Was the pope a member of the Nazi Party/Hitler Youth

[rex_clinton]

oh and another thing. i have a real problem with the romans. they didn’t take the persecution of these nut jobs seriously enough. they turned it into a colosseum game. if they treated it with the seriousness they should have can you imagine how much better off we might be?

the inquisition, the worst of the dark ages, the stamping out of scientific inquiry, all these might not have happened, they say we are about fifty years from wiping out cancer. that means if it wasn’t for the catholic church and it’s fostering of a culture of ignorance we might have done that hundreds of years ago.

And something that people who criticize the Pope for being in the Hitler Youth should keep in mind:

St. Paul helped persecute the church, and St. Peter denied our Lord three times…worse things than being forced to join an organization that was required for all youth in the certain country. I wonder if the Pope’s critics will hold St. Paul and St. Peter to the same standards. Guess not.

 

[RobHom]

How do you guys know he was forced…

maybe he was a willing and active member of the Hitler youth and then just tried to lie and make out that he was coerced…

im sure mant nazi’s tried that once they had lost

It is a widely known and accepted fact…which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt…having been investigated to death by plenty of dirt-diggers looking to throw rocks at the Pope and the Church…and all have failed to find a single thing to show that he was not forced, and absolutely nothing to show that he willingly or voluntarily or eagerly joined.

It would seem…that “anti-Catholics” will go to ANY lengths to slander and besmirch anyone of the Catholic faith…and will even print and publish lies and falsehoods…and push it forth as a religious document… Were I them…I would be dreading “Judgment Day”…

 

[RobHom]

the inquisition, the worst of the dark ages, the stamping out of scientific inquiry, all these might not have happened, they say we are about fifty years from wiping out cancer. that means if it wasn’t for the catholic church and it’s fostering of a culture of ignorance we might have done that hundreds of years ago.

It would seem that your knowledge of history and science is “defective” at best. I doubt that you really have a clue as it to what the “Inquisition” was really about…

In so far as…wiping out cancer hundreds of years ago… Tell me, why is it that the physicians and scientists in NON-Catholic countries haven’t managed to pull that off? Hmmmm?

I have the answer…but you and others probably won’t like it.

 

[rex_clinton]

the inquisition was about political control and eliminating dissent. science is a threat to all religions because it exposes their false precepts.

as for the guilt of religion catholicism isn’t the only culprit. islam is responsible for destroying an advanced scientific culture in the middlle east. the society that gave us the zero and algebra was reduced to millions of people spending their productive time on their knees praying to the same desert god that the catholcs and the jews wasted their time with. that’s why non-catholic countries were equally hobbled.

It would seem that your knowledge of history and science is “defective” at best. I doubt that you really have a clue as it to what the “Inquisition” was really about…

In so far as…wiping out cancer hundreds of years ago… Tell me, why is it that the physicians and scientists in NON-Catholic countries haven’t managed to pull that off? Hmmmm?

I have the answer…but you and others probably won’t like it.

 

[EasterJoy]

i’m not cynical. i’m skeptical. many people confuse the two.

Technically, atheists aren’t skeptics, isn’t that right? I thought you said you were atheist. If you’re not sure whether there is a God or not, I stand corrected.

If you’re not talking about scepticism with regards to God, but only when it comes to “princes”, well, then scepticism isn’t out of place…“as wise as serpents, as innocent as doves.” (Or was it the other way around?) I can’t speak about Vatican politics, real or rumored, nor how one who hears the gossip in Rome might be scandalized. That’s outside my experience.

 

[rex_clinton]

i have no idea whether there is a god or not. if an atheist says there is no possibility a god or gods exist then he is no better than someone who says a god definitely exists. there is no evidence whatsoever either way. therefore, i am skeptical. if as a non-believer i were to start a church that brings in mountains of cash every week and in return promises something it has no way of delivering - like eternal life and a god - then i would be cynical.

Technically, atheists aren’t skeptics, isn’t that right? I thought you said you were atheist. If you’re not sure whether there is a God or not, I stand corrected.

If you’re not talking about scepticism with regards to God, but only when it comes to “princes”, well, then scepticism isn’t out of place…“as wise as serpents, as innocent as doves.” (Or was it the other way around?) I can’t speak about Vatican politics, real or rumored, nor how one who hears the gossip in Rome might be scandalized. That’s outside my experience.

 

[Mirdath]

science is a threat to all religions because it exposes their false precepts.

Science doesn’t say jack on that. It speaks about the natural, whereas religion is by definition beyond that. Whether that beyond is real or not isn’t up to science to decide.

as for the guilt of religion catholicism isn’t the only culprit. islam is responsible for destroying an advanced scientific culture in the middlle east. the society that gave us the zero and algebra was reduced to millions of people spending their productive time on their knees praying to the same desert god that the catholcs and the jews wasted their time with. that’s why non-catholic countries were equally hobbled.

