Of course, nobody who disagrees with Gerard is ever educated on the issues.
Not always. But I don't chirp up unless I know I'm right on an issue. You may think you're educated on the subject of WWII, but you display no knowledge of the holocaust debate beyond what the "mainstream" media lets out.
By the way, is that some kind of Catholic space man in your avatar? I've wondered.
The avatar is the Silver Surfer from Marvel comics. Invented by a couple of jewish guys in the 1960s. Stan Lee in describing him called him his most Christ-like figure and that he represented the best of humanity but without our flaws. So, I view him as a representation of what Adam might have been like.
Here's the crux of the problem here: Holocaust deniers - the innocent ones, that is, who do not have as their motivation honest hatred of all things Jewish - are seriously naive and, to put it simply and generally, don't understand how the world works.
That's a completely unsupportable assertion. It's just vague insults.
Denial (that is, to posit not merely details but that Holocaust essentially did not occur as history records it) here is exactly analogous to denial of, say, the American Civil War, the moon landings, or any other both relatively recent and completely established facts of history.
Nonsense, the fact is you are incapable of being objective and actually distinguishing what you know from what you know "about." For example, you take the moon landing completely on faith, you weren't there, you have no way to prove or disprove the moon landing happened as portrayed on television. But you either like it, or don't care and you don't question it. So you take it on faith. You stipulate it as being a true event. You 're comfortable with that article of your personal faith and if someone questions it, you automatically rule them out and say "no" and question their sanity because they don't have the same faith as you.
I have never seen the Mona Lisa. I have seen pictures of what is commonly known as "the Mona Lisa" and I know that it's considered a picture by Leonardo da Vinci, until I fly to France, go to Louvre and see it for myself, I have never seen the Mona Lisa. That is the difference between knowing something and knowing about something. If someone wants to question whether or not Leonardo actually painted it, or it's a copy from someone else, I accept what I know, I question what I know "about" and I pursue the truth of the matter if it matters to me.
Sane people don't debate those things. [/quote
And your definition of sanity is what? All you seem to do is hurl insults at anyone who questions what you obviously know "about" but don't "know" in the true sense.
As has been pointed out eloquently by others here, whether or not the Holocaust has been used as a weapon against Catholicism or anything else has not one wit to do with whether or not it occurred essentially as history has recorded.
That's patently false. If the holocaust is essentially what the popular narrative is, then there is no rational reason to obscure and tamp down debate on the issue. If it is a fraud, and it is used as a weapon , it is because it has been developed as a weapon and honest debate will dismantle that weapon. Those that hold that weapon will do whatever they can to stop that dismantling.
Your skill in proposing non sequiturs and setting up straw men may not have an equal I've seen - I'll give you that.
No. They are logical conclusions based on your non-sequiturs and the analogous comparisons hold.
I can't even follow the logic your proposing in your statement about Catholicism above. Suffice it to say that whatever logic you see as flowing from my position is so alien to me I honestly can't even comprehend what you're proposing.
Your position is one of relativism, and letting someone else set the parameters of discourse for less than objective motives.
I'd say that's a boon to those who would lose all credibility on the matter were their own views stated completely and openly.
I doubt that. In fact I deny it.
Something I agree with, finally. I do believe he's honest, and a sincere, orthodox Catholic. That is readily obvious.
The problem is that he doesn't have the intelligence and perspective to understand some of the issues he claims to; he has no business ever discussing them publicly and if doing so causes the Church serious embarrassment then his superiors have every right, and even the duty, to discipline him.
Do you think the Pope has the intelligence to understand evolution in it's myriad formulations and does he have any business discussing matters of philosophy or science publicly?
(Concerning intelligence and perspective, I'm thinking mainly of his 9/11 stance. There was a time when I, too, seriously entertained that position. I will entertain any position and question all assumptions when it makes sense to. But exploring this issue in depth, it becomes clear that the "Truther" position is untenable. It requires all kinds of assumptions and giant leaps of logic based on blind faith, like all weak conspiracy theories.)
Like evolution and global warming and the Kennedy Assassination there are numerous theories promoted on the issue of 9/11. I have no problem with the popular narrative, but I'm completely open to the possibility that one or elements of the various conspiracy theories could be true. What I find intellectually offensive is the phoney "outrage" at the temerity of someone questiioning something.
And frankly, any Catholic should be able to speculate on what is "fantastic" by non-Catholic standards because we believe in the supernatural, miracles and miracle workers like Padre Pio, We believe that God became a baby born of a virgin and died rose from the dead. We believe in Popes that worked miracles while in office (St. Pius X) and on the opposite end we believe in a demon of the highest order of angels who doesn't tire, doesn't stop working at our destruction. He can tempt an influence people beyond our scope of comprehension. So, when signs of an insidious intelligence show themselves in world events, we can believe they happen because of the coordination of that evil intelligent being implementing his own plans through ignorant thralls or through conscious coordination.
Charity isn't emotionalism. Those who have no charity for this intense and unjust suffering of millions have a serious spiritual weakness. [/qutoe]
Numbers that you take on faith alone. Numbers only ghouls or the emotionally unbalanced refuse to question.
Of course it is. Who do you think doesn't understand that? The fact that you feel the need to point out things like this is more evidence of your skewed perspective.
Well, you can't reasonably appeal to the idea that debating the holocaust is forbidden because people will unfairly tarnish the reputation of the Church when the repuation of the Church is already unfairly tarnished. Why bother trying to appeal and kowtow to the unappeasable? What kind of a skewed perspective does it take to try to get fairness from the deliberately unfair?