• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Research on Belief in God

Page 34 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Echoes said:
Fascism was not conservative. Pius XI was a strong anti-Nazi, just like his successor, despite some hesitation due to the Communist threat and as I've been saying all the time, Pétain had the WHOLE left at his feet, while the traditional Catholics either joined the Resistance or joined General de Gaulle in London !



In France !


So do I when I read your posts or Eshnar's or Horsinabout's


Otto of Habsburg was the head of the PanEuropean Union. Nothing to do with his attitude during the war.

Fascism wasn't conservative? Then what was it? You are obviously living in a world without regret.

PS. I noticed that you didn't answer my question, like Scott once upon a time in the US politics thread.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
aphronesis said:
True. Nor were modern slavery, human trafficking, the Shoah, communist purges, etc.

The horrors throughout history are legion. There's no end to it, Fallujah is perhaps the greatest horror story of all time. A horror with, essentially, no end - ever. We're getting better at it.

(btw, Rome fell but the pontifex maximus remains);)

Regarding this back and forth about the Roman Catholic Church and Nazis and the rest:
Ratlines (World War II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)

Ustaše
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustaše

...and more recently...@45:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etbEQcA7jUA

One really only has to have a cursory glance at Papal Bulls from the 13th-15th century to understand the true megalomania of this institution. rhuborama has touched on this already and he could provide much more depth on the matter than I'm capable of but it's plainly written for anyone to see.

ps, I'd really love to see what's in the RCC libraries concerning ancient texts from the old and new worlds. One day perhaps...
 
Yeah it seems that atheists are so well informed about history that their only source is Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

I've already said on this thread that the ratlines have nothing to do with the Vatican. It's a handful of priests acting without their support but who had ties with OSS, and who feared the Communists. Hudal criticized Pius XII policy as being too tolerant towards the Bolsheviks (in his opinion), okay?

Sévillia showed it very convingly again. His source being David Alvarez and Robert Graham.

Why should the Vatican help defeated Nazis while they fought them for 13 years ??? :rolleyes:

Fascism isn't conservative, which means it was progressive. Of course they became more social in the thirties after the 1929 crisis but in the 1920's it was liberalism at its finest.

Oh and the Fascist army is based on conscription, which is highly un-Catholic...
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
Echoes said:
Yeah it seems that atheists are so well informed about history that their only source is Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

I've already said on this thread that the ratlines have nothing to do with the Vatican. It's a handful of priests acting without their support but who had ties with OSS, and who feared the Communists. Hudal criticized Pius XII policy as being too tolerant towards the Bolsheviks (in his opinion), okay?

Sévillia showed it very convingly again. His source being David Alvarez and Robert Graham.

Why should the Vatican help defeated Nazis while they fought them for 13 years ??? :rolleyes:

Fascism isn't conservative, which means it was progressive. Of course they became more social in the thirties after the 1929 crisis but in the 1920's it was liberalism at its finest.

Oh and the Fascist army is based on conscription, which is highly un-Catholic...

I don't count myself an atheist, I'm not blind to temporal power when it's standing naked and raw before me either.

wiki. is a good enough start for discussing the blatantly obvious in the face of such inane obfuscations.

I suppose Fascism is progressive in relating the myth of progress.:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty
The agreements included a political treaty which created the state of the Vatican City and guaranteed full and independent sovereignty to the Holy See. The Pope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically requested by all parties. In the first article of the treaty, Italy reaffirmed the principle established in the 4 March 1848 Statute of the Kingdom of Italy, that "the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion is the only religion of the State".[16] The attached financial agreement was accepted as settlement of all the claims of the Holy See against Italy arising from the loss of temporal power in 1870

What great progress...:rolleyes:

This all bores the $hit out of me so I'll bid y'all happy travels.

Chris Hedges at Moravian College: The Myth of Human Progress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNT3_qugjZU
Interview with Chris Busby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f8TneJ_pJo

"we're f*cked" yup
 
Even though, if religion was any good to mankind, i don't think atheists or anti-theists would start believing. At least, that is not the way i see it. I, for instance, do not believe because it is pathetic. As simple as that. My disbelief is not influenced by whether religion contributes to pain and suffering or not (which by the way, i think it does).

I don't believe in god(s) the same way i don't believe in the modern figure of Nikolaos the Wonderworker.

Religions, just like Coca-Cola's modern father christmas, are product of fertile imaginations.

Most religions have an arrogant view on the world from a human-only perspective. The human being is everything. I find it deeply irritating, because that usually leads to the witnessed physical abuse on other species.
 
BigMac said:
Even though, if religion was any good to mankind, i don't think atheists or anti-theists would start believing. At least, that is not the way i see it. I, for instance, do not believe because it is pathetic. As simple as that. My disbelief is not influenced by whether religion contributes to pain and suffering or not (which by the way, i think it does).

I don't believe in god(s) the same way i don't believe in the modern figure of Nikolaos the Wonderworker.

Religions, just like Coca-Cola's modern father christmas, are product of fertile imaginations.

Most religions have an arrogant view on the world from a human-only perspective. The human being is everything. I find it deeply irritating, because that usually leads to the witnessed physical abuse on other species.

And now, slightly offtopic. Since the invention of the concept of rational being, humans brag about civilization, and what separates us from the rest of the fauna... What about vegetarianism? Shouldn't we, following the concept of rational, be a vegetarian? What is it that separates us from animals, when we mass kill almost every conscient being?

I am sorry if this last topic shouldn't be discussed here.
better not diverging too much. Feel free to open a thread about it, if there isn't one already.
 
hrotha said:
Nazism wasn't socially conservative.

Oh, right, it was socially progressive. At any rate I was really just refering to the right-wing nature of fascism as distingìuishable from the left-wing nature of other socialisms not based intrinsically on nationalism and other extremist (in many ways highly conservative) viewpoints.
 
RetroActive said:
I don't count myself an atheist, I'm not blind to temporal power when it's standing naked and raw before me either.

wiki. is a good enough start for discussing the blatantly obvious in the face of such inane obfuscations.

I suppose Fascism is progressive in relating the myth of progress.:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1365086&postcount=546

Mussolini was an atheist like all Fascists are but took power in a country which was predominantly Christian, which means he had to deal with the Church. If he was to get back, he wouldn't need any Lateran Treaty (that is what happening with our good ole EU). Listen to what Gabriele Adinolfi has to say about religion and you'll see what Fascists think about it.

Besides, please stop referring to Wiki ! :p

RetroActive said:
Chris Hedges at Moravian College: The Myth of Human Progress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNT3_qugjZU
Interview with Chris Busby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f8TneJ_pJo

"we're f*cked" yup

I know it's a myth. Why are you trying to convince me of something I'm already convinced of, lol? But could be interesting to watch, though.
 
Echoes said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1365086&postcount=546

Mussolini was an atheist like all Fascists are but took power in a country which was predominantly Christian, which means he had to deal with the Church. If he was to get back, he wouldn't need any Lateran Treaty (that is what happening with our good ole EU). Listen to what Gabriele Adinolfi has to say about religion and you'll see what Fascists think about it.

Besides, please stop referring to Wiki ! :p



I know it's a myth. Why are you trying to convince me of something I'm already convinced of, lol? But could be interesting to watch, though.

All fascist were atheists? In fact fascism, among many Italian Catholics, became a religione-civile. A flock needs a shepherd.

Mussolini_Papa_Re.JPG
 
Feb 20, 2013
103
0
0
Visit site
I don’t believe in God, if you do or don’t it does not concern me in anyway - everyone is entitled to their own belief.

I will never try to make you understand that god doesn’t exist or tell you that you are wrong... as true believers will not be swayed until they get it themselves. It's like smokers or alcoholics, you need to want to and be open to the argument.
If you’re a Wee Free'er from the Islands round Scotland or that particular brand of American maniac against free speech and choice and pro creation (hehe) in America you will not be swayed by anything I say.

But I abhor religion, all and any variety of organised religion... it is toxic...

Saying all that the new pope seems to be talking sense from his Golden pulpit!! Lets see him giving away their assets.... bail out a couple of countries, I have no issues with them starting with Italy, then South America & all those catholic countries with indescribable poverty.

But of course Jesus provided them with a get out from having to do that... John 12:8 "there will be poor among you always..." (The quotes are facetious ;))
 
The Hitch said:
If echoes had any knowledge of history, which he clearly does not, he would know that the founder and the leader of the Slovak Fascist Party in the 1930's, which allied itself with Hitler, were 2 Catholic priests.
He'd also know that Spain's brand of fascism incoporated what was called National Catholicism (although, to be fair, not ALL factions of Spanish fascism were for it).
 
rhubroma said:
All fascist were atheists? In fact fascism, among many Italian Catholics, became a religione-civile. A flock needs a shepherd.

The shepherd was an atheist. That is what matters !

hrotha said:
He'd also know that Spain's brand of fascism incoporated what was called National Catholicism (although, to be fair, not ALL factions of Spanish fascism were for it).

Would you please stop uttering bull****. Franco was not a Fascist and neither were the Phalangists. Spanish Fascists were anti-Catholic.

But since you explain to us that Christians condoned slavery, I guess you aren't a worthy interlocutor...
 
Echoes said:
The shepherd was an atheist. That is what matters !

To you. Evidently one can indeed serve two masters.

PS: You then go on to assert that Franco wasn't a fascist (even if his dictatorship was approved by Hitler), though Hemingway would disagree. At any rate you then go on to claim that Spanish fascists were anti-Catholic, though as with the case of Mussolini and Italian fascism, this does not exclude that many Catholics were Fascist. Indeed most in these countries were willingly complicit. For this reason Hothra's is a cogent remark.
 
Echoes said:
Would you please stop uttering bull****. Franco was not a Fascist and neither were the Phalangists. Spanish Fascists were anti-Catholic.
Francoism was fascist until it was obvious the Axis was going to lose the war, basically.

The Falange wasn't Catholic? BS.
http://www.filosofia.org/his/h1933a1.htm
The Catholic interpretation of life is, first of all, the true one, but it is also historically the Spanish one.
Any rebuilding of Spain must therefore have a Catholic sense.
This means that the new state draws inspiration from Spain's traditional Catholic spirit and will reach an agreement with the Church on the attentions and support that are due to it.
How's that for starters.
But since you explain to us that Christians condoned slavery, I guess you aren't a worthy interlocutor...
Well, it did, whether you like it or not. It's a historical fact.
 
rhubroma said:

To history and to all the victims of his regime. If he weren't an atheist, he wouldn't have invaded Ethiopia.

The World is led by elites. I repeat you constant judging the common man shows how much of an elitist you are. You sound like Bernard-Henri Levy. He also constantly judges people.

rhubroma said:
Evidently one can indeed serve two masters.

A Christian cannot.


rhubroma said:
PS: You then go on to assert that Franco wasn't a fascist (even if his dictatorship was approved by Hitler),

Not even the end of your sentence and already three errors.

1) Franco was not a Fascist
2) Hitler was not a Fascist
3) A regime that is approved by a foreign leader doesn't necessarily equated that of the foreign leader. Otherwise Saudi Arabia is a democracy right now.

1) Dozens of political analysts studied Franco's regime and came to the same conclusion: Javier Tusell, Stanley Payne, Manuel Perez Ledesma, Edward Malefakis, Virginie Philippe, ... Franco's regime was not a totalitarian state, there were different power centres (which he manipulated; "divide and conquer"), he didn't mobilize his people, did not wish to create a "New Order", etc. It was a classic dictatorship like there have been thousands in history but not a Fascist one.
2) Fascism is well-defined, the movement initiated by Mussolini in the 1920's. The doctrine of race superiority is not fascist.
3) Hitler like every political leader knew how to make pragmatic agreement with regime that was not the same as his. That's called 'realpolitik'.

Besides Hemingway is not a reference, I guess.

The Falange wasn't Catholic? BS.

I did not say that !

Well, it did, whether you like it or not. It's a historical fact.

If by historical fact, you mean invention from your own mind, then it's a historical fact.
 
Echoes said:
To history and to all the victims of his regime. If he weren't an atheist, he wouldn't have invaded Ethiopia.

The World is led by elites. I repeat you constant judging the common man shows how much of an elitist you are. You sound like Bernard-Henri Levy. He also constantly judges people.



A Christian cannot.




Not even the end of your sentence and already three errors.

1) Franco was not a Fascist
2) Hitler was not a Fascist
3) A regime that is approved by a foreign leader doesn't necessarily equated that of the foreign leader. Otherwise Saudi Arabia is a democracy right now.

1) Dozens of political analysts studied Franco's regime and came to the same conclusion: Javier Tusell, Stanley Payne, Manuel Perez Ledesma, Edward Malefakis, Virginie Philippe, ... Franco's regime was not a totalitarian state, there were different power centres (which he manipulated; "divide and conquer"), he didn't mobilize his people, did not wish to create a "New Order", etc. It was a classic dictatorship like there have been thousands in history but not a Fascist one.
2) Fascism is well-defined, the movement initiated by Mussolini in the 1920's. The doctrine of race superiority is not fascist.
3) Hitler like every political leader knew how to make pragmatic agreement with regime that was not the same as his. That's called 'realpolitik'.

Besides Hemingway is not a reference, I guess.



I did not say that !



If by historical fact, you mean invention from your own mind, then it's a historical fact.

Sorry Echoes, the Catholic forerunners of my established mate were fascists. Hitler took inspiration from Mussolini and that is that, finally, if Italy were not to have invaded Ethiopia was it because of Queen Sheba? Though it did, with full Catholic support let me asure you. Capito?
 
rhubroma said:
Sorry Echoes, the Catholic forerunners of my established mate were fascists. Hitler took inspiration from Mussolini and that is that, finally, if Italy were not to have invaded Ethiopia was it because of Queen Sheba? Though it did, with full Catholic support let me asure you. Capito?

Post Scriptum: Hitler was a fascist, though in a germanic way. National Socialism is fascist from the start.