Islam was that advanced scientific culture. The zero and algebra were carried over from India (itself highly religious), but it was Muslim scientists who first codified the scientific method, Muslims who established the earliest modern universities, and Muslims who advanced sciences like chemistry and astronomy while Europe was still picking itself back up.

Catholicism has done poorly by science in some regards, sure. However, if it weren’t for the Church Europe would never have recovered from the collapse of Rome. Show a little respect.

 

[rex_clinton]

science of course can rule on the supernatural and if there was a shred of evidence it existed scientists would be quite busy measuring and describing it. the scientist who could prove there was a beyond would be guaranteed a place above all others. don’t you think if it was even a remote possibility that gods could be shown to exist there would be a never ending river of grants flowing to scientific institutions?

fortunately, for all of us, scientists are predominantly non-believers because they by nature don’t respect superstition. which is why you go to a medical doctor when you’re feeling sick and not to a shaman or a quack who practices leeching.

as for the dark ages? the church capitalized on misery to control the known world. like any criminal organization they saw an opportunity to take advantage of weakness to profit themselves.

Science doesn’t say jack on that. It speaks about the natural, whereas religion is by definition beyond that. Whether that beyond is real or not isn’t up to science to decide.

Islam was that advanced scientific culture. The zero and algebra were carried over from India (itself highly religious), but it was Muslim scientists who first codified the scientific method, Muslims who established the earliest modern universities, and Muslims who advanced sciences like chemistry and astronomy while Europe was still picking itself back up.

Catholicism has done poorly by science in some regards, sure. However, if it weren’t for the Church Europe would never have recovered from the collapse of Rome. Show a little respect.

 

[swariffin]

I do not know much about the pope.

But is it true that he was a member of the Nazi party or the Hitler youth or something.

If thats the case why would you pick a former member of the Nazi party as a pope…

Dear Isa,

Paul whose name was Saul, was an ex-murderer of the early Christians. But, Jesus himself called him, and Saul became Paul, and became one of the true followers of Christ.

 

[rex_clinton]

well the catholics don’t pick the pope. he is selected in an ultra-secret conclave of the princes of the church and he is selected for political reasons or because he is a better infighter than the others or because the church might have a public relations problem. we don’t know what the criteria is just as we don’t know the details of their finances or just about any other thing this clandestine organization does.

I do not know much about the pope.

But is it true that he was a member of the Nazi party or the Hitler youth or something.

If thats the case why would you pick a former member of the Nazi party as a pope…

 

[kathielee]

With yopur 500 + responses to this list, I presume you are the moderator. Continue defending the ex naxi Pope all you want. Okay, here goes concerning the Catholic link to Nazi Germany and the references your require:
German Historic Museum: Das Reichskonkordat (in German)
Mit brennender Sorge Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, 1937 (English translation).
The Vatican Concordat With Hitler’s Reich by Robert.E. Krieg
Hitler’s Concordat - text and background from www.concordatwatch.eu

It is very apparent that you do not wish to know the truth. Therefore, what purpose do you have for venting hate speech?

I suggest this conversation come to an end. I actually would like to see it closed. Nothing is accomplished except hate.

Kathie

 

[kathielee]

How sick you are

I just took a look at the websiter you left us. Oh my gosh, what kind of crazy man is that who has this website??

First of all, it says he is in Kansas so you think he is American? He is British…check out the way he spells words.

Another thing, he claims that by Canon Law, a man can beat his wife. What???

The person who does that website is no doubt in my mind, a sociopathic with paranoid tendancies.

And, I have just sent the website to the Catholic League.

I do appreciate your letting us know about this psycopath

Kathie

 

[patrick457]

fortunately, for all of us, scientists are predominantly non-believers because they by nature don’t respect superstition. which is why you go to a medical doctor when you’re feeling sick and not to a shaman or a quack who practices leeching.

Does that mean that people of earlier generations are less lucky since most doctors then are :gasp: believers?

as for the dark ages? the church capitalized on misery to control the known world. like any criminal organization they saw an opportunity to take advantage of weakness to profit themselves.

Oh, not the whole ‘Dark Ages’ stereotype again.
The stereotype of the Medieval period being a dark period where people are dirty, stupid, bloodthirsty, barbaric and ignorant is merely a legend, a propaganda concocted by those keen to show the age they live in as more wiser than the preceding ones.

Since the Middle Ages was the ‘Age of Faith’, which is perceived as contrary to Reason, many Enlightenment (17th-18th century) writers (such as Kant and Voltaire) painted the Medieval period as a backward period in history; in contrast, they depicted their era as a new ‘Enlightened’ Age where reason rules, free from the clutches of religion (aka ‘superstition’) and ignorance.

The ‘Dark Ages’ are more used properly in the sense that we do not have much records about a particular period; in this case the darkness is ‘ours’ and not ‘theirs’ (though to be fair, we could not really use this to term the Medieval period anymore since the 20th Century saw a radical reevaluation of the Middle Ages due to an explosion of new knowledge and insight concerning the period). Sure, they might not have the comforts and luxuries that we have today, but that does not make them less ‘barbaric’ or ‘ignorant’ than our present generation.

