[Prometheus The Supremo]

My point is, the Catholic church does way more good than bad... can you say the same for al queda?

should they be successful like the catholic church, give them some centuries and they'll build schools, run charities, have hospitals, etc..

of course, al-qaeda is a tiny sect and will probably never amount to such a powerful organization that the catholic church was/is.


of course we can debate and compare the two (size, position, influence, etc.) and they're not equals, i'll give you that, but both groups have done horrible things. why be part of a group that has done horrible things?

I believe in freedom of speech.

i do to. but just because we believe in the freedom of speech, much like most people believe in god, doesn't necessarily mean it exists. what we have is limited speech. sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. we are not totally free to say whatever we want but depending what part of the world you live in, you have the freedom to say more things in some places than others.


holocaust denial was probably made illegal to prevent conspiracy theories that could fuel another holocaust but making holocaust denial illegal fuels conspiracy theories too. i know, it's a double edged sword but one side is probably more dangerous.

 

[Hydrogen]

My point is, the Catholic church does way more good than bad... can you say the same for al queda?

Gee fieras, I didn't know that my correcting your misapprehensions about the holocaust constituted a defence of al-queda. Cool how you want to try and knot up the issue.

I think it's stupid to doubt the holocaust, but I believe in freedom of speech.

That's not really an argument, is it? Do we defend libelous statements under the title of freedom of speech? Should we condone any statement under the guise of freedom of speech?

In fact, we don't - at least not in the public domain.

You have to be a little more sophisticated in assessing why there still are dogged attempts to question the existence of the holocaust: it is quite often employed as a stealthy form of anti-semitism. Anti-semitic views are still out there, and for those who hold such opinions, discrediting the existence of the holocaust offers up an opportunity to attack Jews as liars and conspirators. This kind of activity has a long and sorry history - even within the Catholic church.

 

[digi]

Why do people think the Jews were the only ones murdered? they weren't even a majority.

My point is, the Catholic church does way more good than bad

...in your opinion.

 

[Mot]

Try being a gay kid growing up in the Catholic Church, if you survive the experience you can hardly find much good in it.

 

[kEiThZ]

wow! this guy is a catholic apologist if i've ever seen one and not the nice kind either.
....
kEiThZ, do you agree with mr coren's sentiments?

I agree that Michael Coren isn't exactly the mostly cuddly character, however, on this issue he isn't too far off the mark in my books. I do think he goes overboard, with the whole dark forces attacking the papacy thing, but there is something to his assertion that the public has misunderstood the situation. I certainly didn't get the full picture until I read his article. If the pope was trying to bring in this sect, I would certainly agree with the Pope's ecumenical effort there.

As for Williamson, Coren is right. You don't get excommunicated just because you hold repugnant views. Should the church excommunicate every Catholic that it considers to have anti-semitic views? I would consider that extreme. Particularly when you understand the church's definition of excommunication (a permanent separation between man and God). That's not to say the views are not repugnant. Having grown up in the Middle East and witnessed the venomous anti-semitism (my school atlas had Israel blacked out for example) that occurs there, I nearly get sick to the stomach where I hear views like this. But that still does not warrant excommunication (condemning the man to hell for eternity). There are other sanctions (denial of Eucharist, etc.) that can be used and are proportional for the circumstance (from a catholic spiritual perspective). This makes sense when you keep in mind that excommunication comes from personal sin. Holocaust denial, while despicable, is more akin to having a political view from a theological perspective. As long as the guy didn't kill anyone himself, it's hard to argue that he deserves excommunication. And if the Church believes in God's mercy for murderers, it's hard to make the case that a Holocaust denier should not be afforded the same. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve sanction but to condemn him to hell for eternity, would only be fair if the Church set about a policy that was equitably applicable so that every Catholic who was a holocaust denier, 9/11 truther, denier of the Armenian geoncide, etc. would share the same fate. It's a fair debate on whether that should be the policy of the Catholic Church. But it's unfair to argue that the laws of the Church should only be applied selectively where it makes for good PR.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I agree that Michael Coren isn't exactly the mostly cuddly character, however, on this issue he isn't too far off the mark in my books. I do think he goes overboard, with the whole dark forces attacking the papacy thing, but there is something to his assertion that the public has misunderstood the situation. I certainly didn't get the full picture until I read his article. If the pope was trying to bring in this sect, I would certainly agree with the Pope's ecumenical effort there.

