Secret Vatican Library...How can Catholics put up with this?, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 09:27 AM by granpabobby

Originally posted by granpabobby
SOUTH PARK .one episode had an answer to that ST. PETER WAS A RABBIT !!

It was their Easter special..click on South Park full episode find the Easter Special and give it a look FUNNY

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 09:52 AM by something wicked

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by something wicked

Do you think the secret library might have more to say on these subjects as well as the older history of the Church?

I am not sure about Eichmann trying to save anyone from anything, he worked strictly to the "Befehl ist Befehl" regime, and stuck by that at his trial even after the event and the evidence had been put to him in sworn testimony, paper evidence, pictures, and film. All of which is too horrific to contemplate for most people, yet for him he was just following his orders. Eichmann was a brutal Nazi who contributed more to the holocaust than almost anyone else, and he got his just reward when they executed him.

I'm not sure I believe there is a secret library per se, by its definition we don't know that one exists, nor what could be in it.

I'm no apologist for Eichmann or any member of the Nazi regime, trust me, but I do think that stories have grown about Vatican collusion since WW2 that are unsubstantiated. Doesn't mean they aren't correct, but doesn't mean they are either.

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 10:36 AM by KJV1611

reply to post by EricD

Oh come now, just because Alberto Rivera has more documentation, inside information and actually paper work doesn't mean you need to discredit him too

As for Foxes books, every new set of scholars and Catholic funded universities have been trying there best to undermine the basic recorded history that is the Spanish inquisition. His works have yet to be discredited, other than by the powers that be in the education realm....and we all know how much we can trust them.

As for Catholics martyrdom?!?!? There really isn't a comparison between Christian martyrdom vs. catholic. Its like 1 to 100,000 ratio. If that. For proof, the Catholics are commanded to kill there enemies AND non Catholics, whereas Christians are commanded to love there enemies. And please don't act like you don't know what I am talking about. Re read this if you forgot. Slide Show

I do realize a few Protestants did horrible things as well, but they were just as much a cult as catholics are. I on the other hand am not a Protestant, I'm a Baptist.

As for Hislop, the catholic faith has been shown time after time to come from ancient Babylonian religions. This is irrefutable, and is pretty much the meat of Hislop's book.

Charles Chiniquy you can either believe or not. Debate is not needed as his is a first hand account and can not be proved or disproved. As for anti-Catholicism being strong during his time....did you ever stop to think WHY anti-Catholicism was so strong? People don't just hate others for no reason. This goes for racism too.....
Also, being a professional anti-Catholic does not make you rich or popular today or any day. It makes you marked.

Nothing wrong with Jack Chick either, unless of course his tracts got you under conviction.

We are obviously just going to have to agree to disagree on the catholic matter. But I do have history on my side, as well as official catholic literature stating the same things these fore mentioned guys wrote about.

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 11:10 AM by something wicked

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by EricD

Oh come now, just because Alberto Rivera has more documentation, inside information and actually paper work doesn't mean you need to discredit him too

As for Foxes books, every new set of scholars and Catholic funded universities have been trying there best to undermine the basic recorded history that is the Spanish inquisition. His works have yet to be discredited, other than by the powers that be in the education realm....and we all know how much we can trust them.

As for Catholics martyrdom?!?!? There really isn't a comparison between Christian martyrdom vs. catholic. Its like 1 to 100,000 ratio. If that. For proof, the Catholics are commanded to kill there enemies AND non Catholics, whereas Christians are commanded to love there enemies. And please don't act like you don't know what I am talking about. Re read this if you forgot. Slide Show

I do realize a few Protestants did horrible things as well, but they were just as much a cult as catholics are. I on the other hand am not a Protestant, I'm a Baptist.

As for Hislop, the catholic faith has been shown time after time to come from ancient Babylonian religions. This is irrefutable, and is pretty much the meat of Hislop's book.

Charles Chiniquy you can either believe or not. Debate is not needed as his is a first hand account and can not be proved or disproved. As for anti-Catholicism being strong during his time....did you ever stop to think WHY anti-Catholicism was so strong? People don't just hate others for no reason. This goes for racism too.....
Also, being a professional anti-Catholic does not make you rich or popular today or any day. It makes you marked.

Nothing wrong with Jack Chick either, unless of course his tracts got you under conviction.

We are obviously just going to have to agree to disagree on the catholic matter. But I do have history on my side, as well as official catholic literature stating the same things these fore mentioned guys wrote about.

