Grabeh.com Community - Whats stopping you -

#21

03-02-2005, 02:35 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

Let me put it this way. His claim of catholicism is as valid as yours or anyone else. Fair enough?

No bias here, reaper. I'm taking my statement out of the horse's mouth. Hitler was born a catholic. He was saying he is a catholic. He never denounced his catholicism. And the vatican agrees. The proof is that he was never excommunicated. In fact, hilter and the pope were somewhat friends. They would send friendly messages to each other and the Pope never condemned hitler even after killings.

Do you believe what's written in your signature reaper? that the absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Well, that's exactly what the catholic church did. NOTHING. Hence you should conclude that the catholic church was RESPONSIBLE for the flourishing of evil. Responsible for the genocide of the jews. Which makes the pope an accessory if not an accomplice if you believe your signature. Are you denying these facts? Do you also want to say that the pope then isn't a catholic? Hehehehe.

i would say yes, he betrayed the very essence of what catholicism stand for- oh yeah, i would love to read your sources, kindda interesting

and yeah, in nothing is such a stong a word - maybe your missing something -

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#22

03-02-2005, 02:42 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

maybe, your looking at "religion" in the wrong way - your blaming "religion" because those people that did such act claim they are doing it in the name of their religion, in which is very very untrue- for all we know, they are doing it for themselves, not becausde of just religion -

So you are saying that religion is irrelevant anyway because people can just set it aside when they do things "for themselves." As if you are looking at religion as a "holy coat" that you can put on if you want to be good, and take off if you want to be bad.

You are the one looking at religion the wrong way: you think having a religion can straighten up a person and not having a religion will more likely compel a person do despicable things "for themselves." Again, you have not proven this "assumption" Attorney.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#23

03-02-2005, 02:43 PM

Jeff

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: May 2003

Location: In the middle of the night

Posts: 3,638

Quote:

how do you define evil? - i a man is starving, he doesnt have any religion - he would either hurt, steal or kill just to feed himself - right - its just natural

Quote:

and what are you talking about gospel and stuff, i never mention those in my question - and how do you claim you know me? and what makes you think that my assumption, your thinking way too much out of the line -

Those are the underlying assumptions of your question "what's stopping you?" Why don't you analyze it yourself. What's stopping you from doing evil. I'll change the question a bit to make it clearer for you. If I asked you what's stopping this ball from rolling? Am I not assuming that the ball is rolling by default, hence the need to be stopped? Likewise, you are saying that by default, a person is evil, hence the need to be STOPPED. Otherwise, there's no need to stop it, is there? Isn't that the essence of your question? Isn't that your assumption? Who's thinking way too much out of the line? My thoughts are EXACTLY in line with your question.

__________________
Sometimes I tell a lie, but only when it's true

#24

03-02-2005, 02:50 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

where did society get the moral that stealing is wrong? from religion, right?

Wrong! We do have a moral instinct that tells us if we are harmed by a certain act. We know we are "wronged" when an act of harm is done. This is not taught by religion. Religion simply justify our actions, but it doesn't dictate how we instinctively know which is right or wrong.

As a matter of fact, you can verify it from a three year old kid who has a toy. If you "steal" his toy, what do you think will happen? Will the kid be happy or mad? Will he not run after you for getting his toy? Will he not get it back? It's instinct, my friend. A three year old understands no religion but his moral instinct tells him that you stole what rightly belongs to him!

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#25

03-02-2005, 02:52 PM

Jeff

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: May 2003

Location: In the middle of the night

Posts: 3,638

Quote:

i would say yes, he betrayed the very essence of what catholicism stand for- oh yeah, i would love to read your sources, kindda interesting

Now we're cooking. You are now claiming that the POPE, the father of all catholics is in fact not a catholic, hehehe. What does that have to say with those who look at him as a father which is... every catholic? This is getting hilarious by the minute, hehehe.

Quote:

oh yeah, i would love to read your sources, kindda interesting

Just read your history. Oh yeah, i forgot. You're bad at it, right?

Quote:

and yeah, in nothing is such a stong a word - maybe your missing something -

I don't think so. But humor me.

