One of the best speeches ive ever heard! Any christian, or religious person of any faith, with an ounce of inteligance should listen to this and WAKE UP!! well done Stephen!
i'm a huge fan of both Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, and i honestly think that Stephen Fry's presentation was the best by far in the this debate.
(cont) Surely any honest person has to concede that. Of course when faced with these inevitable "voids" in their own dogma they too fall back on religious tradition. It fascinates me to no end, especially when I see so many followers of Hitchens et. al. get it wrong.
My apology for misspelling your screen name previously.
Because for all the rhetoric among atheist about the goodness of the enlightenment abound they will NEVER speak badly of their own dogma and reveal that in fact there is no compulsory principal contained within to actually DO any good. Doesnt mean they can't of course, but there is no requirement to do so.
In reference with what Stephen said about Thomas Moore with the Calothic Church "being the only owner of the truth." It backs up the statement made in the Davinchi Code about the church, "whoever keeps the keys to heaven rules the world."
@gmaureen A reformation? What little semblance of the catholic church there is visible today IS a result of a reformation done by Vatican II... IN THE SIXTIES, and look how it turned out. Priests are ignorant and more corrupt than ever, bishops are stupid people and most catholics can change their name to agnostics (not that I have anything against them, unlike this dumbass that is Stephen Fry. His statements are so bigotted and so pompous, he makes Richard Dawkins look like a care bear). The
@gmaureen thing is, there have ALWAYS been reformations inside the Church, not done by idiots such as Luther who fialed miserably at his false goals, not by changing doctrines of the faith but by enforcing stricter laws but at the same time conforming to the times in so far as it is not a sin. The Council of Trent did it and was very successful at making holy Catholics. The crusades and inquisition I've explained before but I can explain them again but really, the only time I ever saw the RCC
@gmaureen before Vatican II abuse its power, so much so that it's priests were hypocrital were during the late middle ages in regards the Jews. If you've done your research, you'll see that the Popes and the Saints (including Vincente Ferrer according to 'Vicente Ferrer and the Kings Jews') and whole Catholic countries actually helped the Jews and condemend forced conversions. Hell, unlike Protestants (understandable) and other religions, they could practice Judaism in public, though to be fair
@gmaureen if you were Protestant and lived in the Papal states, you weren't forced to become catholic; public worship of false religions was forbidden but pravately it was not. Anyway, the abuses I'm talking about isn't forbidding public exercise of religion; I'm not talking about condemning Judaism as a heresy for obvious reasons. I'm not even talking about the times catholics kings and lords expelled Jews from their lands. I'm talking about when the Popes, Pius V actually was the only Pope who
@gmaureen actually did expel Jews from his lands, when They and the councils (through non infallible means though) humiliated the Jews. I can even forgive putting them into ghettos as a seperate society 'cos not only did Jews and rabbis establish them but the Church's intention was to supress the spread of heresy, but did they have to go and force the Jews to wear distinctive dress and in spain at least, to force them to not have any valid business?
@gmaureen more in my faith. Because two Church councils forced harsh laws on the Jews and because a Pope whom I expected MUCH more kindness out of did the same, and non-infallibly at that will not make lose faith in the good that Catholics did or what the Catholic religion did. When Catholics such as Francis de Sales, Euphrasia Pelletier, Saint Dominic, etc... did good, it wasn't in spite of religion, it was BECAUSE of it. They changed things for the better and left a wide influence. But Fry?
@gmaureen He's been what? 30 years speaking against religion? What has he changed? He won an award from an obscure atheist company yet what has he changed? He bitches about 'evil religion''yet what has he done? Has the government of UK instituted anti-religious laws? Has it accepted him as the arbiter of all morals? He may have his fans, some of them deservedly so because of his charity work (despite there being others who do the same and more and aren't appreciated for it) but culturally, he's
@gmaureen he's invisible. He moans about religion, and nothing changes. What good did this debate do? Did it make the 'catholic church' bow down to his pompous 'intelligence' or do catholic apologists and historians grate tear their hair out at his innacuracies and our side's very lukewarm performance? (a hologram of Christ and Mary could do a better job defending the RCC).
