Pope Benedict XVI

[Sheriff Lytton]

Are there any strong connections with Ratz and a Nazi past? All I've seen is a few Brit headlines, but I haven't read the articles, and I don't really know which Brit-tabs are worth the paper they're printed on.

The only connection is that as a young Bavarian lad, Ratzinger wound up in the Hitler Youth and later deserted from the army, ending up as a POW in allied custody.

Some rather pathetic journalists have seized on his membership of the Hitler youth as an excuse to portray him as a nazi, despite it being obvious to all but the most feeble minded of people that membership of the Hitler Youth was compulsory rather than voluntary.

It would seem that having seen the Nazi ideology up close and personal, he did not care for it one bit. I'm guessing here, but I would suspect that this common ground he shared with John Paul II would go some way to explaining how a moderate like John Paul II would have such a close relationship with a hardliner like Ratzinger.

What I find most difficult to comprehend is that anyone should need to resort to mudslinging to imply that Ratzinger is a right-winger. All you need to do is examine the man's attitude towards homosexuality, and what can only be described as his pathologically stupid views on contraception. There's no need to smear him with the label "Nazi", he's done a rather good job of portraying himself as an unreasonable right-winger with extremely inflexible thought processes all on his own.

And Dennis - if secularism is a disease, then thank God (hohoho) I'm infected. Because the day I become as bigoted, narrow minded and generally ignorant as people like Ratzinger - who choose to use their positions of authority to spread intolerance of homosexuals and advise against contraception in countries where AIDS is nothing short of an epidemic... that's when I'll know I have absolutely no respect for humanity whatsoever.

[Warmark Jay]

I'm with you. And it sounds like you take the Oath of Peach seriously. Good quality for a Warmark.

Thanks, F&F. I'd argue that those of us who are not Catholics have every right to voice our concerns over who leads the Catholic Church. It's possible to question the actions and words of Church leaders without insulting the beliefs of Church goers. Indeed, in the wake of the chil molestation scandals it's imperative to do so. If one were to ask Pope Benedict XVI to direct his charges to work with local law enforcement, for example, in arresting pedophiles - how is that calling God's Word into question? "Meet The Press" devoted an hour to the new Pope, bringing together Catholic officials and non-Catholics to discuss issues that the Pope is facing, and it was fascinating. And showed that such discussions should take place. In a civil manner, of course, but as evidenced here that often deteriorates into a shouting match.

[lurch]

DWood..I perceive that Your Faith does not allow or permit that ,,that which is outside of your faith,,to be perceived in a non prejudical manner. The need to change perspective is not for me to execute therefore. I have stated my views clearly. What you have made of them is your doing. ..MEL

[Lord Mhoram]

Kins,

I guess the difference is finding out for yourself vs. taking someone else's word for it...

I stand by my statement, it wasn't meant to be funny. A couple of thousand years of propaganda still doesn't "correct" all the quotes from the past. As Plissken and I both pointed out in above posts.

Okay, somewhat you were correct. Jesus was a part of a Kingdom Movement, therefore a rebel against Rome. However, "terrorist" is very poor wording, especially in today's world.

However, his Movement, that he inherited from John the Baptist, is clearly different from others in several ways:
1. It was not geopolitical: he preached a Kingdom that came after life.
2. Jesus preached love and compassion for everyone
3. After the death of the Messiah of this movement, Christ, his followers did not go to a different movement. They continued with his. This is what made the Jesus Event unique historically. Looking at a historical standpoint, not one based on faith, I see that something must have happened after Jesus' death.

To Kins Tolkien et al and everyone else who is using logic, reasoning, and science to bash organized religion, you seem to not understand that for us with faith, there is something that we feel that goes beyond logic and reasoning, that we can't explain scientifically, or historically.

Faith can be described thus:
1. We feel a sense of awe for the Universe around us
2. We feel we have a place in this - Cosmological
3. We make sense of our own experience, and that becomes our faith

[Warmark Jay]

To Kins Tolkien et al and everyone else who is using logic, reasoning, and science to bash organized religion, you seem to not understand that for us with faith, there is something that we feel that goes beyond logic and reasoning, that we can't explain scientifically, or historically.

