Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said, there were many famous and prominent examples of Catholics who opposed the Nazi regime. But you are in a completely different world if you believe that site which calls Ludwig Muller a Catholic. Read his entry on wikipedia:
Biased, we did not take those photographs, we did not write the history did we. Jehovahs witnesses are well known for their honesty, even the Third Reich was forced to admit that. if you dio a search for the book, between resistance and martyrdom, Jehovahs witnesses in the third Reich,
there is the curious account that Himmler states that a witn ...[text shortened]... esorted to underhanded and slanderous behaviour, its only proper that it should be set straight!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Muller
Blessed Titus Brandsma:
Blessed Titus Brandsma (Bolsward, February 23, 1881 – Dachau July 26, 1942) was a Dutch Carmelite priest and professor of philosophy. Brandsma was vehemently opposed to Nazi ideology and spoke out against it many times before the Second World War.
He was arrested in January 1942, when he tried to persuade Dutch Catholic newspapers not to print Nazi propaganda (as was required by law of the Nazi German occupiers). He had also drawn up a Pastoral Letter read in all Catholic parishes, by which the Dutch Roman Catholic bishops officially condemned the German anti-Semitic measures and the deportation of the first Jews. In the Pastoral Letter, the Dutch Bishops also outlined Nazism was incompatible with Catholicism in its core ideology.
After this Pastoral Letter, the first ca. 3,000 Jews to be deported from the Netherlands were all Jewish converts to Roman Catholicism. Brandsma was transferred in February 1942 to the concentration camp Dachau on June 13, after being held prisoner in Scheveningen, Amersfoort, and Cleves. He died on July 26, 1942, by a lethal injection administered by a doctor of the Allgemeine SS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Brandsma
Maximilian Kolbe
During the Second World War he provided shelter to refugees from Greater Poland, including 2,000 Jews whom he hid from Nazi persecution in his friary in Niepokalanów. He was also active as a radio amateur, with Polish call letters SP3RN, vilifying Nazi activities through his reports.
On 17 February 1941 he was arrested by the German Gestapo and imprisoned in the Pawiak prison, and on May 28 he was transferred to Auschwitz as prisoner #16670.
In July 1941 a man from Kolbe's barracks vanished, prompting SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, the deputy camp commander, to pick 10 men from the same barracks to be starved to death in Block 13[9] (notorious for torture), in order to deter further escape attempts[10](the man who had disappeared was later found drowned in the camp latrine). One of the selected men, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out, lamenting his family, and Kolbe volunteered to take his place.
During the time in the cell he led the men in songs and prayer. After three weeks of dehydration and starvation, only Kolbe and three others were still alive. He encouraged others that they would soon be with Mary in heaven. Each time the guards checked on him he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered, while the others lay moaning and complaining, on the ground around him. He was killed with an injection of carbolic acid. Some who were present at the injection say that he raised his left arm and calmly waited for the injection.[11] His remains were cremated on the Assumption of Mary (August, 15).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximillian_Kolbe
Originally posted by Conrau Kits not entirely clear whether he was or was not, he was appointed a bishop of some type of church after some political machinations, as the site claims.
As I said, there were many famous and prominent examples of Catholics who opposed the Nazi regime. But you are in a completely different world if you believe that site which calls Ludwig Muller a Catholic. Read his entry on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Muller
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kthis is all very well Conrau, citing one or two individual does not absolve the church of its role, its better to admit that a gross mistake had been made.
Blessed Titus Brandsma:Blessed Titus Brandsma (Bolsward, February 23, 1881 – Dachau July 26, 1942) was a Dutch Carmelite priest and professor of philosophy. Brandsma was vehemently opposed to Nazi ideology and spoke out against it many times before the Second World War.
He was arrested in January 1942, when he tried to persuade Dutch Catholic on the Assumption of Mary (August, 15).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximillian_Kolbe
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. The site refers to him twice in a caption as 'Reich Catholic Bishop Ludwig Muller'. It is a dumb site.
its not entirely clear whether he was or was not, he was appointed a bishop of some type of church after some political machinations, as the site claims.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. Titus Brandsma succeeded in getting a written condemnation of Nazism in 1941 from the Catholic bishops of the Netherlands. It was as a result of this that he was personally persecuted. His case is clearly not isolated because he had the approval of the whole conference of bishops.
this is all very well Conrau, citing one or two individual does not absolve the church of its role, its better to admit that a gross mistake had been made.
Originally posted by Conrau Kok Conrau, now that the bitching is over, you shall explain this statement for i do not think that you proffered a very clear account the first time. What seems quite apparent to me at this stage, is that there are many contradictions in the work of Origen, and one must be careful, for the text may be used to substantiate a number of differing points of view. here is the statement,
No. The site refers to him twice in a caption as 'Reich Catholic Bishop Ludwig Muller'. It is a dumb site.