Stephen Fry is one of the most intelligent and elequent people of our time. This is one of the most brilliant speeches I've ever come across. It's passionate, informative and most importantly the truth. It's all very well people having their faith, but not when overrides common sense, basic human rights and descriminates against homosexuals, women and others. In short keep your religion to yourself and don't force it on others who don't want it. Peace:)
@veldrin1000 I've seen more truth and common sense in the faith than in Fry's blatantly anti-catholic speech with all its historical bias, lies and crocodile tears. Common sense? How does Catholic teaching override common sense? Homosexuals do have rights, just as promiscuous people have rights. Theres a diffirence between being transsexual and homosexual which only involves lust and not real romantic love of the same sex. Sex isn't love, its only an expression of love ebtween married partners.
@philipmarie1854 I was going to prepare a long and drawn speech to reply to all you said to me. However, the simple fact is you don't even have the premise for a debate. Also, certain things can't be ignored...
@veldrin1000 Human rights? The only time the Church seriously infringed on human rights were at the third and fourth councils of Alteran adn some of Pius V's actions, otherwise, the Church's actions such as only allowing private worship of false religions where normal for those times.
Absolutely brilliant. If was possible to knight someone for services to eloquence, wisdom, and the power of the spoken language, then none is more deserving than Stephen Fry. This is fantastic. It's about time the Roman Catholic Church realised its failures and remedied them. Roman Catholics are lovely people - my head boy at school is one and I cannot think of a more delightful young gentlemen. But the church as an institution needs to look at itself in a damned good mirror.
@wulfbaen1993 So do atheists, Jews, Muslims and every damned one of us. We're all sons of bitches except Jesus and Mary but wheareas some traditionalist Cathlics and admittedly the vast majority of Jews (around 80% or so) support a worthless cause in having a nationalsit and religious state, Fry, Dawkins Pullman and Hitchens have it even worse. Imagine spending 30 years preaching hatred and changing no life for the better, influencing nobody's morality nor the government, or reaching your goal
@wulfbaen1993 of showing th world just how 'evil' religion is. If only they weren't so hateful, bigotted and inaccurate/unfair/did not do the bloody research, MAYBE they would have had some influence. They may have their fans but culturally, they're invisible. What have Fry, Dawkins and Hitchens changed? How did they affect our morality in a way nobody else didn't or how we wouldn't naturally get it by following other better philosophers? Fry wise? I think he's more pompous and arrogant.
@philipmarie1854 He isn't hateful of religion, as he clearly points out that he likes people with faith; he thinks it is a wonderful thing to have, and we shouldn't try to take it away. What he's saying is that the institutions are corrupt, and needs change. He isn't challenging morality, or trying to change our perspective of it. All he is doing is highlighting the failures of the Catholic Church in response to the motion. And he is wise, amazingly so.
@wulfbaen1993 Mister, you don't understand so I'm going to be nice but harsh: you CAN point out the corruption there is nowadays in the Vatican II church as all these cover-ups and lukewarmness IN DEVOTION will tell you. But it wasn't always like this. There were corrupt Bishops in the middle ages yet theey weren't the majority. In fac,t the middle ages were more holy then today and until Vatican II, the Church was very devout. We have morals that we think are good while Fry has morals HE
@wulfbaen1993 thinks are good. Fry goes beyond that. He says that he has nothing against religious people and yet he ridicules our Catholic faith and beliefs, as if people who beleive in the Catholic faith can't do good, a belief that Hitchens held. Organized religion was found by Christ so that there would be no confusion to what He really thaught. If it wasn't for the RCC, Jesus would have no legacy, He and His Mum would just be a legend. If we know the RCC was found by Christ, how can we have
@wulfbaen1993 our own interpretation of Scripture and what Jesus thaught when we know we made it up? I once heard that an Anglican asked his pastor what a certain verse of scripture meant. The pastor told him but the Anglican said: 'Wait, how can we be sure that it really means that?' The pastor told him he can't be sure, he must have faith that it does. 'Well,' said the Anglican,' I'm joing the RCC where I can be sure of what it means.' And did just that.
@wulfbaen1993 the failures of the Popes or protested against injusteces all the time, such as the Spanish enslaving people (BTW, they were successful in their protests because Philip III eventually illegalized american slavery in 1600). Rape and pillage indeed. There were wars in the middle gaes but they weren't caused by the Church but by greedy nobles. If wasn't trying to lead us away from the RCC, he'd have done his research. No mister Fry, the Church DIDN'T fail to save the Jews as they
"There were wars in the middle gaes but they weren't caused by the Church..."
Really? Who ordered the Albigensian Crusade (and all other crusadews) and why? What was the Catholic Church response to the reformation? What was the initiating reason to the 30-year war?
