Flood of ‘de-baptisms’ worries European church leaders

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s an example of atheist authorities’ approach to enemy civilians, captured enemy combatants and in some cases liberated allied combatants and liberated allied civilians:
(I can understand peoples’ emotions especially when their civilians were treated in a similar way, but to let the officer and Commissar corp tolerate/encourage such behaviour
is shameful):
solonin.org/en/article_the-spring-of-victory
 
It’s a widely known fact that Bolsheviks and elements of the Red Army massacred civilians. I actually know people who lost their entire families to Bolsheviks in 1939. These people are not liars and were not making stuff up. Mass deportations occurred between 1939 and 1941 in Soviet occupied territories as well as executions.

The site does postulate some reasons why the Red Army was engaged in these acts against German non-combatants, while treating German POWs better. One theory is that some units were responsible for terrorising German civilians on orders of Stalin to drive Germans away. The other theory is that people of shady character were employed in many units - but that does not explain why Soviet Commissars and Officers were also engaged in atrocities. I don’t know why you think Soviet Army forces would be responsible for such acts when its well documented that many millions of people were murdered in the USSR from 1918 right through to Stalin’s death. When my great grandparents and grandparents were liberated by the Soviets they were not raped but they described very bad behaviour and theft. Of course we were “allies” by then. Bolshevik behaviour was also atrocious in the 1920 Polish-Russian War with looting, rape, pillaging and murder.

Anyway this is off topic. Thanks for your comments.
 
Sorry, but by statement that another poster should agree with my propositions because they were reasoned or factual is not an appeal to authority. An appeal to (self) authority would be to say: “because I say so”.
 
40.png
Tenofovir:
Your facts are wrong and your conclusions are biased by your hate of religion.
Click to expand...
What have I said that makes you think I hate religion?

Tenofovir, let’s look at a sequence of discussion.

Originally Posted by unafraid forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*
A Christocentric Europe was a light upon the nations of the earth. .*

Hokomai Do you really believe this Unafraid?

Blight, rather than light, would seem a better description for the peoples of the Americas (genocide, dispossession, slavery, Inquisition), Africa (slave trade, colonialism, resource theft); Asia (Opium Wars; Pacific (cultural dispossession); the Middle east (crusades) and, for that matter, peoples of Europe (Jews - pogroms; Albigensians (persecution); women (witch burnings); homosexuals (judicial murder)

Tenofovir: You said Christian Europe abused people through colonial wars, opium wars, slavery etc. as if those things originated in Christianity. But the fact is that slavery, abuse, wars, are common throughout history, especially in atheist nations, and even more so. Christians when acting through Sublimus Dei or Statute of Kalisz were actually amazingly progressive, tolerant and compassionate.

Tenofovir, what I said was responding to a statement that ‘a Christocentric Europe was a light to the nations’. You responded as if I had said that** because of** Christianity, these things happened and that they would not have happened under an atheist government. Of course, I had said no such thing.

I was interested in your dictionary citations for belief. I think I use it in the same way it is used by the Church in the catechism, in which belief derives not only from reason.
 
I’m sorry but I don’t know what a ‘reductionist version of history’ is. Can you please explain what it is and how it relates to what I have said?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top