"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers and of these Christ was the highest and best
this seems to me, to be a clear indication, that Origen is stating that Christ is a created entity. now you many use other writings to state that he was a trinitarian etc, how then shall you explain this statement?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCreature does not mean 'created entity'. As Origen writes before, he calls Christ power and creature because 'the Word has His own definite place and sphere as one who has life in Himself'. He does however distinguish Christ different from creation, as he writes:
ok Conrau, now that the bitching is over, you shall explain this statement for i do not think that you proffered a very clear account the first time. What seems quite apparent to me at this stage, is that there are many contradictions in the work of Origen, and one must be careful, for the text may be used to substantiate a number of differing point ...[text shortened]... her writings to state that he was a trinitarian etc, how then shall you explain this statement?
For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding
Creation is made ex nihilo (out of nothing); Christ is born ex Deo (from God) and is God. Origen makes the distinction very clear.
6 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ki see its another trinitarian special case,
Creature does not mean 'created entity'. As Origen writes before, he calls Christ power and creature because 'the Word has His own definite place and sphere as one who has life in Himself'. He does however distinguish Christ different from creation, as he writes:
[quote]For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God w ...[text shortened]... hing); Christ is born ex Deo (from God) and is God. Origen makes the distinction very clear.
1:as in first born doesn't really mean first born as to progeny, it does to all other cases , but not to Christ
2:as in begotten does not actually mean begotten as in progeny, it does in all other cases, but changes to 'unoriginated relationship', in the case of Jesus
3:archangels voice doesn't actually mean archangel voice, as it does in all other cases, it means something else with reference to Christ
4:and creature doesn't actually mean created, as it does in all other cases, it just changes when it comes to Christ
tut tut! isnt it just as well one may cite artistic licence! one must marvel at the
creativity of our trinitarian friends, if only they would devote their time to art,
who knows what they might create!
and another contradictory statement from out trinitarian friend , with regard
to the origin of the Christ,
the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,”
and that 'compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.'
umm and i dont know if you noticed but the quotation that you gave clearly states
that there was a time when Christ did not exist, 'so that there once was a time
when He did not exist', the natural consequence of which presupposes a beginning.
you people should learn not to mix Greek philosophy with scripture it does you no good whatsoever!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is your problem? Origen clearly specifies what he means by 'creature' and later repudiates the idea that Christ was created. If you want to continue this discussion, I would like you to actually respond to some of my quotations for a change. Look again,
i see its another trinitarian special case,
1:as in first born doesn't really mean first born as to progeny, it does to all other cases , but not to Christ
2:as in begotten does not actually mean begotten as in progeny, it does in all other cases, but changes to 'unoriginated relationship', in the case of Jesus
3:archangels voice doesn't ac ...[text shortened]... should learn not to mix Greek philosophy with scripture it does you no good whatsoever!
For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding
Origen also wrote:
The Word was not made in the beginning. There was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word. For that reason it is said, "In the beginning was the Word."
1:as in first born doesn't really mean first born as to progeny, it does to all other cases , but not to Christ
As I proved earlier, David is called the firstborn of kings. Obviously this is to be taken metaphorically as an indication of his preeminence above kings.
2:as in begotten does not actually mean begotten as in progeny, it does in all other cases, but changes to 'unoriginated relationship', in the case of Jesus
This is just proof that you do not read my posts. Four times I have denied the expression 'unoriginated relationship' (or rather, 'unoriginated begetting' or whatever). You strain the limits of Christian charity with your total lack of etiquette to bother to read what others write.
3:archangels voice doesn't actually mean archangel voice, as it does in all other cases, it means something else with reference to Christ
As I pointed out: 1. This passage really indicates that an archangel will announce Christ's return (as an angel heralded his incarnation). This has been the normative interpretation until your corrupt organisation came into existence. 2. It can be interpreted metaphorically. A writer can say 'He roared with the voice of a lion' and not commit himself to the idea that a man is a lion.
4:and creature doesn't actually mean created, as it does in all other cases, it just changes when it comes to Christ
It just changes when we critically examine what the author actually meant rather than what you desire it to mean.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ksorry Conrau my son, you and Origen are making no sense whatsoever, he is full of contradictions, you are trying your very best to accommodate his contradictions, and at every turn there is something new that needs to be explained, its no wonder he contributed to much dissension and was eventually termed heretic.
What is your problem? Origen clearly specifies what he means by 'creature' and later repudiates the idea that Christ was created. If you want to continue this discussion, I would like you to actually respond to some of my quotations for a change. Look again,
[quote]For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was co y examine what the author actually meant rather than what you desire it to mean.
i do not like your proposed explanations, they are full of guile and one must ignore many simple truths of Gods words to accommodate them, therefore if you dont mind i would rather stick to my simple and easily understood assertions, they make sense to me and are unencumbered by rhetoric and arguments over meanings of terms.