And when the question is about faith, you're absolutely right. But to that I have two questions for you. One: is it possible to question the acts and thoughts of a religious leader (i.e., this Pope or any other) without stepping over the line of insulting the beliefs of that religion's practioners?In other words, shouldn't I - or anyone - be able to question the morals/sanity of the Torquemadas of the world without being accused of anti-religious bigotry? Two: as the product of a Catholic father and Jewish mother who was thought to a) respect and value the beliefs of others even though they may differ from my own and b) belive that faith without works is meaningless, and a person's true character is measured by his/her actions - why should my own or anyone else's beliefs be invalidated by those who claim to be on the path to "true salvation"?

[Lord Mhoram]

Warmark Jay,

In other words, shouldn't I - or anyone - be able to question the morals/sanity of the Torquemadas of the world without being accused of anti-religious bigotry

Certainly. I for one do not believe in papal infallibility, for example.

why should my own or anyone else's beliefs be invalidated by those who claim to be on the path to "true salvation"?

Good question. Why should you? It's a matter of personal opinion.

Personally, I believe that it is indeed that which you do in life that you should be judged by. I do not condemn the Hindu or the Lutheran or the Buddhist or the Muslim to hell. I would judge he or she upon who they are.

[Warmark Jay]

Certainly. I for one do not believe in papal infallibility, for example.

Good on ya.

Personally, I believe that it is indeed that which you do in life that you should be judged by. I do not condemn the Hindu or the Lutheran or the Buddhist or the Muslim to hell. I would judge he or she upon who they are.

Ditto. Seems rational, no? Hackles were raised when it became known that the Pope was in the Hitler Youth (for what it's worth, I think that his story speaks for itself; he was forced into it, either left or was kicked out for his convictions, and deserted the Wehrmacht - most of us, I'd guess, would've stayed in and paid lip service to the goose-steppers for fear of a Luger bullet in the back of the head.). What I found objectionable was not the notion that certain elements of the Church defended a past that really didn't need to be defended. It's the fact that those same elements decried even the attempt to question Ratzinger's background, as if he was above even the slightest scrutiny.

[Lord Mhoram]

Warmark Jay,

It's the fact that those same elements decried even the attempt to question Ratzinger's background, as if he was above even the slightest scrutiny.

I do see your point. But when the world screams "Nazi" at your leader, you have a right to defend him.

[Warmark Jay]

do see your point. But when the world screams "Nazi" at your leader, you have a right to defend him.

Again, no disagreement here. But the Church is at a crucial phase; most experts point out that there is a palpable decline in attendance at European and North American masses, even as it grows in Third World countries. The "Nazi" story was baseless, yet underscored the distaste/distrust that many outside (and within) the Church feel towards it, especially in the wake of the child-molesting scandals. It seems to me that, in a way, the Church didn't do enough to really defend Ratzinger, and in the attempts of some to stonewall something that really didn't require it, raised further questions.

[Fist and Faith]

To Kins Tolkien et al and everyone else who is using logic, reasoning, and science to bash organized religion, you seem to not understand that for us with faith, there is something that we feel that goes beyond logic and reasoning, that we can't explain scientifically, or historically.

Back in July, I made the following post, which, perhaps, will help some people understand what you mean.

I have no idea what the stuff is called, but there's these little strips of paper that they put in people's mouths. Some people say, "Huh? What's this supposed to do?" Others squinch up their faces, and say, "Yuck, that's bitter!" Some people can taste the substance that was sprayed onto these strips of paper, and others cannot. But, although I suppose such was not always the case, there are other ways of testing for this substance. So let's look at a better example.

In music, some people have what is called perfect pitch. If these people hear a note being played, on any instrument, they can tell you what note it is. In fact, if they hear a car horn, or a flourescent light humming, or a car's fanbelt squeal, or your sneaker squeal when you rub it along the floor, they can tell you what note it is!! They can go to the piano and hit the note that we hear in whatever noise we're listening to. What's more, you can drop something onto the piano's keys, something that hits several keys at once, and, though they were not looking, they can tell you what keys it hit!

