Inquisition

[White Knight]

[b]LittleLes:[/b] Your asking whos more responsible for the Holocost, Hilter who gave the Order, or those who acted on the order. thats extactly what your saying.


The Answer to that is there both Equally guilty. The Nazi Party was an evil saddest party, which was lead by Hilter. Hilter was not a Christian, Not even close, and thats Low, calling him that.

Edited August 28, 2005 by White Knight

[Quietfire]

Littleles,
Let me make myself perfectly clear to you, just so you understand me perfectly.

I am not recieved in the Catholic Church.
I have never received communion, nor attended any RCIA classes. Never went to confession.

So what is this 'belief system' you keep claiming that I belong to?
Oh, yeah. that whole "either-or-fallacy" thing you like to throw at people when they dont agree with YOU.

The moment there is a view that doesnt agree with you, your first tantrum response is "Gee, you seem to suffer from the either or fallacy" or "dont fall into the either or fallacy".
But since that is getting played and quite honestly, bull. Your new way of intro-ing it is a new label: the "belief system" line of thinking which is of course...the either of fallacy.


Unless you can honestly contribute something worthwhile to this discussion, as opposed to just being disruptive, then please go away.

I did say please.

Pax

[Paladin D]

Nevermind, I got confused.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Paladin D

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Aug 28 2005, 02:00 PM']My belief system, as you call it, have nothing to do with this.

Hitler may have "remained with the church although he had no 'real attachment' "means that he is not a Catholic.

Sorry, you just dont understand.
Hes apostate.
[right][snapback]702790[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not at all. I think statistics bear out that in the United States and many European countries (France for example), the majority of Catholics fit this definition. But they are not apostates which would involve a renunciation of the catholic faith.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 28 2005, 02:07 PM']It's usually not the fault of the text, it's the interpretation.  You and I could read something, and it's possible that we could come to different conclusions.
[right][snapback]702797[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not if we interpret using the plain meaning of words and not an interpretation dictated by a belief system.

But ae you seriously claiming that the Hammer of Witches and the Papal Bull directing the Inquisition in Germany really didn't mean what they plainly said?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 28 2005, 02:18 PM'][b]LittleLes:[/b] Your asking whos more responsible for the Holocost, Hilter who gave the Order, or those who acted on the order. thats extactly what your saying.
The Answer to that is there both Equally guilty. The Nazi Party was an evil saddest party, which was lead by Hilter. Hilter was not a Christian,  Not even close, and thats Low, calling him that.
[right][snapback]702802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I agree that both are equally guilty. But I disagree that Hitler was not a Christian. The Nazi movement had strong Christian roots. So do today's neoNazi movements.

From theJewish Anti-Defamation League website there is this:

"Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve. Its virulent racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments. Despite its small size, Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements. It has also informed criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism."

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Aug 28 2005, 02:28 PM']Littleles,
Let me make myself perfectly clear to you, just so you understand me perfectly.

I am not recieved in the Catholic Church.
I have never received communion, nor attended any RCIA classes.  Never went to confession.

[/quote]


RESPONSE:

But are you Christian of any denomination?

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Quietfire attempts,

Unless you can honestly contribute something worthwhile to this discussion, as opposed to just being disruptive, then please go away.

I did say please.

Pax

RESPONSE:

How about if I continue to contribute the facts of history with appropirate documentation as I have been?

Sort of to balance out the assertions made without evidence that we've been reading?

Will that do?

LittleLes

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 28 2005, 05:06 PM']RESPONSE:

How about if I continue to contribute the facts of history with appropirate documentation as I have been?

Sort of to balance out the assertions made without evidence that we've been reading?

Will that do?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]702909[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Putting a spin to your interpretation of history, is not constructive. You provide documentation, but you're only choosing bits and pieces, taking it out of context, and therefore making your own version. Take the following example:

[i]"90% of all tornadoes happen in the United States, meaning that the remaining 10% occur in other parts of the world. An average of 800-1200 tornadoes happen each year in the country."[/i]


Let's say someone finds this on the internet, takes pieces of it, and presents them in a different fashion:

[i]"10% of the 800-1200 tornadoes, happen around the world."[/i]


That isn't accurate, compared to the example above (which is the correct one). Just watch political debates, politicans look for anything so they can twist the meaning of their opponents words. It's not a suprise that you're doing the samething with Church writings and history.