@Draugh39 The Albigensian crusade wasn't what the Popes had in mind at first. They actually tried to convert them but resorted to war after the ALBIGENSIANS killed the papal legate. Of course, the war went into excess but how does the action of a few Catholic KINGS and not bishops show that Catholicism is bad? America initiated the war in Iraq, therefore all of the american government is bad. The crusade doesn't show that my faith is bad because ithas nothing to do with it. However, the crusades
Wrong, the Papal deligate was murdere but there were many French nobels that were not Cathars that had issues with the Pope, especially Raymond VI, who had been excommunicated before this. The Pope then ORDERED the Crusade against the gnostic Christians in France and Spain. The whole basis for this was because the gnostics were considdered heretics and the Catholic church wanted to kill them off.
@Draugh39 against the saracens WERE justified in the sense that there were valid reasons they were done. Google Listverse: the 8 crusades explained for more. As for the 30 year war, the Pope didn't participate in it; Martin Luther started the peasants war long before it. The history is complicated as atrocities were commited by both sides. There were neither good nor bad sides yet at the same time, both sides fought for their own freedom. Its like a song of ci and fire if it was real, actually.
The pope never directly participated, he ordered with the threat of excommunication the Kings and Nobility. The problem he had with the 30 year war was because the people had stopped believing that the Pope was Christ vicar on earth. especially due to the massive frauds and dishonesty by the RCC. That mean that the threat of excommunication of a Noble had little effect in an area that was protestant in belief. And the Pope wanted his power back, via war.
@Draugh39 Bullcrap, people still believed he was Christs vicar, they believe it today still. People acted either because of their own selfish needs or for survival. The peace of Hapsburg wasn't just as both Catholic and Protestant princes forced their subjects to practice the religion of the state no matter what religion they professed. As for frauds and dishonesty, you can look no further than every government that existed, especially that of the US. The thing, just because a FEW people in the
"Bullcrap, people still believed he was Christs vicar, "
Name one protestant christian or orthodox that believes that the Pope is Christ vicar on earth. Only Catholics have this view. And with protestantism and the translation of the Bible into other languages that belief was erroded. The behaviour of the RCC at that time didn't help them either. Just look at Pope Alexander VI, Leo X and Paul III. Truly evil selfish bastards, don't you agree?
@Draugh39 Not only do Catholics themselves have translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate (Latin was the most common language) but Protestant bibles differ SO MUCH intranslations its ridiculus. At a Baptist convention in the 1800's, they themselves adressed this problem. Now, a Pope is infallible only if he teaches things by his authority as Pope. Lets take the american president: he has a family, friends but he's also human, so when Bill Clinton had that sex scandal, nobody declared America
@Draugh39 to be a sex crazed country because Clinton's actions weren't an act of government. Likewise, if a Pope is corrupt or holy, it doesn't affect Church doctrine. When Paul IV made those laws against Jews, he didn't act as Pope but only as governer of the Papal states; when he declared that no heretic can be Pope in Cum ex Apostolatus officcio, that was a papal act, 100% infallible, signed by the fisherman's ring, EX CATHEDRA. And if you think that I'm declaring the actions of the Popes to
@Draugh39 be infallible or not according to my caprices, don't; alot of the infallible declarations of the Church aren't liked by todays ears at all though to me they make perfect sense and in some cases, I endorse them with my whole heart. Such as Mary's Immacualte Conception, thats a dogma; no salvation outside the Church; recognition of the Catholic religion by the state; prayer, all dogmas. However, Absurdum by Paul IV and Innocent III's cries for battle aren't infallible.
@Draugh39 but even corrupt Popes did good ex cathedra such as Paul III declaring natives to have souls and what not. If a corrupt pope makes the whole church corrupt, does that mean that a saintly Pope like Pius V, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Leo the great and Gregory VII make the whole Church saintly? The Popes you mentioned were corrupt and catholics themselves knew this and hated them but none of them ever thaught of deposing them and getting rid of the Papacy.
If any pope ordered the church to do a good action then that obviously means the Church did a good action. None of the Popes you list were all good though. And the fact that the Catholic Church improved doesn't mean it is a good institution.
It's like a wife-beater that stops hitting his wife on Sundays. It is an improvement but he is still an evil bastard.
