unclesmrgol on April 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM

The only revisionism here belongs to you. I never said anything about post WWII.

I must admit. I was slow to consider that you may be a troll. I’ll stop biting now.

I intended on bolding the “fear that they may have” in my last post. But I did it wrong.

I appreciate your level headedness with me on this. I truly did not intend to imply you were lying.

I’m glad I understand your position better.

..what they said was not true but intended to demonise Catholics.

Without a quote it is hard to both defend or attack what was said. I think we agree on that. You are right to say that I shouldn’t asume you are lying based on no evidence. I didn’t. That why I said that I fear that they may have accurately represented history. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was very careful in my selection of words.

But please see where I am coming from. I mentioned my fear because I have seen it done many times. My own parents label well known Protestants as anti-Catholic but refuse to call me one while I agree completely with Protestant arguments. Its a double standard I was trying to show.

I only object to made up stuff being used as examples.

Good. As do I.

You’re trying twist what I said to mean that anything said that casts the Catholic Church is a bad light, whether true or untrue, is an anti-Catholic statement.

I wasn’t trying to twist your words. Honestly speaking, from my experience that’s where it was going.

You just assume for the sake of your argument that I’m lying based on no evidence.

I didn’t mean to convey you were lying but instead quick to acuse someone of being anti-catholic. But after your last comment I can see that you were not. I apologize for not being clear enough and for asuming a great deal based on my experiences.

Corona, however, is demonstrating my very point.

/correction

I fear that they may have accurately represented history and folks like yourself didn’t like it and called them smearers and haters.

No they didn’t. You’re arguing on behalf of people who took part in discussions you haven’t read. I called them smearers because what they said was not true but intended to demonise Catholics.

It is not difficult to paint an accurate picture of Rome’s history and have someone call it a smeared because the content is ugly.

I’m well aware of all the ugly stuff in the Catholic Church’s history. I only object to made up stuff being used as examples.

For example, crusaders (I’m curious to know where you are learning about the crusdades from), soldiers slaughtered thousands of families in the name of
Christ.

I’m well aware of that.

Exposing this truth in history is a smear?

I didn’t say that. I took issue with the statement “The crusades did nothing to halt the expansion of Islam.”

Interesting. Exposing treachery, lies and plotting is a smear? And I guess all those molestation victims are hateful too.

No. A smear is a smear. I never mentioned the molestation scandals because the victims are telling the truth.

You’re trying twist what I said to mean that anything said that casts the Catholic Church is a bad light, whether true or untrue, is an anti-Catholic statement.

I clearly identified irrational insults, smears and untruths. Libel in other words.

But then again you “fear that they may have accurately represented history and folks like yourself didn’t like it and called them smearers and haters.”

You just assume for the sake of your argument that I’m lying based on no evidence.

But to say that Protestants have ties with communism, nazism and paganism is not hateful. The confusion lies in your definition of hate…I can also hate wicked beliefs, doctrine, behavior or philosophy without it being wrong.

I’m not arguing what you say I’m arguing. If specific false allegations are labelled against a group, that they helped murder millions of people, and used an example of how evil this group is then that is a smear. Only an unhinged or bigoted person would go around repeating lies of this kind.

I can also hate wicked beliefs, doctrine, behavior or philosophy without it being wrong.

I don’t disagree.

Why did the Chief Rabbi of Rome become a Catholic after the war? What did he claim the Church did on behalf of his people?

What did Golda Meir and Albert Einstein both say about the Church?

What was the manner of Edith Stein’s death? Why was she killed?

What would have been the legally mandated punishment for Benedict’s publicly anti-Nazi family had they failed to enroll Benedict in the Hitler Youth upon his 14th birthday?

It’s interesting that revisionism can rear its ugly head in the face of incontrovertable proof. You are lying, using the Lord as cover.

As a born and raised catholic, and now recovering, the church has become more political and less focused on the religion.

I haven’t lost my faith, my faith lost me.

Ahem. It probably was never your faith to begin with. It takes a strong person to be Catholic.

Politics and religion are very closely related. Both deal with systems of ethics, one for masses of people, and the other for both individuals and the community. What you do as an individual when you join a mass of people is where politics and the church cross swords, and where the church has a right to speak.

Liberals believe that the mass of people have the right to take away the property of individuals (to steal, as it were), while conservatives feel that it is the right of individuals to hold and keep their property, and to do with it as they please (including giving it away). Which position do the Ten Commandments support? Now, even things given away are taxed, including when given to the least rich of our bretheren (look at how the government deals with tips, for a prime example).

Smearing Catholics as being Nazis, Communists and pagans and shilling for them (indeed as actually being a Nazi in the case of the smears hurled at Benedict) is hateful because these are groups that killed hundreds of millions of people.

I fear that they may have accurately represented history and folks like yourself didn’t like it and called them smearers and haters.

It is not difficult to paint an accurate picture of Rome’s history and have someone call it a smeared because the content is ugly. For example, crusaders (I’m curious to know where you are learning about the crusdades from), soldiers slaughtered thousands of families in the name of Christ. Exposing this truth in history is a smear? Interesting. Exposing treachery, lies and plotting is a smear? And I guess all those molestation victims are hateful too. Oh, wait I must be hateful because I’m bringing them up. It’s not hate, it’s called righteous indignation.

I agree that he erred to much on this universalist side. So you could say he was too liberal. What does univeralism have to do with paganism? Did JPII perform human sacrifices?

I wasn’t linking universalism with paganism. You mentioned paganism and my purpose was to show he wasn’t that bad but rather bad enough being a Universalist. You simply blow it off with. “Ah, he was just liberal.” There is a significant diffence between a liberal and a universalist.

At least you recognize his universalist side. It’s interesting that a divinely appointed successor of Peter was a universalist.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6

You’re a relativist.

Do you know what a relativist is? I do. Please look up the definition and show how that definition fits with my statements.

Yes we all know Catholic and Protestant dogma.

I’m sorry, I know of no Protestant dogma. If you can find some please bring it to my attention. It might help if you used Rome’s definition of dogma first.

Stating Catholic dogma is not “anti-Protestant” (nor is sola scriptura anti-Catholic) but smearing Protestants as Nazis, Communists and pagans would indeed be anti-Protestant.

You’re start to get my point but then get confused. If Protestants purposefully went around trying to eliminate Jews or said they were the bane of society then those Protestants would be anti-Semitic or Nazi.

But to say that Protestants have ties with communism, nazism and paganism is not hateful.

The confusion lies in your definition of hate. First of all, there are perfectly acceptable things for us to hate like pedophilia, rape, lies, murder, swearing, perversions, falsly proclaiming the Lord’s name. I can also hate wicked beliefs, doctrine, behavior or philosophy without it being wrong.

God has told us that we should not hate those who were made in His image = people.

Use all the sarcasm you want. If these same statements were applied to Jews and you sarcastically joked that some people consider them “anti-semitic” you’d find no takers
here. Type it out and post it if you don’t believe me.

aengus on April 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Red herring. I wouldn’t make that joke because it doesn’t follow with my argument.

Yeah, I’ve always thought the “I love my baby too much to give it away, so I’ll kill it instead” argument made a lot of sense. /sarcasm

Quisp on April 15, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Yeah, I had that discussion with a friend once. She was saying that it would bother her to have this piece of her somewhere in the world without her knowing anything about it.

But this was after she’d already had the abortion and the first time I learned she’d even been pregnant, so I saw no reason to argue with her.

jim m, no one is arguing that it’s easy to give your baby up for adoption. No one’s even arguing that it’s ever easy to give away your child, even at a wedding. It’s a tough thing to do, but it’s what you do if you love someone else more than yourself.

It’s funny that they never mention the emotional problems that a woman has when she gives up her baby for adoption.

jim m on April 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Yeah, I’ve always thought the “I love my baby too much to give it away, so I’ll kill it instead” argument made a lot of sense. /sarcasm

Careful, schtick, your white sheet is showing again.

corona on April 14, 2008 at 6:13 PM

White sheet as in a KKK robe? Thanks for the demonstration of insuating I am a racist rather than answering my objections. Classy.

I don’t know what a schtick is. If that was meant as an insult. I appreciate that as well.

Someone was complaining about one liners. Look at this one. Geesh.

That was sarcasm, right?

Of course!!!

I am studying the First, or Great, Crusade at the moment and jdkchem’s statement bothered me. I was tired and I somehow conflated it in my mind with the whole “Islamist” euphemism which REALLY bothers me because its so dishonest. My reference to The Onion was supposed to indicate my sarcasm.

Sorry for the confusion.

I don’t get this.  The Catholic Church is very much opposed to Abortion.  So why would a Catholic school ban a Pro Life speaker?

Apparently guilt by association is the sin.  This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater…ironic…

I don’t agree with the rest of what you’re saying but I’ll give you this:

You can give it to God will still giving it to the government.

Sure you can give your money to the corrupt government so they can spend it on indoctrinating entire generations with their non scientific state religion of evolution/secular humanism and maybe some of your money will go to funding abortions and to schools that teach kids homosexuality is perfectly fine…but don’t ask me to pay for it.

There are plenty of legal ways to completely avoid paying taxes.

SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM

The debate about what we owe Caesar, and what we owe God has many dimensions, but the question of whether to pay taxes has been answered.

Rom 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
….
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

The real genius of the answer Jesus gave is that he shut down their attempt to draw Him into political issues, and left them scratching their heads and trying to figure out exactly what belonged to Caesar, and what belonged to God.

BTW, just so no one is offended I’d like to stress that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was not a typical Muslim–he was an “Islamist” who distorted the teachings of Islam for extremist purposes.

That was sarcasm, right?

Which is worse on tha baby?

thuja on April 14, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Abortion does not harmed women and the pro-lifers should hang their head shame for their compulsive lying.

Does it harm the baby?

The crusades did nothing to halt the expansion of Islam.

That wouldn’t even pass muster as a headline in The Onion. The Crusades over several centuries saved the Western world from “Islamists”. The resistance to the siege of Vienna was also instrumental in saving the West from “Islamists” but it was like the cherry on the cake of 900 years of resistance to “Islamists”.

BTW, just so no one is offended I’d like to stress that the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was not a typical Muslim–he was an “Islamist” who distorted the teachings of Islam for extremist purposes. He is in no way indicative of the majority of Muslims who are peaceful and tolerant.

SouthernGent on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 PM

I was unaware the left was capable of any form of thought process.