Or better yet, I'll use your own post for another example:

[quote][b](My edition)[/b]
"... if I continue the assertions..."   "... made without evidence that we've been reading... "   "Will that do?"  -  Littleles [/quote]


Then I could point and say [b]"Littleles clearly believed he had no evidence."[/b] Then I would have others say to me [b]"That's not true, he had evidence!"[/b], but I would brush them away proclaiming [b]"I base my claim on established facts, you're only told to believe their version of history."[/b]



See? It ain't that hard.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Paladin D

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 28 2005, 01:55 PM']RESPONSE:

If they are significan quotes, I am quoting whom they are from. I'm sorry if the facts of history clash with your belief system, but lets not engage in apologetic's "lets pretend."

And Hitler was, and remained Catholic.

"He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide."  (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)
Please note the reference.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]702782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Adolf Hitler was as much a "Catholic" as LittleLes is.

Sorry, unless you follow the Catholic "belief system," you're not Catholic.

While both Hitler and LittleLes may have been baptized Catholics as babies, both thoroughly rejected the teachings of their Faith.

[LittleLes]

Putting a spin to your interpretation of history, is not constructive. You provide documentation, but you're only choosing bits and pieces, taking it out of context, and therefore making your own version

RESPONSE:

I would hardly call citing Pope Innocent VIII's Bull Summis desiderantis or the writings of the inquisators' Malleus maleficarum attesting to one of the biggest bloodbaths in history "spinning an interpretation of history."

I'd characterize it as quoting the facts of history.

And if you'd like further reading on the same subject, there's always the Medieval Sourcebook , Witchcraft Documents, 15th Century.

Its prepared by the Fordham University history staff.

But you know how those Catholic university folks put their spin on history, taking it out of context, and making up their own version

Intriguing how some can't accept major Catholic Church errors no matter how common knowledge they may be and even admitted (reluctantly) by Catholic sources.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 28 2005, 07:27 PM']Adolf Hitler was as much a "Catholic" as LittleLes is.

Sorry, unless you follow the Catholic "belief system," you're not Catholic.

While both Hitler and LittleLes may have been baptized Catholics as babies, both thoroughly rejected the teachings of their Faith.
[right][snapback]703077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. I reject the obvious errors in Catholic teaching and the policies and practices these inevitably lead to. Like inquisitions.

[Mikhail]

This debate has completely degraded and has become impossible even to read.

When I say people from both sides, I'm talking about historians. Read what people who are obviously trying to put down the Inquisition say, and the people who are trying to defend it. Also, I don't know what you are talking about. The Inquisition did exist in the time of Protestant England.

[Winchester]

Little les,

I find your response surprisingly moderate. I find the quote amusing. Nine million is not close to a credible number, though some proffer it, it's not an actual estimate that any sane or educated person uses.

I find the mention of witchcraft funny, since most trials were over heretical issues. Many regarded witches as delusional persons, not actual heretics. I believe Aquinas dismissed out of hand the claims of those who reported riding broomsticks and mating with the Devil, which were commonely accepted in non-Catholic inquisitions such as carried on in Germany. Most trials resulted in little or no punishment, and the court system was extremely lenient. Only the most hardened were turned over to the state for execution. Obviously, this means the courts played a role in the deaths of those executed by the state for what was seen as treason. The punishment for treason is still death in many countries, it is merely the definition of treason that has changed.

I've read plenty from Catholic sources. I noted no "reluctant" language. If you will, please shuck the editorializing and patronizing language, it doesn't become you.

Yes, Hitler was baptized. Your point? He also dabbled in the occult, and many Nazis worshipped Norse gods. This is lost on today's neo-nazis, perhaps.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 28 2005, 07:59 PM']This debate has completely degraded and has become impossible even to read.

When I say people from both sides, I'm talking about historians. Read what people who are obviously trying to put down the Inquisition say, and the people who are trying to defend it. Also, I don't know what you are talking about. The Inquisition did exist in the time of Protestant England.
[right][snapback]703100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Unless they are of the mindset that would also deny the occurrence of the Holocaust, reality-oriented historians will not try to deny the occurrence of Inquisition, especially that conducted against the midwives of German in the 15th century. There are just too many historical writings by those involved attesting to its reality, some of which I have cited.

Pretending that there are two different versions is similar to arguing that there are really two versions about the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi. History is pretty clear on what happened there also.

LittleLes