As for Williamson, Coren is right. You don't get excommunicated just because you hold repugnant views. Should the church excommunicate every Catholic that it considers to have anti-semitic views? I would consider that extreme. Particularly when you understand the church's definition of excommunication (a permanent separation between man and God). That's not to say the views are not repugnant. Having grown up in the Middle East and witnessed the venomous anti-semitism (my school atlas had Israel blacked out for example) that occurs there, I nearly get sick to the stomach where I hear views like this. But that still does not warrant excommunication (condemning the man to hell for eternity). There are other sanctions (denial of Eucharist, etc.) that can be used and are proportional for the circumstance (from a catholic spiritual perspective). This makes sense when you keep in mind that excommunication comes from personal sin. Holocaust denial, while despicable, is more akin to having a political view from a theological perspective. As long as the guy didn't kill anyone himself, it's hard to argue that he deserves excommunication. And if the Church believes in God's mercy for murderers, it's hard to make the case that a Holocaust denier should not be afforded the same. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve sanction but to condemn him to hell for eternity, would only be fair if the Church set about a policy that was equitably applicable so that every Catholic who was a holocaust denier, 9/11 truther, denier of the Armenian geoncide, etc. would share the same fate. It's a fair debate on whether that should be the policy of the Catholic Church. But it's unfair to argue that the laws of the Church should only be applied selectively where it makes for good PR.

wat??? being excommunicated because someone declared you bishop by bypassing the authority of the pope is okay but it's not okay to be excommunicated because of antisemitism??

why would you agree with the pope for trying to bring in his (willy's) sect? they're a bunch of nut jobs!



i think people have been excommunicated from the church for far less. usually it's because they don't respect the authority of the pope. so you dis the pope, you are excommunicated and condemned to hell but you hate jews, it's okay???


p.s, does anyone know if hitler was excommunicated from the catholic church? can they excommunicate people posthumously? if they can't, why didn't they do it when he was alive (if they didn't)??



i bet that if i got public funding for catholic schools removed and those schools were turned into secular public schools, i'd probably be excommunicated in a heartbeat. i'd be lucky if excommunication was the only thing to happen to me.

 

[kEiThZ]

Promteheus,

I am not going to argue with you any more. You have your views. They are clearly anti-Catholic (not just anti-religious). I have complained to Ed about that, since you repeatedly seem to start threads only about religion. Had someone else on this forum done that say about Islam, they would've been booted rather quickly. Beez, for example, has been threatened for comments that are far less extreme than yours.

As for this case, all I will say is that it's hard to debate the case with someone who clearly has no tolerance for the church's definitions of it's laws and what they mean. And for that matter, with someone who see no good in the Church, period. It's nice that you know how to bold. But when I present a reasoned view of what happened, all you do is cherry pick to paint me as some kind of anti-semite. I find that unacceptable. And it's clearly baiting on your part. I'll leave it at that. If you want to continue debating stuff that has to do with the urban nature and affairs of Toronto so be it. But I am not up to wasting my time on a bigot.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Promteheus,

I am not going to argue with you any more. You have your views. They are clearly anti-Catholic (not just anti-religious). I have complained to Ed about that, since you repeatedly seem to start threads only about religion. Had someone else on this forum done that say about Islam, they would've been booted rather quickly. Beez, for example, has been threatened for comments that are far less extreme than yours.

As for this case, all I will say is that it's hard to debate the case with someone who clearly has no tolerance for the church's definitions of it's laws and what they mean. And for that matter, with someone who see no good in the Church, period. [/b] It's nice that you know how to bold.[/b] But when I present a reasoned view of what happened, all you do is cherry pick to paint me as some kind of anti-semite. I find that unacceptable. And it's clearly baiting on your part. I'll leave it at that. If you want to continue debating stuff that has to do with the urban nature and affairs of Toronto so be it. But I am not up to wasting my time on a bigot.

1) we're not arguing. we're having a discussion.