@Draugh39 Now, the reformation: Luther left the Church not because he saw how 'corrupt' it was but because he was a lazy bastard and invented moral relavatism or its percusor. I could get any 1 dollar bible, look up a line, declare it says something and claim the holy spirit made me do it. thus, a zillion other people did the same thing and divided not only Protestants from the Church but division occured between THEMSELVES.Not only did the reformation reform NOTHING in the Catholic Church;
@Draugh39 what, did the reformation inspire Priests to become more holy? On the conrary, Luther himself was not only very anti-semitic but he said 'sin and sin more to have more confidence in Christ'. he thaught that people can do no good in this world and are capable only of sinning; he thaught that attempting to be virtuous was sinful and that faith alone saves. Basically, as long as you beleive in Jesus, you dont have to lift a finger to do good and you'll still go to heaven or worse, you can
@Draugh39 commit genocide and still go to heaven as long as you accept Christ as your personal saviour and the word of the Bible wich is the only rule of faith. Whats wrong with this picture?
Besides, numerous saints did better reformations of the Church's discipline such as Teresa of Avila, Saint Francis, Saint Cajetan and the COuncil of Trent and none of them left the Church but their work was encouraged by it. Luther was an ordinary man who without claiming that Christ appeared to him withno
I'm not trying to say that protestanmtism is good. I think all Christian denominations are fundamentally bad - but this was specifically about Catholisism. The Bible itself is an evil book with some very bad advice in it. We would do much better without it.
@Draugh39 encouragement from the Church claimed that God gave into his hands to 'reform' the Catholic Church which at SOME point fell into error. When did the Church fall into error and teach a doctrine diffirent than it always thaught?
'Vatican II'.
Vatican II was run by freemasons and occured only 40 years ago.
@Draugh39 in the Church are corrupt doesn't mean that the FAITH itself is corrupt. Scientists made nuclear weapons and experiment on animals, therefore, science is bad. So, Leo X was a greedy bastard, therefore, all Popes are greedy bastards. False. Say what you will about Innocent III but he was a VERY good leader and VERY intelligent but at the same time, he was prudent and when the crusaders took over Constantinople, he criticized them, especially sicne they were never rodered by him to take
"The thing, just because a FEW people in the in the Church are corrupt doesn't mean that the FAITH itself is corrupt"
It is if, if it is the Pope itself and all his crony cardinals. If the leader of the church itself is a corrupt, selfish bastard like Alexander VI then the church itself is corrupt. The actions of Alexander VI and Leo X is what sparked off the protestant reformation.
"Scientists made nuclear weapons and experiment on animals, therefore, science is bad."
No scientist is claiming to be gods’ representative on earth. Science is not a religious hierarchal belief. People that questions scientists are not burned at the stake or tortured in the name of science.
The Catholic Church on the other hand did this. And the order of the pope is doctrine.
@Draugh39 it over. Likewise, there was some corruption in the middle ages but not all nor the majority of the people of the Church were corrupt. The iddle ages gave us the Dominicans and the Franciscans who begged for their living and preached everywhere, there were the missioanries in the Americas who opposed slavery severely and succeeded in the end, there was the COuncil of Trent which reformed and defined many things in the Catholic Church and made laws much stricter for Priests. Really,
@Draugh39 the truly last corrupt Pope was Urban VIII because after he died, the Church abolished the office of Cardinal nephew and Popes could only appoint one relative as a Cardinal. After that, the Popes, especially Pius IX removed alot of the restrictions on the Jews and Pius IX was exiled AFTER he tore down the ghetto gates and the Jews turned against him. I'm aware of the Mortara case but Edgardo truly was baptized and the Pope acted only because he wanted to save the kids soul, even though
"I'm aware of the Mortara case but Edgardo truly was baptized ."
Edgardo was baptized by a fourteen-year-old illiterate Catholic servant, without his parents’ permission, consent or knowledge. Then the Pope kidnap the child from the parents, saying that since he was baptised as Catholic (even though the girl was no priest) he was forever a Catholic and shouldn't be raised Jewish.
Well the same is true for Hitler, another Catholic that never left the Church.
@Draugh39 the id had the freedom at least late ron to see his family and the Pope was well aware of the pain he caused his parents but the incident doesn't show that Pius IX was an asshole and anti-semitic; if he was so anti-semitic, why didn't he jsut force all Jewish parents to give up their children to Catholic institutions? Not even the Popes of the middle ages did that, why would the liberal Pius IX do that?
