As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Back on topic, I have recently been thinking about the destruction of the ancient Alexandria and its library.
Printable View
As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Back on topic, I have recently been thinking about the destruction of the ancient Alexandria and its library.
Not to start a religious war, because that's backroom material, for one, and I've no wish to offend you personally, for two, but; The Catholic religion has man's hands all over it. The meaning and character of the church has changed over the centuries, always in reaction to world events, and the bible itself was voted upon from candidate material. There were books placed within, and books left out, and some were altered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I also don't think this God fellow is wishy-washy about things, and the Catholic church has waffled in it's positions and tone since it's inception, over time. It is at least partially man-made, if not totally. Otherwise the Pope would have nothing to do, and Catholic law and dogma would never change with the times.
If God's word is the basis of the Catholic church, God has no reason to change it. Man, however, does.
Because this may spawn a debate which is inappropriate for this subforum, I wish to make it clear I am not attacking you personally, Bopa, and that I'd be delighted to debate you, if you wanted to, elsewhere. But for now, I'm limiting my objection to a simple comment.
well, I guess I'll add:
I am divided between 3 tragedies:
1-unnatural death (i.e not from old age or related health complications)
2-extremism of any sort: be it religious, moral, political, ideological, etc.
3-when idiots judge others according to their standards, rather than the standards of the time, place, culture and circumstances of who they are judging. this is tied in to #2, and also because, in order to truely understand something, one must look into the mindset and times in which something happened. the EB logo is more than a pretty label-and we were created(/evolved) as tribes and peoples to know one another, not insult and provoke one another.
The break up of the Ottoman Empire following WWI.
It's been described as "the peace to end all peace."
Religion, when you look at it, it's so bloody.
then again, so is well...practically everything man has come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by coalition
actually, the biggest tragedy regarding religion is not that it exists, but that it can lead to a similar situation to this, if one throws out the spirit and goes only for the shell (i.e fundamentalism):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUx...e=channel_page
note that I am not trying to start a flame war, or backroom material. its just an extreme manifestation of religious fundamentalism/effects, with a humourous twist (note: there is only a voice, a camera, and a sprinkler, to give you an idea).
religion is fine.
Blind, unrelenting faith in anything, ignoring reason and evidence, and acting on it, is intentional ignorance of reality. Faith is destructive.
It is the greatest of human tragedies.
why would extremism and ideologism be that bad?
Humans died before, still die now and will die for as long as we exist.
The greatest tragedy of all time is the evolution to mankind.
Even to itself ; mankind destroys all the rest and even itself.
a last word about ww2 : Its not the one who is right or just that will win the war, but the one who won the war will always be the just one.
meaning : Auschwitz eo , if it even excisted as they say , is seen far more worse than the USSR gulags who inflictid MUCH more casualties (seen in numbers ).
another thing i read : so people understand that america is interfering in the rest of the world , but not that Germany wanted an important port, which was theirs before ww1 btw, back.
And about the jews : Poland at that time was more antisemitic than Germany. So Britain and France started the war cuz Germany attacked a more racist country? What makes them that.
(srr got carried away :embarassed: )
1. How do you define extremism? :shrug: if it is extreme, doesn't that make it inherently unbalanced? If something is unbalanced, unfair, intolerant, and extreme, it is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDruid
2. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad, but intolerance of opposing ideologies, vis-a-vis violence and persecution, is wrong. I oppose Scientology, but I wouldn't harm or threaten anyone who is a Scientologist. That's part of being tolerant, and that is the only way civilization exists at all; lack of tolerance reverts humanity back to barbarism.
3. Humans die, but death by murder and war is inherently different from a peaceful, natural death. Otherwise you believe murder is not wrong.
4. The greatest tragedy is "the evolution to mankind"? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean evolving into homo sapiens? If that means you believe all human beings are inherently wrong, then you are a misanthrope by definition. What that means is you hate humanity itself. That's quite a charge and I don't toss it around lightly. Can you explain what you mean? Do you find anything redeeming about humanity, and if not, why would bad things that happen to us be a tragedy?
5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?
6. You deny that Auschwitz existed as "they" say? By that I mean, the billions of people who believe the holocaust existed and there's more proof that it existed than perhaps any other phenomenon in human history.
7. How would you know which had "much more casualties" unless you admit that the holocaust happened and you believe the evidence and the data which suggests a certain number of people died? What if you were right about the numbers... you'd have to admit that the holocaust happened as "they" say.
8. I didn't know that Poland came up with the idea of mass exterminations and carried them out. I was taught, and shown mountains of evidence, that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. But if you have evidence that Poland was actually more antisemitic and killed more jewish people, I'd like to see it. Clearly we need to prosecute Poland for war crimes.
I strongly disagree with everything you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
finally a discussion with you :)
1. you may be right
2. no response either
3. murder is ok with me in some instances. In belgium recently we had a nutcase starting to kill children : for me one off the greatest 'sins". so dont blindly think i agree with all murderers.
4. Dunno how its called, but thats exactly what i mean. Humanity kills everything, including humans.
its makes sure other species extinct.
5. Yep. Nazism brought alot of Great things to the world , before they burnt half the world down offcourse. Even during the war they found great cures against diseases.
going to point 4 too : Its normal they test new drugs on animals, but testing them on enemies of your nation and people would be wrong?
6. Pretty sure i saw things really getting me to doubt that jews were gassed. I believe Hitler wasnt a liar. Not arguing that they died out of hunger offcourse. But AH said something like if there wasnt enough food, Germans would get the most. which is much more understandable.
7. As said, not discussing if holocaust existed or not. better make a new topic bout that. Just : it is said 6 million jews died in con.kamps. numbers i heard and saw said 10 times that amount of people died in USSR to sortlike things.
8.Not saying that Poland killed more :) they didnt have the chance. Nazism btw is not invented by Hitler btw. So you defend poland whilst agreeing that they probably hated the jews more?
srr was in a hurry :D
grtz
They weren't much worse. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by ATPG
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDruid
Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
This debate is over, and I'm unsubscribing to this thread. The torture and forced medical experimentation on the "enemies" of a "nation" was an offense to all mankind, and I won't discuss anything with anyone who supports it, no offense. But I am offended by pro-Nazi, pro-torture, holocaust deniers.
Have fun.
And we imprisoned citizens, massacred Japanese and ran openly racist war films. We firebombed Dresden and use teh nook to impress teh Soviets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
War is very gray. The Allies get a pass on many a warcrime. Not that I care mind you. Hitler could not be tolerated for the simple fact a strong Germany has always upset the Russians and British/Americans. He would've been a threat to hegemony. /Devils adovacate
As for my official position. I side with General Patton. Ground the hun into dust, destroy the japs and then on to Moscow to finish the job.
Although one can easily find bad stuff happening in the democracies during WW2, I'd say the fundamental elements of aggressive expansion (Lebensraum etc) dictatorship and political/racial persecution meant one hell of a difference between the two political systems.
I do think this thread has outlived its purpose though. Unless someone can give me a good reason to open it again this thread will remain closed.
CBR