2) how did i paint you an antisemite? where did i even hint that? that is not my view of you.

3) why am i a bigot? am i a catholic person hater?

4) whenever we discuss an issue pertaining to christianity, why do you keep bringing up islam?

5) why are my comments extreme? if you don't like these threads or you are offended by them, you don't have to take part in them.

 

[Mot]

I agree that Michael Coren isn't exactly the mostly cuddly character, however, on this issue he isn't too far off the mark in my books. I do think he goes overboard, with the whole dark forces attacking the papacy thing, but there is something to his assertion that the public has misunderstood the situation. I certainly didn't get the full picture until I read his article. If the pope was trying to bring in this sect, I would certainly agree with the Pope's ecumenical effort there.

As for Williamson, Coren is right. You don't get excommunicated just because you hold repugnant views. Should the church excommunicate every Catholic that it considers to have anti-semitic views? I would consider that extreme. Particularly when you understand the church's definition of excommunication (a permanent separation between man and God). That's not to say the views are not repugnant. Having grown up in the Middle East and witnessed the venomous anti-semitism (my school atlas had Israel blacked out for example) that occurs there, I nearly get sick to the stomach where I hear views like this. But that still does not warrant excommunication (condemning the man to hell for eternity). There are other sanctions (denial of Eucharist, etc.) that can be used and are proportional for the circumstance (from a catholic spiritual perspective). This makes sense when you keep in mind that excommunication comes from personal sin. Holocaust denial, while despicable, is more akin to having a political view from a theological perspective. As long as the guy didn't kill anyone himself, it's hard to argue that he deserves excommunication. And if the Church believes in God's mercy for murderers, it's hard to make the case that a Holocaust denier should not be afforded the same. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve sanction but to condemn him to hell for eternity, would only be fair if the Church set about a policy that was equitably applicable so that every Catholic who was a holocaust denier, 9/11 truther, denier of the Armenian geoncide, etc. would share the same fate. It's a fair debate on whether that should be the policy of the Catholic Church. But it's unfair to argue that the laws of the Church should only be applied selectively where it makes for good PR.

Keith, the Catholic Church does apply it's rules selectively. Every election cycle in the US Bishops publicly declare any politician that supports abortion or same sex marriage should be denied communion. I have yet to hear them proclaim the denial of communion for those who supported the slaughter of innocent civilians in the war on Iraq, cutting poverty programs or supporting corporate greed that led to a world wide economic crisis=, not even for the sin of using birth control.

The fact is Williamson was not excommunicated because of his public views, he was excommunicated for not following church authority and accepting the role of Bishop by a renegade rebelling against the Vatican.

His views in brief:

1) Holocaust, he claims that not one Jew died in Nazi gas chambers.
He says he needs historical evidence. There is plenty but he's blinded to it and he's not even trying to learn about it. Calling Prometheus a Bigot while defending this bigot's welcome back into the church is pretty harsh.

2)He claimed that 9/11 was the result of God working through agents of Jews and Muslims, to punish Christians for their transgresssions.

3)He writes that women should not be allowed higher education, that it upsets the natural order of things and that God never meant that.

The church letting someone back into the fold who openly espouses ideas that the church has strongly said are contrary to church teaching while denying communion (or the threat of it) like they did to John Kerry is a clear example of the selective application of church rules.

I'd also like to comment on the immeasurable wealth of the vatican treasures. I found it utterly repugnant that a church is sitting on so much wealth while people are dying from starvation and curable diseases across our planet. It cheapens the good they do when they are told by their own bible to do so much more and they have the means to do it and choose not to.

 

[kEiThZ]

1) we're not arguing. we're having a discussion.

Yet, sir, you are the only person on here who repeatedly starts threads about religion. For an atheist, who isn't supposed to give a fig about God, you sure talk a lot about his followers.

2) how did i paint you an antisemite? where did i even hint that? that is not my view of you.

Note your bolding. How would that look at a quick glance?

3) why am i a bigot? am i a catholic person hater?

I believe you are. You do cover it quite eloquently though.

4) whenever we discuss an issue pertaining to christianity, why do you keep bringing up islam?