__________________
Sometimes I tell a lie, but only when it's true

#26

03-02-2005, 03:00 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

i mean, back in ancient times, if the group of people attacked a certain settlement and pillage it - they will see it as normal as it is - would you not admit, that Religion is that important to todays society to keep us in check-

What "in check" are you talking about?

In those ancient times you were referring, people didn't have a clear concept of law and order yet. What their primitive minds understood was that to preserve their civilization, they had to convert other people who were against them. If they pillage and attack others, its because they thought it was morally right to conquer another civilization that don't share their culture (including religion). Today, if you do that, you'd be branded as an aggressor (imposing its will upon others) which is morally wrong.

If RELIGION was not able to check the immorality of ancient civilizations' aggression, how can you justify that it can keep today's society "in check."
If it didn't "check" aggression two thousand years ago, it will not "check" aggression two thousand years from today.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#27

03-02-2005, 03:01 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

And you think a man with religion won't? Wake up man. You're out of reality. Here's a reality check for you. Go to any penitentiary we have. You would see that more than 90% of the men who are imprisoned there have religion.

Those are the underlying assumptions of your question "what's stopping you?" Why don't you analyze it yourself. What's stopping you from doing evil. I'll change the question a bit to make it clearer for you. If I asked you what's stopping this ball from rolling? Am I not assuming that the ball is rolling by default, hence the need to be stopped? Likewise, you are saying that by default, a person is evil, hence the need to be STOPPED. Otherwise, there's no need to stop it, is there? Isn't that the essence of your question? Isn't that your assumption? Who's thinking way too much out of the line? My thoughts are EXACTLY in line with your question.

thats my point in my 1st post, if these people could do such things, knowing the fact that their "souls" would be burned or something like that - they still commit such wrong - what stopping those who dont believe in such "lies" not commit the same mistake, Mr. P mentioned laws and norms, but my scenario is, what if your powerful and resourceful enough to bend the laws and to alter the norms, what will stop such person - nothing, right? he could do anything he want... same with those who claim they have a relgion yet have no faith in it -

_______

Quote:

ok, so whats next, we instinctivelt know someone wronged us, what do we do next? whats stopping you to do the same thing?

and yeah, i thought morals and instinct are two different things?

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#28

03-02-2005, 03:02 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pythagoras

but you have to admit, w/o religion, back then and even now... we will be in a much miserable place -

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#29

03-02-2005, 03:08 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

I don't think so. But humor me.

yeah, my history book is written i guess by a catholic author -

, in the 1st place, back in those time, do the church really know whats going on in Germany? i mean before the war ends and the concentration camps were discovered?

anyway... will this do?

Quote:

Pius XII's Aid to Jews Was So Great That It Stirred Protests New

Revelations of Vatican Archives, Analyzed by Historian

(JULY 4, 2004 Zenit.org)