@Draugh39 As for the ghetto, while the Church didn't outright persecute Jews and condemned killing them or forcing them to convert, it certainly did discriminate agaisnt them not as a race but as a RELIGION because normal Jewish Catholics had the same rights as non-jewish ones. Ghettos were actually established in the papal states in the late 1500's by Paul IV. Before, the Jews though forced to wear distinctive clothing were allowed to live in the cities without being walled away and even in
The Catholic Church did force converstion of any people they considdered "herretics". They did that up to 1945 in Croatia where forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs, along with the Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant Germanic minorities in the hundreds of thousands happened.
Anti-Semetism was part of Church doctrine up to Vatican II, and is still prevalent in smaller Catholic Cults.
@Draugh39 Anti-JUDAISM was part of Church doctrine, just as the Church is anti-atheism, anti-protestantism, etc... but it certainly wasn't anti-semitic. Not only did Catholic ethnic Jews have the same rights as non-jewish caths, we have saints among them, like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. The Church condemend forced conversion of Jews as you'll see on wikipedia: chrstianity and ant-semitism, forbade and condemned molesting them, Bishops passed bills to not harass them and denounced the
@Draugh39 the idea that Jews practice ritual murder (Simon of Trent was murdered by a satanic Jewish sect and not real Jewish Jews). Incidentally, it was the Popes (and Muslims) who recieved the Jews in their countries when they were expelled and things truly became bad for them when that dumbass Paul IV made his stupid laws, not ex cathedra though, he made them as an act of government and not as a doctrinal issue. Besides, Stepinac didn't want Jews to be forced converted and Pius XII even
Most of the forced conversions were orthodox Christians forced to Catholicism, this was not just children most of them were adults. Stepinac was informed of all of these and never stopped them, the Vatican was also informed and never punished the priest doing it even when those priests were committing genocide on the orthodox Serbs. In fact the Vatican helped many of the perpetrators of genocide to flee justice after the war.
As for how the Vatican treated someone baptised as a Christian, look no further to than Edgardo Mortara. The little boy was born to Jewish parents and was baptized by their Catholic nanny when he was ill. He was then kidnapped by the Vatican police into the Vatican under the orders of Pope Pius IX. The reason was that by baptising him Catholic the child became Catholic forever.
Thus Hitler according to papal decrees and doctrine is forever a Catholic.
@Draugh39 Baptism leaves a mark that is permanent an in that sense, Martin Luther himself was forever catohlic. He didn't need to be rebaptized if he wanted to become Catholic again. Neither Hitler nor Luther were Catholic; the former was an apostate, the latter a narcistic pagan. You employ insane troll logic when you say Hitler was catholic forever: its like saying Hitchens was born an anglican, therefore he's anglican forever according to anglican doctrine despite renouncing it as Hitler did.
@Draugh39 the case of ghettos, they weren't forced into it like prison, they were only allowed to live in it although before Paul IV and AFTER him, the Popes didn't concern themselves with what jobs the jews could or could not have.
@wulfbaen1993 themselves might have told you in defense of their hero, Pius XII, showing that you pulled your research out of your ass. No Mr. Fry, we don't think you're evil because you're homsoexual, in yur case, we just think you're an asshole. We think gays are immoral ONLY if they are promiscous and fantasize sexually about people. We think the same of horny heterosexuals.
I don't think Fry is wise. He exagerates the Church's faults desregarding the immense good it did.
@philipmarie1854 Of course he's going to exaggerate the Church's faults, he's arguing against them. And immense good? Seriously? All I can see is an institution that dominates people's belief systems, hordes money from them to build lavish churches that surely go against everything the Bible and Christianity teaches. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is great; especially the notion of giving money to the poor in the form of charity. But taking this point, isn't it odd that the RCC use this money
@wulfbaen1993 to build huge, luxurious churches? Also, why is it that the Catholic Church doesn't have that many female bishops/priests and so on and so forth. Has there ever been a female pope? Why does your spiritual leader have to be male, hmm? Doesn't seem to me as if the Catholic Church understands equal rights. If women are allowed to lead nations... why can't they lead Churches?
@wulfbaen1993 Also, "we're all sons of bitches"? Seriously?? Way to begin an argument there. You're not going to win anyone over when you're opening statement contains that.
@wulfbaen1993 Hitchens used bad words in his arguments and swearing (or precision F strike) could be used to show that you're serous. Sons of bitches was uttered by a scientist after the very first nuclear bomb test. Hitler killed millions but now, the 'good guys' had weapons of mass destruction at their hands, hence, those who accept nuclear warfare are all bastards so screw them bitches! Likewise, Fry thinks Catholicism is bad yet he's as lying and hateful as he claims we are... so fuck him!!!