Mmmmmmm, well, where to start. I'm a Catholic although I will say right now that I'm a lapsed one. That isn't in opposition to the faith, I'm just not very good at practicing it.

But before I begin..... " As for anti-Catholicism being strong during his time....did you ever stop to think WHY anti-Catholicism was so strong? People don't just hate others for no reason. This goes for racism too....." You obviously have an issue with Catholics, I'm sure it's what keeps Baptists busy all day, but you seem to be saying racism also has a reason that is valid? You imply that as you link it with why you think people would be against Catholics. Please tell, I'd be interested to know why you think there is a reason to hate someone because of the colour of their skin.

Now, where exactly are Catholics commanded to kill people? I never got that handbook. Facts please from a reputable source, not the kind of crap you are quoting above to satisfy your own bias. I hate to be harsh but if you come out with this nonsense then you have to be able to substantiate.

As for "I do realize a few Protestants did horrible things as well, but they were just as much a cult as catholics are. I on the other hand am not a Protestant, I'm a Baptist." Off the top of my head may I offer up Henry VIII and Elizabeth the first? They had a merry old time slaughtering Catholics. As for Baptists, no disrespect but you're watered down Catholics, founded after most of the big dramas had taken place. The ancestors of Baptism are clearly in the Catholic church (I'll add, that's only my opinion) so you can't really speak too much about what happened prior to the 17th century. Again, no disrespect and I think it's weird how various branches of the same theology feel the need to snipe, but hey, that's life I guess.

What does this have to do with an alleged Vatican library? Wonderful debate and maybe this is why the forum seems so devoid of threads, everything ends up being discussed on the same one!

edit on 27-6-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 11:19 AM by LargeFries

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by LargeFries

LargeFries "In that year, the bank had deposits of $40 billion, and annual profits of $4 million. After an interview with the head of the bank it was noted that "it is unclear how much working capital the bank has beyond its deposits", and that some estimated it as high as $1 billion.

In an interview published in Money Week, Cardinal Edmund C. Szoka, the Vatican's "finance minister", claims that The Vatican's assets are $5 billion. Five Billion Dollars.

I've done more research than you have for your friendly post. Feel free to look up the rest yourself. "

It's a little scary to think that you know how much research I've done on this topic. I'm going to have to wear my aluminum foil hat to block your psychic powers.

Anyway, you are happy to mention the Vatican Bank was making an annual profit of four million dollars at the time of that audit. What you leave out is that from 1970 to 1983 the Vatican apparently was running at a deficit.

There are two main concerns here:

1) You are happy to discuss (either in specific or nebulous terms) the amount of money that the Church has or brings in. What you don't mention is how much the Church spends on hospices, orphanages, salaries, hospices, road work, schools, etc. You quote the Cardinals claim of 5 billion dollars and then repeat the amount for emphasis. That certainly sounds like a lot of money until you realize that the Harvard University in 2008 had 34 billion dollars and Yale had 22.5 billion dollars via endowments. 73 other universities had over a billion dollars each. Harvard has an annual operating budget (as of 2008) of over 3 billion dollars a year. Hopefully that puts these sort of figures into scale.

2) The existence of the statues, paintings and other artwork that you reference actually generate revenue on an annual and continued basis, providing money that can be used for paying for schools, hospitals, salaries, retirement plans, hospices, orphanages, etc.

Eric

Thank you for your reply.

"It's a little scary to think that you know how much research I've done on this topic. I'm going to have to wear my aluminum foil hat to block your psychic powers."

I based my comment on your original friendly post to me. You made no mention of research you have made. I prepared my reply using very little from Google. The few minutes research I did, and shared, was 100% more than you placed in your original post to me.

Now that you claim to be a person who has done much research on the topic at hand, your first friendly post makes even less sense. You might have chosen to enlighten and inform me (and interested others reading the thread) by shedding light upon the matter. You could have shared a tiny bit of the research you mention. You didn't then, and again you didn't now. But you do show some very clever thinking by using a tinfoil hat insult, it's not only highly original it's also incredibly amusing. Certainly no one has done this before. Kudos!

I never claimed to know how much or little research you have done. Your hairline defense mechanism is really not an attractive trait.

People like yourself make others regret sharing their opinions. Forums like these are supposedly here for that very purpose. I try to learn by coming here. Why attack and insult? By putting people on the defensive, by attack and insult, you get the same in return. In future posts to me please try to be civil and informative and I'll do the same for you. If this is beyond your ability I understand, and if so please just ignore my opinions.

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 01:20 PM by gentledissident

This is refreshing watching the religious talk about religious killing and religion being a cult. As an atheist, I'm not allowed to talk about these things. Carry on.

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 01:24 PM by gentledissident

Originally posted by schuyler Anyone can write anything down.

Yes, that is good information for the people who take ANY holy literature as fact.

Originally posted by schuyler Mistrust anyone with a cause

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 03:39 PM by something wicked

Originally posted by gentledissident
This is refreshing watching the religious talk about religious killing and religion being a cult. As an atheist, I'm not allowed to talk about these things. Carry on.

Is that an atheist like Pol Pot perhaps, or Stalin - at least from a public perspective? You're right, can't remember them committing any mass slaughter of their own people, hmmm, now you come to think about it. that would be several million people dead. Does that make that slaughter atheist killings?

In what way would religion not be a cult? At its basest terms the original definition meant a group that practiced rituals so it is by definition a cult, but then to people who think atheists represent a group with common consencus, atheism is also a cult.

Do you have a point on the actual thread?

edit on 27-6-2011 by something wicked because: missed a bit

edit on 27-6-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 03:49 PM by gentledissident

Originally posted by something wicked Do you have a point on the actual thread?

How could an atheist have anything to say about matters that are strictly between religious folk? I'm just enjoying my popcorn.

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 05:42 PM by something wicked

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by something wicked Do you have a point on the actual thread?
How could an atheist have anything to say about matters that are strictly between religious folk? I'm just enjoying my popcorn.

Fair do's, so, happy if you are entertained, sorry that you are not able to contribute anything meaningful. Errrmmmmm, enjoy the popcorn, not quite sure how the thread title made it a closed book to you, but hey, if there's nothing more interesting going on, have fun

On your post though, you don't consider the bloody hands of Pol Pot and Stalin as atheist murders, or is that something perhaps you would rather not discuss?

edit on 27-6-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 06:17 PM by gentledissident

Originally posted by something wicked On your post though, you don't consider the bloody hands of Pol Pot and Stalin as atheist murders, or is that something perhaps you would rather not discuss?

If one would like to say they were murderers because they were atheists, I don't see how one can make the connection. All I'm saying is, it's odd that atheists as a group are sometimes blamed for the ills of the world when atrocities are also committed by people who profess to be different things. I don't know that we can actually know if what they profess to be is really what they are. I'm also saying it's nice for the religious folk to admit atrocities among their ranks.

edit on 27-6-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-6-2011 @ 06:42 PM by Vanais

reply to post by LHP666

Child abuse analogies in a thread about catholicism, well i'll be damned.

reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 09:38 AM by something wicked

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by something wicked On your post though, you don't consider the bloody hands of Pol Pot and Stalin as atheist murders, or is that something perhaps you would rather not discuss?
If one would like to say they were murderers because they were atheists, I don't see how one can make the connection. All I'm saying is, it's odd that atheists as a group are sometimes blamed for the ills of the world when atrocities are also committed by people who profess to be different things. I don't know that we can actually know if what they profess to be is really what they are. I'm also saying it's nice for the religious folk to admit atrocities among their ranks.
edit on 27-6-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

Hmm, I'm not sure where I've seen atheists blamed for all the ills of the world and it's interesting as many atheists insist they are not part of a group or movement based on their atheism... maybe the secret is in the library.

reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 10:36 AM by Rob37n

Aren't politics and religion the same thing? They both demand faith in doctrine and won't accept any other point of view as having value?

Politics replaced religion for the middle classes, and is now used as a weapon against the masses by the elite.

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 12:31 PM by Jordan River

The feeble mindedness of everyone on ats is astounding. Many need to read and understand the different strands of religion during the era of Jesus, including pre and post sects.

Gnostics have numerous beliefs, but many of them decided to leave their material, earthly possesions in order to live a simple life. (Just like the Essenes). The church (I believe) ordered the genocide of this group. The church feared the gnostic group because "they" had a simple/no material/no money lifestyle that threatened the Catholic rich empire. Gnostics were more spiritualy opened to other religions, yet still supporting their own different themes as well.

But how can you blame the Catholic Church for this? They were more concerned of spreading the Gospel (the good news). The only way to do that would to have much money to provide missionaries to spread the word. It was not cheap to spread the church in order to spread the word. The Catholic church is a catch 22

Although, I am not much of a fan of the Neoplatoinsm of Gnostics and the huge Greek influence they have, nevertheless they were spiritually on to something that the church feared. I and yes, Rome is now the Catholic church.

edit on 30-6-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-8-2011 @ 07:44 PM by charlesfrith