ROME, - Documentation from the Vatican Secret Archives has revealed that Pope Pius XII's wartime assistance to Jews was so great that it stirred protests in some Catholic circles. This is confirmed in letters published together with the registers of the Vatican Information Office on Prisoners of War, established by Pius XII, with the title "Inter Arma Caritas." Press agencies published one of the letters reproduced in Volume 2, pages 950-951, sent to the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, on July 21, 1943, by Archbishop Andrea Cassulo, apostolic nuncio in Romania, in which he referred to "some protests." Bishop Agostino Pacha of Timisoara, Romania, wrote that in his community there were protests, "as the greater part of messages transmitted to this nunciature are for persons of the Jewish race," to the point that he spoke of the Holy See's "preference" for Jews. Archbishop Cassulo presented a copy of a letter in Latin, written by a Monsignor Tacha, in which he spoke about the protests of his faithful -- 78% of whom were of German origin -- who accused the Church "openly and publicly" of supporting and having good relations with the Jews, "enemies of the Germanic people." In the letter, the apostolic nuncio explained that he sent a circular to the Romanian bishops in which he clarified the reasons for the Holy See's assistance "not taking into account any political consideration or any nationality or race." In the missive, the nuncio asked the secretary of state to advise him what he should do. In order to understand better these new discoveries of the Vatican archives, ZENIT interviewed Father Peter Gumpel, a historian and expert on the matter. Q: What do the recently published Vatican archives say about the Holy See's relation with Jews and about the protests of some Catholic circles? Father Gumpel: First of all, it must be recognized that the Catholic Church carried out an enormous work of assistance to Jews. A. Safran, the rabbi of Romania, expressed on various occasions his gratitude to the apostolic nuncio, Archbishop Andrea Cassulo. On April 7, 1944, he wrote him this message: "In these hard times, our thoughts go more than ever to what the Supreme Pontiff has done in favor of Jews in general and to Your Excellency in favor of Romania and Transylvania. These deeds will never be forgotten." [See Civiltà Cattolica, 1961, Volume 3, p. 462] Moreover, in Volume 10, pages 428-429, of the "Minutes and Documents of the Holy See Relating to the Second World War," in a message sent by Archbishop Cassulo to Monsignor Domenico Tardini [a future secretary of state], the full article appears which was published by the Romanian newspaper Mantuirea, in which Rabbi Safran recounts how, thanks to the interventions of the nuncio and "with the help of God, he succeeded in having no more deportations take place." Q: What can you say about the protests of Catholics because of the Holy See's help to Jews? Father Gumpel: The work of assistance to the victims of war and to Jews, ordered in particular by Pius XII, was so extensive and intense that it caused surprise even among some ecclesiastics. When Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli himself [the future Pope John XXIII], who did so much for the Jews, was apostolic delegate in Turkey, after the umpteenth recommendation by the Holy See to help and foster the Jewish emigration to Palestine, he wrote these words to Maglione on September 4, 1943: "I confess that this sending by the Holy See of Jews to Palestine, which seems a reconstruction of the Jewish Kingdom, beginning by making them leave Italy, causes me some uncertainty in spirit." Q: Do the testimonies contained in "Inter Arma Caritas" contribute something new? Father Gumpel: These new historical tendencies deny definitively many articles on the alleged silence and insensibility of Pope Pius XII in regard to the Jews. As can be seen, there were people who criticized the Pontiff for doing too much for the Jews. Also denied are theses, such as Susan Zuccotti's, according to which the work of assistance to Jews was the result of individual actions, of which Pius XII knew nothing. From all the correspondence of the nuncios, it is obvious that the work of assistance was determined, directed and organized directly by Pope Pius XII.

maybe he try to look his doing nothing to hide the fact is doing sumthing

Quote:

New Look at Pius XII's Views of Nazis
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

(The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

Pope Pius XII has been branded by some authors and Jewish leaders as "Hitler's Pope" for his silence during the Holocaust. Now, diplomatic documents recently brought to light by a Jesuit historian indicate that while serving as a Vatican diplomat, the future pope expressed strong antipathy to the Nazi regime in private communication with American officials.One document is a confidential memorandum written in April 1938 from Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who the next year became Pope Pius XII, in which he says that compromise with the Nazis should be "out of question." The other is a report by an American consul general relating that in a long conversation in 1937, Cardinal Pacelli called Hitler "a fundamentally wicked person" and "an untrustworthy scoundrel." Historians who have seen the documents say they bolster the view that the man who became Pope Pius XII was not a Nazi sympathizer, and was in fact convinced that the Nazis were a threat to the church and the stability of Europe. But the historians also agreed that the documents in no way explained or exonerated Pius XII's inaction in the face of the Holocaust. Indeed, in neither document does the cardinal even mention the persecution of the Jews that was well under way when they were written. The documents were described by Charles R. Gallagher, a Jesuit historian at St. Louis University, in an article in the Sept. 1 issue of America, the Jesuit weekly. Mr. Gallagher, 38, a former police officer who is a nonordained Jesuit studying to be a priest, said he came across them while researching a biography about another more obscure papal diplomat. Pope Pius XII's record has been under scrutiny in recent years while the Vatican considers whether he should be beatified, the final step before sainthood. Church officials in Rome and in the United States have expressed concern that the case for Pius XII's canonization suffered a setback with the popularity of books like "Hitler's Pope," by John Cornwell, and "Constantine's Sword," by James Carroll, that argue that Pius XII was complicit in the genocide of the Jews. Some historians cautioned that Catholic officials were now eager to employ any evidence to rehabilitate Pius XII's image. Mr. Gallagher said in an interview that he merely hoped the documents would illustrate that as a diplomat, Cardinal Pacelli made his case against the Nazis in private, to other diplomats."I wouldn't go so far as to say that these documents exonerate him," Mr. Gallagher said. "What I think these findings might help to dispel