I use it as a counter-example because I grew up in an Islamic country and that's the other faith that I have the most exposure too, both its positives and negatives.

5) why are my comments extreme? if you don't like these threads or you are offended by them, you don't have to take part in them.

I won't be taking part in the threads anymore fair enough. But they are extreme. You don't see me putting up threads routinely criticizing the worst of any other religion or another race for example. How about I start a thread about the latest beheading by the Taliban. Would that be considered acceptable? I should hope not. So why should you be allowed to paint Catholicism by using the worst Catholics as their poster boys.

Keith, the Catholic Church does apply it's rules selectively. Every election cycle in the US Bishops publicly declare any politician that supports abortion or same sex marriage should be denied communion. I have yet to hear them proclaim the denial of communion for those who supported the slaughter of innocent civilians in the war on Iraq, cutting poverty programs or supporting corporate greed that led to a world wide economic crisis=, not even for the sin of using birth control.

The fact is Williamson was not excommunicated because of his public views, he was excommunicated for not following church authority and accepting the role of Bishop by a renegade rebelling against the Vatican.

Again. Look up the definition of excommunication. Under Church law, one cannot get excommunicated for their political views. Excommunication is reserved for PERSONAL SIN where one personally violates church law. That's why in this case he was excommunicated for his unlawful ordination. You cannot be excommunicated for denying the holocaust any more than you can be thrown out for being a 9/11 truther.

Tell me what you would have the Church do in such circumstances? Should they excommunicate anybody who's views they disagree with? Then they would be accused of not tolerating freedom of speech. The pope has come out repeatedly and stated that anti-semitism and holocaust denial are unacceptable. Yet, that's not enough for critics of the Church.

If you disagree with how church law is set up, I suggest you take it with your local bishop or better yet start your own church...no sinners allowed!

His views in brief:

1) Holocaust, he claims that not one Jew died in Nazi gas chambers.
He says he needs historical evidence. There is plenty but he's blinded to it and he's not even trying to learn about it. Calling Prometheus a Bigot while defending this bigot's welcome back into the church is pretty harsh.

2)He claimed that 9/11 was the result of God working through agents of Jews and Muslims, to punish Christians for their transgresssions.

3)He writes that women should not be allowed higher education, that it upsets the natural order of things and that God never meant that.

That he is such a despicable person is all the more reason that he needs the prayers of the church....hopefully, he'll repent before he meets his maker.

I'd also like to comment on the immeasurable wealth of the vatican treasures. I found it utterly repugnant that a church is sitting on so much wealth while people are dying from starvation and curable diseases across our planet. It cheapens the good they do when they are told by their own bible to do so much more and they have the means to do it and choose not to.

They are part of the historical record of the church and the church leaves them open to visitors and academics to study. I have been to Churches all over Europe and I've never been asked to throw in a cent. I don't see how this is relevant. Do we demand that our governments sell every work of art and pretty building to feed the hungry? If you would have the Church sell St. Peter's than surely any NDP politician who truly supports the poor should campaign to sell Parliament and put that money into the welfare pot. Shouldn't that apply to the common person too? I want to see the homeless off the streets. I regularly volunteer my time and money with shelters. Is that not enough? Should I sell my pretty little condo and the one cheap art work that I have? Otherwise, I am a hypocrite? If the Church was keeping those works from art lovers and academics I might support your view point. As it stands, where the act as guardians of those works (and do a good job of it) I find your argument about their value and application of that accumulated value to be unfair. Would you rather those works of art be locked away in the basement of a private Russian art collector?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I'd also like to comment on the immeasurable wealth of the vatican treasures. I found it utterly repugnant that a church is sitting on so much wealth while people are dying from starvation and curable diseases across our planet. It cheapens the good they do when they are told by their own bible to do so much more and they have the means to do it and choose not to.

IIRC, this was one of the points brought up to me by someone else that that sparked the questioning of my own catholic faith. i remember i was trying to come up with every excuse possible to justify and defend the catholic church for holding such wealth. it clicked into my head that such opulence by those who claim to work on the behalf of jesus was contrary to the very teachings of jesus christ. it didn't take long for my faith in the church and fear of being a non catholic to melt away. after the fear was gone, i started to see many things that i overlooked due to fear of dissenting the thing i both loved and feared. i stopped trying to come up with excuses because i could no longer excuse. i then slowly applied the process that i went through to other things till i eventually lost more fears which enabled me to question things even further until eventually my personal religious fears evaporated, and my faith went along with it.

