a force for Good ? (8/1/2011 5:16:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

The actions of the church are a complex issue relating to a clash between their traditional morality and reality. I feel that dragging their feet on the need for condoms in Africa is inexcusable however due to the massive loss of life due to AIDS. One of the things I could say in Ratzinger's defence though, is that he was a liberal until the effects of 1968, and he was the first of the senior Catholic hierarchy to make a serious move on the paedophile issue and the first Pope to unambiguously apologise for the actions of the church.


He (while still a cardinal) wrote a letter to senior church members in several areas, threatening that anyone cooperating with the police investigations into child abuse allegations would be excommunicated. This one act alone should forever damn him. Oh, and that was after he claimed to be "helping authorities to root out wrongdoing within the church".

Although I grant you it was a "serious move" ... just not one with any good outcome.

He also cooperated enthusiastically in the process by which the Catholic church not only discouraged the use of condoms in the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa, but also claimed that the use of condoms increased the chances of contracting AIDS i.e. the polar opposite of the proven truth.

However, focussing on just one individual at the head of the Catholic church is, I feel, rather letting the church off the hook; it is fundamentally corrupt from top to bottom (money from poor nations is siphoned off to fund the lavish headquarters of the religion, which needs no further aggrandisement), morally bankrupt (total apathy in resistance to Nazism, as well turning over Jews to the Nazis and assisting in the seizing of Jewish assets during WWII, while almost certainly taking a cut of the proceeds) and, moreover, has assisted in the covering-up of the systematic abuse of children (read the Irish Government's report into the atrocities there - I have, and it will break your heart) and killed untold tens of thousands, possibly millions over time, in its stance against condoms to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. Oh yes, and one could easily argue the Catholic church’s definition of women as almost second class citizens leads to what could be considered an almost slave-style definition of their worth, but let’s not worry about minor details like that.

Against that little lot, setting up a few missions and feeding a few poor folk (while enslaving them to a control-based hierarchy, of course) are very small spuds indeed.

The Catholic church is irrevocably evil; shot through from top to bottom with the most heinous of acts, committed over hundreds of years, and has throughout history exerted an influence that is almost wholly malign. Thankfully, as the Enlightenment against which said church so enthusiastically fought gains an ever increasing strength and general acceptance, so it will be that the Catholic church will crumble and die out. It won’t happen in my lifetime, sad to say, but it will happen, because their basic precepts are control and slavery, enacted by keeping those they purport to “serve” ignorant, and that dog won’t hunt for much longer. I doubt they’ll go down without a fight though.



So you are blaming the Church for the ills of Africa? Please. Look in the mirror since it is the people of the lands of Europe that today and yesterday are to blame for the ills of Africa. Apologies? Has England apologized? France? Belgium? Are the millions dead in Rwanda mourned in Brussels because the Belgian people realize that that blood in on their hands? Look in the mirror before you start throwing too many stones



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875