is the impression that this pope was, as others have called him, `Hitler's Pope.' " Mr. Gallagher found the Pacelli memorandum among the diplomatic papers of Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, which are housed at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston. Joseph Kennedy, whose son later became president, served as ambassador to England from 1938 to 1940. Ambassador Kennedy received the memorandum in April 1938 when he met in Rome with Cardinal Pacelli, who was then the Vatican's secretary of state. Cardinal Pacelli wrote that the memorandum reflected his "personal views" and that the ambassador had permission to share them with "your friend at home," which Mr. Gallagher said he believed was a reference to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Most of the memorandum is devoted to denouncing the stand taken by the Austrian bishops, who had recently made a statement in support of the occupying Nazi forces. Cardinal Pacelli suggests in the memorandum that the Austrian bishops had been coerced. The cardinal also wrote that the church "at times felt powerless and isolated in its daily struggle against all sorts of political excesses from the Bolsheviks to the new pagans arising among the young Aryan generations." He wrote that "evidence of good faith" by the Nazi regime was "completely lacking" and that "the possibility of an agreement" with the Nazis was "out of question for the time being." Mr. Gallagher found the second document among diplomatic papers at Harvard University. It was filed in 1939 by Alfred W. Klieforth, a former United States consul general, soon after Cardinal Pacelli was made pope. "His views, while they are well known, surprised me by their extremeness," Mr. Klieforth wrote, relating a conversation two years earlier with Cardinal Pacelli. "He said that he opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel, but as a fundamentally wicked person. He did not believe Hitler capable of moderation." The Rev. Gerald P. Fogarty, a professor of religious studies and history at the University of Virginia and an expert in Vatican diplomacy, said, "The documents make clear that from the 30's, Pacelli was opposed to National Socialism," primarily because the Nazis violated the rights of the church. Father Fogarty said that the memorandum to Mr. Kennedy had been in the public domain for nearly 50 years, but that Mr. Gallagher was the first to find a copy that proved it had been sent to the White House. Michael R. Marrus, dean of the graduate school at the University of Toronto, who holds a chair in Holocaust studies, said of the documents, "If there are people out there who still believe, and doubtless there are, that the Vatican was in cahoots with Nazi Germany, then this is a useful finding."On the other hand," he said, "do I think this addresses the issue of the Vatican and the Holocaust? Absolutely not. And these are not trivial matters."

but these things happened 60 years ago, were not there to determine the truth of the articles written, just like the authors of various holy book, it could be altered to their own taste

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#30

03-02-2005, 03:17 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

and where did these laws came from? where did they derived it, and laws can be change, right, i mean, when epople pillage Malacanang when Marcoss flew to Hawaii, no one was conviceted of stealing - so what makes it wrong, if people dont give a damn about it.

Laws come from an inherent need for self preservation and the need to bring order into society, not from religion. The needs of the society precede the birth of the first religion. For example, slavery is now considered morally wrong (it takes away the right of every man to be co-equal with any other by virtue of birth) and yet during old testament times, the God of the bible permitted it, proving that Religion is not the bearer and sustainer of moral law.

Who says that no one was convinced that those people stole from Malacanang? Of course those people who did the stealing knew IT WAS WRONG, they were just taking the opportunity because law enforcers were outnumbered and therfore helpless to stop them. Nevertheless, their doing so didn't mean the law had changed and that stealing was proclaimed legal.

