Thrasher
Wheeee!
Bunch of pyscho talk. You guys need to get a grip on reality. This and conspiracy theorists should be ignored.
but to label him a criminal because of a simple opinion on historical revisionism?
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.
In essence, they decry evil, but they espouse the very methods of the evil they are decrying.
My suggestion is that anyone denying such a massive weight of evidence is intellectually and academically not very credible.
Yes, he was. That's why he was convicted. The interview took place at SSPX's Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany. A straightforward criminal act.Also he wasn't on German soil when it happened
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.
What, you have watched "Schindler's list" one too many times and think yourself an expert?
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.
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?
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."
2 Peter 1:21 said: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.
2 Timothy 3:16 said:All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Colossians 2:11-16 said: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.
Matthew 5:17 said: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.
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.
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'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