Despite my BA in Music History, and years of piano lessons, I cannot do any of this. I have NO idea how they do it; no idea what they hear that I do not. AFAIK, nobody has ever been able to detect anything, no matter what kind of machinery or electronics they use, that explains it. Some people can hear it, and most cannot. I've often wondered why Mozart didn't just write all of his piano pieces in C-major, so he (and we) wouldn't have to bother with as many black keys. What's the point in composing a sonata in A-flat? It makes no sense, other than for the sake of appearing sophisticated, eh? **BUT** Mozart heard every note, every chord, in ways I do not. What did he hear?? What is there that might make it preferable for a certain melody, and its harmonies, to be put in A-flat instead of C?? It's nonsense.

To me.

Because I can't tell the difference; nobody who CAN tell the difference can define it; and nobody can give any scientific reason for it.

I assume everybody knows where this is going. I know for a fact that some people can sense things that I cannot. It's been demonstrated to me many times. This is why I cannot, just because I cannot sense God the way Fire says she does, claim to know that there is no God.

Faith can be described thus:
1. We feel a sense of awe for the Universe around us
2. We feel we have a place in this - Cosmological
3. We make sense of our own experience, and that becomes our faith

Yes, that does, indeed, describe me - Faith (Fist and... ) Seriously, though, it does. I, however, have no religious faith.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Certainly. I for one do not believe in papal infallibility, for example.

Then you're not a Catholic.

That would make you a Christian-with-Catholic-tendencies.
(as am I)

I have no idea if you ever said you were Catholic in the past or you were just making a statement but I'm always amazed at people who call themselves Catholic but don't follow the basics of the Church.

[Kinslaughterer]

Faith can be described thus:
1. We feel a sense of awe for the Universe around us
2. We feel we have a place in this - Cosmological
3. We make sense of our own experience, and that becomes our faith

I'm glad you're reasonably approaching this question, but I don't look at things in the same fashion. Faith is a human concept devised by organized religion way back as a sort of placebo effect. The founders couldn't prove anything so they relied on the minds of the believers (much like superstition and taboo) to prove things. They hope to keep things mystical and mysterious rather than explain them with science or study. Why does it rain? Because the shaman has entreated the spirits to make it rain? Science takes the mystery out of things. But it doesn't make the world in less interesting or amazing. Its kind of like being enthralled with a book jacket but never reading the book...

I'm not really sure what you mean by making sense of your experience being faith, but I've made sense of my own experience without faith in anything.

Perhaps Fist's post suggests that some of us don't have the genetic makeup for "faith". I think that there is a god but I'm absolutely certain that it is not the Judeo-Chrisitan god. I think I'll address this in another post.
Now as a child and a young adult, I was a believer in god and jesus and I think very devout. That changed not by any fell events (although I had a few) but by learning and understanding of a variety of subjects. Anthropology taught me how humans behave as cultures and how they protect themselves and keep the status quo, history showed me events of the past and how they can be tainted by propaganda and revision, archaeology taught me that the past never really goes away and buried secrets can be revealed in time, the physical sciences taught me the world is explainable and understandable and one can eliminate the mystery all by himself (why magic and divinity was prohibited in the OT), and finally some religious study in particular illustrated the machinations, manipulations, and deceit of the church from the very beginning.

This is all clearly off topic so I'll start another thread. But I will say in defense of my 1st post that I didn't care if Ratz was a hitler youth but I wondered about his papal motives...

[danlo]

Faith can be described thus:
1. We feel a sense of awe for the Universe around us
2. We feel we have a place in this - Cosmological
3. We make sense of our own experience, and that becomes our faith

I agree with 1 & 2 though I, personally, have no use for religion. I do have faith, and although I still can't make any sense out of my own experience-it's sure fun trying!

[Lord Mhoram]

Warmark Jay,

Oh, I completely agree. Benedict XVI and his papacy must do something about the sexual harassment problems (I live in Boston, so I have seen a lot that stuff) and the declining attendance. No doubt.

Fist,

A very articulate post. I respect that, of course. All I'm saying is, it's impossible for those with faith to use science etc to show their faith. This is what some posters were asking for, which is absurd.

High Lord Tolkien,

I actually am a Catholic, but thank you for telling me that I don't belong to that faith, since you know better than I. How could I never see it before? I don't believe that the Pope is always right. I just can't, by looking at history. I have a respect, love etc for the Pope. I recognize him as the leader of my Church, and the heir to St Peter. But is he infallible? I just don't think so.