I told you, you could be a good criminal lawyer because you can twist the law with your shrewd but false examples.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#31

03-02-2005, 03:19 PM

Jeff

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: May 2003

Location: In the middle of the night

Posts: 3,638

Quote:

And like what I have said in my reply to your first post, your question is invalid because your assumptions are wrong. You assume that religion can stop evil, you agree now that it can't. You assume that humans are innately evil. Wrong again. Like I said, prove your assumption first.

Again, your just cannot think outside the box. Your thoughts are confined to the box that your religion brought. If you can't prove your assumption that humans are innately evil, try thinking outside the box. Maybe you would see that humans are NOT innately evil as you would like to think, after all.

__________________
Sometimes I tell a lie, but only when it's true

#32

03-02-2005, 03:25 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

And like what I have said in my reply to your first post, your question is invalid because your assumptions are wrong. You assume that religion can stop evil, you agree now that it can't. You assume that humans are innately evil. Wrong again. Like I said, prove your assumption first.

Again, your just cannot think outside the box. You're thinking is confined to the box that your religion brought. If you can't prove your assumption that humans are innately evil, try thinking outside the box. Maybe you would see that humans are NOT innately evil as you would like to think, after all.

thats my assumptions, what maks you think that?

oh my my, Jeff, are you under the impression im a devoted Believer of my religion? well no, im just like Mr. P here, but his in a much higer level of realization and knowledge - im trying to look at his thread -

and yeah, i never said humans a "innately" evil- did i?

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#33

03-02-2005, 03:26 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

but you have to admit, w/o religion, back then and even now... we will be in a much miserable place -

You're wrong my friend.

The existence of religion actually did more harm because of the wars and conflict waged through the ages by religion bearer conquerors--events which made vanquished countries miserable and caused the death of millions of innocent civilians. Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and many more religious wars waged in the name of "God?"

Today, the role of religion has shrinked into ritualistic obedience for the sake of preserving the tradition of the elders. Today, religion has no more influence in the socio-economic upliftment and technological advancement of mankind. The best that religion can do is bring people to church to listen to sermons that make them feel somewhat spiritually refreshed, but beyond that, any man can exist without having a form of religion.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#34

03-02-2005, 03:30 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pythagoras

back in the old civilizations, Religion bring order to the society - ergo, they just copeid it, i mean because now were living in a place where religion become diversify, back in the old days, most japs are Taoist and most Chinese are budhist, and most of their laws are derived from the teachings of their beliefs... US lang naman nagpa uso ng halo halo eh nung napagtanto nila na galing sa ibang bansa yung mga taong nakatira na sa America -

and wrong again, im not twisting anything - all of these are just an example of what happened and how it was taken, were talking about law, Philippines deemed abortion illegal, now you know its wrongs, morally cuz you would be killing something that might be another person 9 months from now - but in countries were abortion i legal, it is no longer morally wrong or lawfully wrong... em i right?

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#35

03-02-2005, 03:36 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

ok, so whats next, we instinctivelt know someone wronged us, what do we do next? whats stopping you to do the same thing?

and yeah, i thought morals and instinct are two different things?

Again we have LAWS to protect our rights when we are wronged and provide ways for us to be compensated. What's stopping us to do wrong is precisely the fact that laws exist to punish offenders. We do not need religion to do the stopping. In fact, people of religion such as priests are all subject to the LAW of the land.

I didn't say morals and instincts are exactly the same. INSTINCT is our way of determining when an action is harmful or not, and MORALS is our interpretation of the degree of harm done which qualifies it as immoral and should be subjected to the framework of Law in order to protect those that are harmed.

Again, your twisting is only sinking you deeper into the hole the way you squirmed your way out of the DRAGON mess and couldn't get yourself to get out of much later.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#36

03-02-2005, 03:36 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pythagoras

You're wrong my friend.