This is in no way a reflection on you or your beliefs although clearly there is an attempt to superimpose exegesis upon scripture when the text is ambiguous and the language may be exploited.
oh we may add that having a beginning doesn't actually mean having a beginning, as to chronology, it means something else, although what, i am not really sure.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry if I missed your answer to this posting, carrobie, I cannot find it anywhere. Perhaprs I should mail a feedback to the RHP staff and tell them that some of the posings are lost, and this is an example of it.
As you know, the different interpretation of a specific fossil finding does not pose a threat to the evolution theory as a whole. Evolution theory is not completed in any way, our understanding is growing better and better, that's scientific methods, that's science.
Creationism as a complete theory cannot be shown scientifically, therefore the theory o ...[text shortened]... ee with me that the bible is interpretable? Don't avoid the question. I don't avoid yours.
I'm sure you don't use avoidance as a retorical trick, because I've cought you on that so many times before, and it would be embarrasing for you if you did it again.
Perhaps I cannot find your answer because you didn't deliver one, only because you totally agree what I write. Then, congratiolatins, you've learnt some new things! Hopefully you remember the new knowledge in futuer..
Originally posted by FabianFnasno one is saying that creationism can be proven, all we are saying is that it is plausible, the same as you cannot prove the theory of evolution, all you can state is that it is plausible. Thus one may take an aspect of science, the natural laws and make assertions based on the laws, it proves nothing, but simply provides a plausibility. If you think that creationism goes further than that, then you are mistaken.
As you know, the different interpretation of a specific fossil finding does not pose a threat to the evolution theory as a whole. Evolution theory is not completed in any way, our understanding is growing better and better, that's scientific methods, that's science.
Creationism as a complete theory cannot be shown scientifically, therefore the theory o ...[text shortened]... ee with me that the bible is interpretable? Don't avoid the question. I don't avoid yours.
I dont know what Galvo was meaning, therefore i am not at liberty to comment upon his text.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you see, if you are loose in the definition of plausibility, everything can be plausible, even that the moon is made of green cheese. Or that the Universe does not exist. Or the opposite, nothing is plausible, because we cannot prove anything with 100.0% certitude. But this is not how we normally use the word 'plausible'.
no one is saying that creationism can be proven, all we are saying is that it is plausible, the same as you cannot prove the theory of evolution, all you can state is that it is plausible. Thus one may take an aspect of science, the natural laws and make assertions based on the laws, it proves nothing, but simply provides a plausibility. If you thi ...[text shortened]...
I dont know what Galvo was meaning, therefore i am not at liberty to comment upon his text.
If one theory is supported by observations, then it is more plausible than another theory that cannot be supported by observations, right?
The creationism theory cannot be supported by obsevations because noone was there when the creation took place. The theory is not complete, because it doesn't explain everything. The theory is fixed, because the only source about the creation is the bible itself, and that cannot be changed. The creationism theory cannot go outside the text in the scripture, if so it's not more than hypothesis, nothing more.
The evolution theory, on the other hand can very easy be observed by the ongoing evolution. (The HIV-virus is a perfect example, and there are plenty of them.) The evolution theory is not fixed, but a dynamic theory as we learn more about evolution every year and day, and the knowledge is getting deeper and broader as new technology and techinques are developed. The mithocondrical DNA is showing the relateness between species, and is used also as a evolutionary clock, ticking and ticking as time goes by.
This makes the theory of creationism a religious theory, it cannot be scientific. No scientific research is going in creationism theory. When any creational result is published in Science, then we can have another discussion.
You believe in intelligent design, and a devine creation, fine, I don't have any problems with that. But when you say that evolution theory is not science, and creation theroy is, then I have to object. You can have your religion, I don't mind. But please, don't call it science.
You don't know what Galveston is meaning, but still you see him as you are of the same spirit as galvestone. Strange...
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnaswrong there is no plausible evidence of one form of life mutating into another, what you are observing and describing is variation with a species, that is not Darwinian evolutionary theory as you are very well aware.
But you see, if you are loose in the definition of plausibility, everything can be plausible, even that the moon is made of green cheese. Or that the Universe does not exist. Or the opposite, nothing is plausible, because we cannot prove anything with 100.0% certitude. But this is not how we normally use the word 'plausible'.
If one theory is supported s meaning, but still you see him as you are of the same spirit as galvestone. Strange...
All these other assertions can equally be applied to evolutionary theory and a completely materialistic view of the emergence of life, no one was there to see lightning arc through a primitive atmosphere and from amino acids which managed to organise themselves into the basic building blocks of life, thus what it really comes down to is, what is more plausible for you. For me personally it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that life originated by a purely chance occurrence from non intelligent sources than it does to believe in a beneficent creator.