In a sense, yes, the Church was active on the Medieval period, if by ‘capitalizing on misery’ you mean founding a lot of universities (the Church founded universities in medieval Europe, which were usually built by Papal decrees or as Cathedral schools) and hospices, and by being a patron of the arts and sciences and philosophy: Augustine, Isidore of Seville, Albertus Magnus, the Jesuits and Thomas Aquinas come to mind.

Note: Science, like Religion is actually grounded in non-provable beliefs.

 

[murtad]

I don’t see any need for further investigation either. The fact remains, he is an ex Naxi.

I find it very very rude for you to refer His Holiness as “an ex Nazi” especially since Josef Ratzinger was never a member of the Nazi party.

There were many Catholics who were martyred under the Satanic rule of Adolf Hitler. This is because they refused to serve the Nazi party.

 

[Church_Militant]

Let’s get some facts here… (From the Jewish Virtual Library)

Pope Benedict XVI

Early Life
Communio and Later Works
Ratzinger, the Jews and Israel
Election as Pope
Controversy
Acts As Pope
Visit to German Synagogue

 

[rex_clinton]

i would say earlier generations were not as fortunate because they suffered under the effects of faith’s retarding of science. the dark ages had it’s advances however consider the impediments placed in reason and science’s way by the church and rome’s disgusting infatuation with power. the church established universities yes, but they had more in common with a madras than with what we think of as a place of higher learning,

and of course the historical revelations of the dark ages are changing the way we define that period but i think it is safe to say it will be very unlikely that we see anyone describing it as a period of achievement and a flowering of enlightenment. just imagine that romans had indoor plumbing but a thousand years later the average filth encrusted european cowed into a state of faith-based ignorance probably wouldn’t have any idea what a bath was.

your article on the surface seems compelling but in the end it’s argument relies on the assumption that a scientist advances no further than the inspiration for his original hypothesis. occam’s razor is a good guide, evidence should not be unnecessarily multiplied. i.e., the simplest explanation makes the most sense. a good scientist soldiers on and regardless of the outcome he originally supposed, accepts the end result of a lot of hard work. his default explanation is never, “a magic man in the sky did it.”

so yes, those who take the view that the supernatural are responsible for events are by definition superstitious and intellectually lazy.

Does that mean that people of earlier generations are less lucky since most doctors then are :gasp: believers?

Oh, not the whole ‘Dark Ages’ stereotype again.

In a sense, yes, the Church was active on the Medieval period, if by ‘capitalizing on misery’ you mean founding a lot of universities (the Church founded universities in medieval Europe, which were usually built by Papal decrees or as Cathedral schools) and hospices, and by being a patron of the arts and sciences and philosophy: Augustine, Isidore of Seville, Albertus Magnus, the Jesuits and Thomas Aquinas come to mind.

Note: Science, like Religion is actually grounded in non-provable beliefs.

 

[rex_clinton]

and what is it with these names? Mystic Warrior, Armor of God, Church Militant? did i stumble onto a hezbollah support group?

Church_Militant:

 

[hasikelee]

i would say earlier generations were not as fortunate because they suffered under the effects of faith’s retarding of science. the dark ages had it’s advances however consider the impediments placed in reason and science’s way by the church and rome’s disgusting infatuation with power. the church established universities yes, but they had more in common with a madras than with what we think of as a place of higher learning,

and of course the historical revelations of the dark ages are changing the way we define that period but i think it is safe to say it will be very unlikely that we see anyone describing it as a period of achievement and a flowering of enlightenment. just imagine that romans had indoor plumbing but a thousand years later the average filth encrusted european cowed into a state of faith-based ignorance probably wouldn’t have any idea what a bath was.

your article on the surface seems compelling but in the end it’s argument relies on the assumption that a scientist advances no further than the inspiration for his original hypothesis. occam’s razor is a good guide, evidence should not be unnecessarily multiplied. i.e., the simplest explanation makes the most sense. a good scientist soldiers on and regardless of the outcome he originally supposed, accepts the end result of a lot of hard work. his default explanation is never, “a magic man in the sky did it.”

so yes, those who take the view that the supernatural are responsible for events are by definition superstitious and intellectually lazy.

You’re not really showing a balanced collection of literature-acquired information. What books do you generally read?

 

[rex_clinton]

a balanced collection of literature-acquired information? i don’t even know what that means? would you explain?

You’re not really showing a balanced collection of literature-acquired information. What books do you generally read?

 

[hasikelee]

a balanced collection of literature-acquired information? i don’t even know what that means? would you explain?

All your statements on this thread are quite interesting…can you share your library with me. I am interested in how your opinions and perceptions were shaped. Who informed you? What books were your favourite? How did an idea grasp you over another idea and why?