 

[Mot]

They are part of the historical record of the church and the church leaves them open to visitors and academics to study. I have been to Churches all over Europe and I've never been asked to throw in a cent. I don't see how this is relevant. Do we demand that our governments sell every work of art and pretty building to feed the hungry? If you would have the Church sell St. Peter's than surely any NDP politician who truly supports the poor should campaign to sell Parliament and put that money into the welfare pot. Shouldn't that apply to the common person too? I want to see the homeless off the streets. I regularly volunteer my time and money with shelters. Is that not enough? Should I sell my pretty little condo and the one cheap art work that I have? Otherwise, I am a hypocrite? If the Church was keeping those works from art lovers and academics I might support your view point. As it stands, where the act as guardians of those works (and do a good job of it) I find your argument about their value and application of that accumulated value to be unfair. Would you rather those works of art be locked away in the basement of a private Russian art collector?

The government doesn't have book telling them it's easier to put a camel through an eye of a pin than for a wealthy man to have eternal life. A basic teaching of Jesus Christ is against the accumulation of things over the lives of people. It's hypocrisy of the church to hold this vast wealth and not use it for saving people when it is a basic tenet of the faith.

To me saving human lives would be worth all the treasures in the vatican. I would much rather the art be put in a basement if it meant the end of the death of millions of human beings from curable disease and starvation. Selling off the treasures could end starvation.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Yet, sir, you are the only person on here who repeatedly starts threads about religion. For an atheist, who isn't supposed to give a fig about God, you sure talk a lot about his followers.

i start these threads because i like to discuss these issues and hear the opinions of like minded individuals. i didn't exactly go onto a catholic webforum and start posting. the majority of people i know are catholic and i don't dare question or grill them on their beliefs for no reason at all. of course if they start a conversation with me and i hear them say some things which are wrong like that aids is a gay disease, etc. or natural disasters are divine acts of punishment, i'll let them know where they're wrong.


i discuss these issues here because i have been on this forum for a very long time and i electronically know quite a few members here. i know that some of them think the way i do in some cases and some don't. sometimes i like it when the people who don't agree with some opinion i have make me find out just where i was wrong.

Note your bolding. How would that look at a quick glance?

my bolding was not selective quoting. if you looked, i quoted your whole block of text. the bold part was what i was specifically replying to in relation to willy the bishop.

I believe you are. You do cover it quite eloquently though.

you're wrong. i don't believe you're antisemitic. i do believe though that you may be defending a faith you may belong to. are you catholic?

I use it as a counter-example because I grew up in an Islamic country and that's the other faith that I have the most exposure too, both its positives and negatives.

that's fine. but i don't usually like getting into debates about the merits of islam because i have no islamic experience and it would be way harder to make my arguments. also, i tend to criticize negative actions of groups who have the most influence in canadian society. i go after the big guy.

I won't be taking part in the threads anymore fair enough. But they are extreme. You don't see me putting up threads routinely criticizing the worst of any other religion or another race for example. How about I start a thread about the latest beheading by the Taliban. Would that be considered acceptable? I should hope not. So why should you be allowed to paint Catholicism by using the worst Catholics as their poster boys.

you can take part in these discussions. i have no prohibitions against you. if something happens in the news involving a negative act and that act is religiously motivated, i don't see why you shouldn't talk about it. if you want to criticize a race, keep in mind that there is only one race = human. you have every right to criticize actions humans. of course if anyone starts a thread stating that being scottish makes a person predisposed to being a criminal, that would be wrong and false since there is no evidence for such a thing.

p.s, the poster boys i am using to paint catholicism with (specifically in this thread) are the ones who have the most influence in the church= the leaders. i didn't exactly start a thread criticizing catholicism because someone who happened to be catholic was reported on the news for stealing a car or something.

 

[ShonTron]

This is going way beyond the original topic. It's time to cool down on the heated religion debates, especially ones like this.

Discussion closed.