Today, the role of religion has shrinked into ritualistic obedience for the sake of preserving the tradition of the elders. Today, religion has no more influence in the socio-economic upliftment and technological advancement of mankind. The best that religion can do is bring people to church to listen to sermons that make them feel somewhat spiritually refreshed, but beyond that, any man can exist without having a form of religion.

really, can you explain why somehow, society back then seems to be more ok compare to days - i mean, 50 years ago, were much religious, those mas marami yung ok na tao at madaling umintindi - nowadays hindi na kasi nga you mention, wala nang saysay ang relihiyon, your looking at it in your own terms kasi, for all i know your living a comfortable life, lets say na yung isang scavenger na walang relihiyon, whats stoppingn him from stealing something given the chance that he know he could get away from it - nothing - he'll do it anyway... kasi alam nya kailangan nya yun at wala naman masamang mangyayayri sa kanya

Quote:

The existence of religion actually did more harm because of the wars and conflict waged through the ages by religion bearer conquerors--events which made vanquished countries miserable and caused the death of millions of innocent civilians. Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and many more religious wars waged in the name of "God?"

ever manage to read Philippines history were most folks believe in nature as their god - same religion, yet fighting among them have been raged - same with the fightings of Lapulapu and Humabon...humabon nga ba? limot ko na... ensyt talaga ang history -

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#37

03-02-2005, 03:43 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

So what's your point? Does the existence of religion bring about peace and harmony? Was it able to unify mankind under one belief and one God?

Tell me what major contribution has religion brought in today's society? Did you learn about the computer and internet from the bible?

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#38

03-02-2005, 03:48 PM

Pythagoras Pythagoras is offline

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: makati

Posts: 2,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

really, can you explain why somehow, society back then seems to be more ok compare to days

That's because society in those days had no food shortage (large tracts of land to plant and many fish to catch), low population, no traffic and pollution and no politicians with pork barrel. That's why life then seem ok--at least--from simple hand to mouth existence is concerned.

Population, not religion.

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concern should drive us into action and not into depression. No man is free who cannot control himself.

#39

03-02-2005, 03:51 PM

Reaper

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 700

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pythagoras

So what's your point? Does the existence of religion bring about peace and harmony? Was it able to unify mankind under one belief and one God?

thats not the basis of this thread-

we all know that the variety of Religion have its share of blame why millions of poeple have suffered and die thru the years, yet unlike your assumptions - i see having a religion or should i say believing that Humans is not the highest form of knowledge in this planet or in this reality - can help us instill peace among our selves and maybe just maybe, if they could figure it out the futility of comparing religions- we will have peace among others -

Quote:

Tell me what major contribution has religion brought in today's society? Did you learn about the computer and internet from the bible?

would you rather not ask me how much harm did this information highway have contributed to todays society?

__________________

*""*
* "The absolute thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." *

#40

03-02-2005, 03:52 PM

Jeff

Grabeh Baby

Join Date: May 2003

Location: In the middle of the night

Posts: 3,638

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper

yeah, my history book is written i guess by a catholic author -

, in the 1st place, back in those time, do the church really know whats going on in Germany? i mean before the war ends and the concentration camps were discovered?

anyway... will this do?

maybe he try to look his doing nothing to hide the fact is doing sumthing

but these things happened 60 years ago, were not there to determine the truth of the articles written, just like the authors of various holy book, it could be altered to their own taste

Nice. It's like asking a german nazi the history of war. It's certain that his "history" will be different from the rest of the world. Same goes with your church. If you want the true picture, find an unbiased article reaper. But if you don't want to hurt your feelings and your faith, continue reading those articles.

No matter what justification the church can come up with, these are the glaring facts:

1. Hitler was never ex-communicated. If the pope was against hitler, the least he could have done is to ex-communicate him. But hitler died a catholic. Ask yourself why is that.

2. Hitler never intentionally destroyed a catholic church which shows some friendliness of sorts with the church.

And the reason that "the church couldn't have known" is just ridiculous as there were churches present in germany and the rest of europe during the holocaust. Of course they can see what was happening.

3. The pope NEVER denounced the actions of germany during the war when it was needed.

Aren't these facts obvious enough as to the stand of the pope? Actions speak louder than words, reaper. He was clearly, like hitler, anti-jewish too. That's why he condone the acts of hitler.

__________________
Sometimes I tell a lie, but only when it's true

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode