Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[Thrasher]

Bunch of pyscho talk. You guys need to get a grip on reality. This and conspiracy theorists should be ignored.

 

[Ripper]

but to label him a criminal because of a simple opinion on historical revisionism?

I didn't label him a criminal. The German court did - because holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Therefore, he is a convicted criminal. Get your facts straight before going off.

My suggestion is that anyone denying such a massive weight of evidence is intellectually and academically not very credible.

I really can't fathom why you've wheeled poor old Stephen Hawking into your brain soup. :lol:

 

[Ripper]

Militant atheists like Ripper are the ones who go on about how the church was unfair and oppressive and did things like the Inquisition which had questionable merits.

And when exactly did I claim to be a militant atheist, or say any of those things? Again, pulled straight out of your backside.

I'm not particularly interested in Dawkins' militant activities, but I don't know which of the newsletters you subscribe to has given the impression that he is a discredited scientist. He isn't. Nor is selfish gene theory disproved, it is simply a debated theory. Further, if you think having a theory disproved discredits you as a scientist, you don't grasp the scientific method terribly well.

This is all a bit irrelevant though - I didn't introduce the idea of an Oxbridge education as a vouchsafe for credibility - you did. I also didn't propose Dawkins or atheism at any point. I do suggest, however, that proponents of Holocaust denialism and 911 conspiracy theories severely damage their intellectual credibility.

You are now touting a convicted holocaust denialist, who was expelled from Argentina for antisemitism, has links to neo Nazis, and was sacked even from the SSPX.

In essence, they decry evil, but they espouse the very methods of the evil they are decrying.

Oh no, gentlemen - I don't think it's my evil we need to worry about.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

From what I know he was not forced to attend the trial but chose to face it out of principle. Also he wasn't on German soil when it happened, his comments were simply broadcasted over there by a third party, so I fail to see how he would be supposed to be liable by proxy under German jurisdiction for something that happened in another. I'm not surprised they ended up giving him a symbolic fine.

First off you haven't read any of the newsletters, which aren't even remotely about any such thing, but simply theological discussions. Can you really look at the letter I have quoted and see anything evil in it?

I don't see how my comparison is not apropos. It would be as if I interrupted a discussion on atheism just to mention the questionable statements Dawkins has made on a variety of subjects which are mentioned in the article I previously linked to, and stated that the participants must all adhere to them to the letter.

Just because I read a newsletter on Catholic theology by a man who has been faced with an accusation in the past doesn't render me such a person by mere association, nor does it mean I am "touting him", nor does it render his whole body of work completely bunk, nor does it render him unintelligent or uneducated or unable to perceive some of the failures of modernism, or some of the comfort we can find as Catholics in the gospel and in our tradition. If we're to do that then a whole lot of famous public personalities are going to become verboten real quick.

 

[FretRider]

My suggestion is that anyone denying such a massive weight of evidence is intellectually and academically not very credible.

What, you have watched "Schindler's list" one too many times and think yourself an expert?

Fact is the 6 million number is mystical/magical and there have always been exaggerations. The mere fact that it is a CRIME to simply question these historical "facts"(as you so wilfully mentioned) means any knowledge we have about it is affected and completely untrustworthy.

During Nurenberg there were all kinds of incredible stories about nazis melting jewish corpses in order to manufacture soap or using their skins to make lampshades(!), among others. It took decades for "historians" to dismiss these as the myths they were, and yet they still persist in certain circles. Elie Wiesel stills tells his "geysers of blood" tales during his speeches. You know, one of the greatest "holocaust authorities" goes around telling people that in mass burial grounds blood spurted from the ground spontaneously while people passed…

You would be foolish not to realize all the interests behind these. Heck, there is an entire country which has its entire formation and history justified by the holocaust. Personally, I think a number of 1 to 2 million deaths(possibly even less) is more realistic and I think there are a lot of unexplained things that nobody has an interest in looking into. I also despise the emotional blackmail and other petty uses that jewish and israeli lobbies do with the suffering of their forefathers. Lots of people suffered, specially in Russia during that time. The jews have no moral authority to declare themselves superior to other peoples because of what the nazis did, whatever the extent of that was(we might never know at this point).

I would be arrested in Germany if I said that there. It is pathetic, as pathetic as your complete dismissal of Msgr. Williamson and attempts to label him as an evil whacko simply because he does not hold "official" holocaust history as a holy dogma such as you and other people. He has the right to his opinion, and my (high) opinion of him isn't lessened at all simply because he openly states that he looked at the evidence and doesn't believe in the widespread existence of gas chambers in nazi concentration camps.

 

[Ripper]

Also he wasn't on German soil when it happened

Yes, he was. That's why he was convicted. The interview took place at SSPX's Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany. A straightforward criminal act.

The reason your Dawkins comparison is not apropos to what I said, is that I've said nothing about atheism, nor made any religious criticism. I've protested because you've advocated a proponent of Jewish conspiracy theories, and the blood libel, on a public forum. Introducing Dawkins was simply based on your assumption about where I'm coming from, and your standard counterattack measures.

I am, of course, not suggesting that holding a mad opinion renders all one's other arguments invalid. That would obviously be fallacious. We are talking about credibility. If you told me you had discovered a new clean fuel source, I might be interested. If you told me it had been revealed to you when you were taken up in the mothership, I'd be less interested, though it would not categorically prove you wrong.

That speaks to intellectual credibility. As far as moral credibility is concerned, promoting Jewish conspiracies in world where Jewish persecution is rife, is also pretty vile.

 

[Pladio]

What, you have watched "Schindler's list" one too many times and think yourself an expert?

Fact is the 6 million number is mystical/magical and there have always been exaggerations. The mere fact that it is a CRIME to simply question these historical "facts"(as you so wilfully mentioned) means any knowledge we have about it is affected and completely untrustworthy.

During Nurenberg there were all kinds of incredible stories about nazis melting jewish corpses in order to manufacture soap or using their skins to make lampshades(!), among others. It took decades for "historians" to dismiss these as the myths they were, and yet they still persist in certain circles. Elie Wiesel stills tells his "geysers of blood" tales during his speeches. You know, one of the greatest "holocaust authorities" goes around telling people that in mass burial grounds blood spurted from the ground spontaneously while people passed…

You would be foolish not to realize all the interests behind these. Heck, there is an entire country which has its entire formation and history justified by the holocaust. Personally, I think a number of 1 to 2 million deaths(possibly even less) is more realistic and I think there are a lot of unexplained things that nobody has an interest in looking into. I also despise the emotional blackmail and other petty uses that jewish and israeli lobbies do with the suffering of their forefathers. Lots of people suffered, specially in Russia during that time. The jews have no moral authority to declare themselves superior to other peoples because of what the nazis did, whatever the extent of that was(we might never know at this point).

I would be arrested in Germany if I said that there. It is pathetic, as pathetic as your complete dismissal of Msgr. Williamson and attempts to label him as an evil whacko simply because he does not hold "official" holocaust history as a holy dogma such as you and other people. He has the right to his opinion, and my (high) opinion of him isn't lessened at all simply because he openly states that he looked at the evidence and doesn't believe in the widespread existence of gas chambers in nazi concentration camps.

4 million + names have been fully confirmed. Many people however were burned or gassed, entire families. You can get your number from whoever you want, but you are just like Williamson in this case....

The only point I agree with here is the one HHR points out that this does not invalidate someone's writings in other subjects.

The point however does get weakened by that fact and everything is then seen with much more scepticism.

 

[Ripper]

What, you have watched "Schindler's list" one too many times and think yourself an expert?

I don't debate with holocaust deniers, but I am glad when they expose themselves for what they are. Well done.

I should point out that the owner of this site appears to be from The Netherlands, where holocaust denial is legally considered incitement to racial hatred. I don't know where this site would stand if it permits it to be published here.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

My impression was that he was in Sweden, but upon looking more closely I see that he wasn't in Sweden, but instead interviewed for Swedish television. I still don't think it's a good idea at all to make the expression of certain ideas punishable, and I think it is debatable. For instance in Canada certain sayings can be constructed as hate speech but that's if they are broadcasted publicly. In that case this was a private conversation between the bishop and the interviewer that would be made public in Swedish soil. I still see it as highly debatable.

I only posted a newsletter about the value of holding tight to one Catholic's faith in a world growing increasingly secular because I recognize some of his commentary as valuable so I really think this is extremely out of proportion, since you only seem here to take potshots at my faith anywhere it doesn't conform to liberal principles.

 

[Ripper]

Once again, I'm not taking a "pot shot" at your faith. I'm taking issue with the character you put forward as a "great thinker" and inspiration. I am challenging the intellectual and moral value you ascribe to him, not all of Christianity.

The fairness of his conviction is not particularly significant to my objection - I simply highlighted the details when your pal here suggested that it was me who had dubbed him a criminal.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It wasn't even a discussion about him, it was a quote of a message from the Virgin Mary to the world reported in his bulletin. Because I dated to identify the author and make a brief description of who he was you are turning this into an inquisition. You have no interest in debating the faith, you seem here to pursue drama started in other threads.

Now that I know that the Virgin Mary knows many Catholics are made to feel lonely in their faith and that I must endure and hold strong I feel even more convinced of my faith .

 

[Ripper]

And that, once again, is where you are wrong. I disagree with the militant atheists. I have great respect for many Christians. I have worked with them extensively on projects in the developing world. I have taught in their schools.

I am interested in talking about the place of religion in the world, and the dangers of ideological demagogues. And I am very interested in exposing people who exploit Christianity as a vehicle for their extreme political views, while praising their own long-suffering piety.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

The problem lies in the possible conflation. It's one thing to say "ideological demagogue". It should not become an euphemism for "people who do not want to compromise the Scriptures for the sake of modernist ideals". Do you respect Christians, or do you only respect those to submit to such ideals, while reviling those who talk about parts of the Bible which clash with them?

I have stated before that something like homosexual practice or sex outside of marriage is not compatible with the Scriptures. Even though there is much social pressure to say otherwise, I do not want to yield to such pressure and turn the Word of God into a lie because we are commanded not to yield. It is simply a matter of integrity and a desire for righteousness. However when I speak about this, I am frequently labeled a "hater" or other such terms. I know I must not let this discourage me, because as the Virgin Mary reminded to that nun nearly 400 years ago and as is clearly said in the Scriptures, the Lord watches over all of us and needs righteous men.

In the last few pages I talked of my search for a Christian fellowship. So far I have made a little progress, but not much. However I know that my efforts are not in vain and the Lord sees all we are doing.

 

[txa1265]

The problem lies in the possible conflation. It's one thing to say "ideological demagogue". It should not become an euphemism for "people who do not want to compromise the Scriptures for the sake of modernist ideals".

I have stated before that something like homosexual practice or sex outside of marriage is not compatible with the Scriptures. Even though there is much social pressure to say otherwise, I do not want to yield to such pressure and turn the Word of God into a lie because we are commanded not to yield. It is simply a matter of integrity and a desire for righteousness. However when I speak about this, I am frequently labeled a "hater" or other such terms.

Can we agree that 'the scriptures' (by which I assume you mean both old and new testament) were written by MEN? And by men I mean not just mortals, but males of the species.

Much of the quoted elements of the old testament are things that are about rules and maintaining order rather than religion. It is often noted that there are many rules that are more directly asserted than the supposed anti-gay passage ... that are simply laughable in today's world.

At best we can look at the bible as an interpretation of divine word which was passed down like some game of 'telephone', reinterpreted and decided by mortal men many centuries after the supposed events, and then re-interpreted through multiple translations. When you have scholars dissecting possible meaning of words ... well, let's just say that 'absolute' or 'clear' are not words that should be used.

So I would re-state your position as saying "I am of the opinion that homosexual practice or sex outside of marriage is not compatible with the Scriptures."

 

[Ripper]

The problem lies in the possible conflation. It's one thing to say "ideological demagogue". It should not become an euphemism for "people who do not want to compromise the Scriptures for the sake of modernist ideals". Do you respect Christians, or do you only respect those to submit to such ideals, while reviling those who talk about parts of the Bible which clash with them?

The phrase "ideological demagogue" is not a conflation or a euphemism - it says precisely what I mean: one who exploits a religious body of ideas in order to appeal to popular prejudice. The prejudice comes before the selective interpretation of the text, not vice versa. It is the one who invokes the divine in order to justify base, mundane chauvinism.

As for "compromising the scriptures", I would be truly amazed (and alarmed) if you do not compromise on quite a number of them. I won't trot out all the really extreme and specific ones that I doubt you adhere to - I'm sure you're aware of some of them.

 

[Corwin]

I don't wish to engage in this debate for various reasons, but I do need to address one issue in my official capacity as Moderator of this Forum. While we encourage vigorous intellectual debate here, we do not tolerate either 'hate speech' or anything which could be construed as 'illegal'. Sometimes this can make discussion of certain issues difficult and while nothing here has been what I might term 'really inflamatory' (and I am impressed by the adult attitude displayed) I feel that it would be best to 'avoid' anything which would fall under the definition of 'Holocaust denial' and 'anti-semitism'. While some may not agree that these topics should be considered 'illegal', the fact of the matter is that in some countries they are and as an international site we need need to respect the laws of all countries and the sensibilities of all people. I'd prefer not having to post anything else on this issue. Thank you!!

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Can we agree that 'the scriptures' (by which I assume you mean both old and new testament) were written by MEN? And by men I mean not just mortals, but males of the species.

Much of the quoted elements of the old testament are things that are about rules and maintaining order rather than religion. It is often noted that there are many rules that are more directly asserted than the supposed anti-gay passage … that are simply laughable in today's world.

At best we can look at the bible as an interpretation of divine word which was passed down like some game of 'telephone', reinterpreted and decided by mortal men many centuries after the supposed events, and then re-interpreted through multiple translations. When you have scholars dissecting possible meaning of words … well, let's just say that 'absolute' or 'clear' are not words that should be used.

So I would re-state your position as saying "I am of the opinion that homosexual practice or sex outside of marriage is not compatible with the Scriptures."

They were written by men, but men inspired by the Holy Spirit:

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

As for the rules, you seem to be referring to the so called ceremonial laws meant to keep Israel separate in the old testament. Those ones no longer apply as they have been fulfilled by the coming of Christ. It is the moral precepts that were always meant to be respected and what was a sin then is still a sin now. The Bible is very old, but human nature itself never changes. Jesus says He has not come to remove a single word from the law but to complete it.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And it is actually a myth that the Bible has been re-interpreted multiple times and that multiple errors have been induced in translation, it has in fact been remarkably well preserved and when older Old Testament or New Testament manuscripts have been found they always vouched for the accuracy of the documents we already had. The only exception is the apocryphic gospels which are clearly gnostic perversions and which came much later.

The problem I have with what you are putting forward is that you seem to have adopted a relativistic attitude where Christianity is something where nothing is clear, nothing has to be followed and everyone just pulls something that kinds of makes sense to him/her out of the Bible. It reminds me of Oprah Winfrey's definition of Christianity, in which she says that its meaning is to "find your own Christ consciousness" which I see as ridiculous mumbo-jumbo born out of narcissism and hedonism. Where does it end when you start to remove commandments that you find unappealing?

I could say marriage is too big a burden and I will stop being faithful to my wife and cheat on her, or hire a prostitute. Or I could say I will start lying when it is convenient for me. Or I could start cheating on my taxes.

It doesn't pass the muster at all to me.

The phrase "ideological demagogue" is not a conflation or a euphemism - it says precisely what I mean: one who exploits a religious body of ideas in order to appeal to popular prejudice. The prejudice comes before the selective interpretation of the text, not vice versa. It is the one who invokes the divine in order to justify base, mundane chauvinism.

As for "compromising the scriptures", I would be truly amazed (and alarmed) if you do not compromise on quite a number of them. I won't trot out all the really extreme and specific ones that I doubt you adhere to - I'm sure you're aware of some of them.

What you are describing is called having a legalistic attitude. It means preaching commandments to others not out of a desire for true righteousness, but instead to feel superior and have an ego boost. This is definitely not something that appeals to me.

I'm a sinner like anyone. I would compare it to a mud puddle. If you walk in a mud puddle and you fall, but you get up and continue walking, and then fall multiple times, but at the end always strive to get up and move then you are following what Jesus wants you to do.

However if you make the mud puddle your home and stop reneging your various bad habits, stumbling blocks and sins that's when you're in trouble in the eyes of God.

St. Paul says that he trains his mind like a body trains an athlete to do what his body will not be naturally inclined to do.

And no I have no special prejudice toward homosexuals. I worked for one year in the borrough known as the "gay village" in Montreal in an office that was there and had no trouble empathizing with them.

I do find is very suspicious though that the commandments that modern society is protesting about are all one having to do is either sexual license or hedonistic license. Moreover, it is hard to ignore these few topics as an issue considering how often they are featured in the media. If I see something that has been clearly defined as sin in the last few millenniums by all the various church denominations and is clearly forbidden in the bible being turned into the total opposite without any sound Scriptural basis, should I say nothing?

Jesus demands of us to deny what is dearest to us in order to follow Him.

 

[FretRider]

Fact: the 6 million number has been thrown around decades before the Holocausit even happened, and it was also used just before the war and before nurenberg by activists. It apparently has some strange kabbalistic significance. During Nurenberg and for the first few decades after the war ended historians and officials dealt with much lower death tolls(the 50's encyclopedia britannica mentioned 500.000, for instance). Eventually the number was inflated.

I'm not denying that the nazis killed and persecuted jews, and neither is Bishop Wiliiamson. If questioning"official history" is a moral liability for you then I simply can't help but feel sorry for you.

I don't debate with holocaust deniers, but I am glad when they expose themselves for what they are. Well done.

I should point out that the owner of this site appears to be from The Netherlands, where holocaust denial is legally considered incitement to racial hatred. I don't know where this site would stand if it permits it to be published here.

I said I don't believe in the 6 million number and that I don't agree with professional "victimism" and emotional exploitation in unrelated subjects. I'm a "holocaust denier" now? Not at all. That is a very cowardly and very low way to evade debate. Not any different that feminists and black actvists who will shout words of order randomly against every adversary in order to disengage.

You also miss the point that msgr. Williamson is in no way anti-semitic, racist, "white supremacist", "radical" or any other of the BS "dark wordplays" thrown his way. When he was a seminary rector in Argentina he acually invided rabbis to lecture and debate in his classes and he never called for violence or persecution against jews.

He did call for their conversion and salvation of their souls, but it seems since Vatican II even the Church itself considers that "hate" so go figure. If he researched, read the Leuchter report and doesn't believe gas chambers were used by the nazis that is absolutely no reason to persecute him, hate him and dismiss what he has to say.

 

[Pladio]

Except that gas chambers were used and as a man in a position of authority, these are views that should be reviewed carefully before sharing them with others.

If average joe in the street tells me he doesn't think the holocaust killed more than a million people Jews then all I would ask him is if that's not a high amount of people killed anyway ?

But if when a person with a lot of authority and a "flock" speak then that's a different case.

I hope you do realise that.

Also in the same regard, other things he says should be under much more scrutiny than average joe in the street.

So when he says the WTC is a conspiracy then it's something that casts doubts on his other messages ....

It's quite simple really...

 

[Ripper]

I won't engage in debate about the facts of the holocaust, because that helps you to pretend that a valid debate exists. Other topics I won't be debating include the faking of the moon landings, and the US government's destruction of the World Trade Center.

I do also note, that you've stated on this site that you engage in trolling and sock puppetry:

I'm the guy who once posed as you years ago to troll them. I also pretended to be chefe, wyrmlord and others. It was just trolling

You are posting poorly repackaged antisemitism, and I won't be feeding you here.

I also note how you appear to be playing bad cop to HHR's good cop. And, looking at your posting history, your claims to "traditional catholicism", your appearances almost exclusively occurring in controversial threads featuring HHR… Well, let's just say I won't be playing this game.