Kins,

Allow me to clarify Number 3: When you have faith-based experiences and feel the presence of a higher being in your life, it is my opinion that by making sense of that experience you can forumlate it into your own life and form a faith of your own, which may or may not be part of an organized faith, church, etc.

danlo,

That's a good attitude. I wish you luck (not look) in your search!

[danlo]

Thank you, my friend, I need all the look I can get!

[Lord Mhoram]

Hahaha. I just saw that.

I meant luck of course!

[lurch]

...Interesting takes on faith. I quite disagree on Faith being described in the scientific and logical. If it is possible to breakdown the " emotional" into the scientific and logical then perhaps, but until then , I think not.

Every expression of faith, especially the extreme expressions, are wrapped in emotion. This is terra of the heart. Where one places his or her heart is their business. I believe, one of the all time prophets of matters of the Heart was telling us to have a healthy Heart and put Faith into our own hearts,,not somebody elses heart.

I have recently completed a tutorial on the Borgias. I have never been able and continue not to be able to place Faith into the concept ofthe Pope. They along with many other Popes and Cardinals, are proof that religious leaders are just people with no special attributes. I understand the need for faith in the dogma of the Church to keep the Church unified. That all works within the church. Its the " outside" of the Church Perspective that I have. I am not bound by the dogma. My view isn't filtered by emotional lenses.

I cannot understand how the Jesus that sits beside one in a Mormon temple is minor in comparison to the Jesus that sits beside one in a catholic church. I don't understand how Faith leads to such arrogance. Just as I don't understand how one's Faith allows one to convert dead souls. Quite true, this is not the land of Logic and science. This is the same terra as Voodoo, all mysticism, terra of the thumpity thump, where the suspension of disbelief lasts not for a book, or a 90 minute movie, but for a life time.

If it flips your wig, turns you on, fills a void, well, fine. If it takes Faith to turn on whatever inside of you,well fine. Some see a void in their life and say, I need to fill it. Some see a void in their life, and say,,look at that! Thats a Void. Theres nothing there,,and move on. Some are so busy with life, they never see a void.

I think SRD's examples of Faith are very interesting. The Haruchai and Ramen are xtreme examples of Faith.In both cases, its not a free ride....MEL

[Plissken]

Just as long as you don't impede on my rights because of the articles of faith you do subscribe to, you may pick and choose which bits you want to believe to your hearts content!

[[Syl]]

If you'll notice, this thread is three posts shorter. Keep it civil, or keep it in PMs.

[Myste]

Faith is a weird, weird thing, no matter what it consists of. It transcends rational understanding. That's sort of the point. Faith is by its nature irrational--or maybe surrational. There's no point in trying to explain it or justify it: you either have it or you don't. The object of one's personal faith is equally inexplicable.

One example: I believe that Jupiter exists. I've had that bright dot pointed out to me in the night sky, and been informed that there are moons around it. I've even seen photos of Jupiter and its moons. Do I, personally, have physical proof that what I've been told is Jupiter actually exists? Hell, no. Oh sure, lay the math on me. To me, math's as incomprehensible as the Virgin Birth. But I still believe in Jupiter.

That's what faith is like. Religion gives us the circumstantial evidence--the second- or third-hand accounts of what really happened. Faith is the thing that enables us to believe it. No matter what "it" is.

I believe in God. I believe in a God who is omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing, etc. I believe that the duck-billed platypus is a huge joke on His part. I do not believe that human beings have to embrace human-written doctrinal Articles of Faith in order to go to God when they die. I have no idea what "going to God" consists of--I don't know if there's a heaven, or if we just get reintegrated into this world that He helped into Being. God is bigger than anything I could possibly understand. Much like Jupiter.

This is what I believe: How dare humanity try to impose rules on what or what does not consitute belief in God? That is the ultimate presumption. God will decide, not people. Unless you're God, you don't have the right to judge anyone else. Humanity lives by its ability to quantify the world around it: to say, That's good, that's bad; that's more, that's less; that's right, that's wrong. Faith, on the other hand, is by defintion unquantifiable.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably selling something.