@wulfbaen1993 Of course he's going to exagerate? What, seriously? And you treat half truths and lies as good? Yes Christianity is great. On the subject of woman not being Priests, we DON'T and NEVER did regard men as better than women as the Bible will tell you. Men and women are equal, diffirent in FUCTION. Women could own stores, they could leave home when they wanted, choose to be married to whom they liked, etc... hell, they aided the war effort by helping soldiers and what not. According to
"we DON'T and NEVER did regard men as better than women as the Bible will tell you."
Utter Bollocks again.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " (1 Timmothy 2:11-14)
@Draugh39 Let also men be silent in Church because we don't allow neither women nor men to preach; we only allow Priests. We regard women as being equal to men but diffirent in function; there never was a time when the Church said that woman can't gain as much grace as men or that they can't make their own decisions and can onyl ask the permission of men to make them. Your comments are utter bollocks.
@wulfbaen1993 one poet, they seemed like 'angels'. But they can't become Priests, becae Christ didn't want to and because the Priesthood is reserved exclusively for men. LayPEOPLE can teach but only PRIESTS can preach. Men who aren't Priests can't teach. We never had a female Pope because the office of a Pope is that of the Priesthood. Even if we wanted to make women Priests, we can't because ordination in this regards is invalid.
Secondly, the Bible doesn't say that being rich is exactly bad.
@wulfbaen1993 What pisses me off is that Fry deigns to condemn our Church for being so rich yet he himself is rich, enjoys gadgets and what not. How hypocital. He ignores the poverty which religious have to live with and that alot of Popes themselves, while being rich in money lived very frugal lifestyles and gave their money to the poor and missions, Popes like Pius V, Benedict XV and Pius 'died poor' X.
We build Churches to honor God and Mary and the Saints. We have statues so that if youpray
@wulfbaen1993 you'll feel like you're actually praying to God and Mary. Churches and cathedrals represent the majesty of God. They are beautiful but luxurious? If they were so luxurious, we would have used them as dinner halls, brothels and other bad things but we don't; the vikings did that. They are places where you pray. Lots of religions have beautiful places to pray in such as Buddhism and even Islam. However, the Church puts feeding the poor first. However, even I'll admit that the
@wulfbaen1993 multi billion dollar hadron space collider benifited humanity in every way even though those dollars could have been used to feed poorer African countries. Just saying. The same with the billions spent on war.
You ignore the good the RCC did. It established morality as we at least USED to know it until last century until the enlightment came and perverted some of it; without the RCC, America wouldn't exist and it'd be an entire slave market thanks to Colombus or at least they'd
" without the RCC, America wouldn't exist and it'd be an entire slave market .."
The Catholic Church didn't sponsor Columbus and the native anericands had been there for millenia before. Furthermore, the church actually ran slave auctions out of their missions in California. As late as 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.
@Draugh39 Bullcrap, Paul III condemend enslaving Americans and Greegory XVi condemend it also in one of his encyclicals. Eventually, Philip III follwoed suite and illegalized slavery in 1600.
Paul III REMOVED the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill. He "declared the LAWFULLNESS of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome". What he was against was "unjust" kinds of enslavement relating Native Americans. The bull did not ban transatlantic slave trade or "Just" enslavement.
@wulfbaen1993 still be oracticing mass human sacrifice. Without the RCC, 860,000 Jews wouldn't have been saved and in the middle ages, it was the Church that opposed alot of tyrannical rulers.
I still can't get over your statement admitting that Fry is exagerating. Do you treat that as good? What if I said that since Mao, Stalin,Robespierre, etc... killed millions and that the enlightment was spread by the sword in America than it means that all of atheism is bad? Hitler ate sugar you know, so
"Without the RCC, 860,000 Jews wouldn't have been saved ..."
That is utter bollocks. The Nazi regime in Germany had as a policy to expell the Jews up to the start of WW2. The Death-camps were established after the fall of Poland.
Look at Croatia. Here the RCC actively supported the Ustaše regime and Catholic priest even ran some of the death-camps and participated in the killings, nost notorius was the Franciscan Miroslav Filipović.
"... or at least they'd still be oracticing mass human sacrifice."
Those killings were a pittance compared to the mass-killings of Native Americans that were done by the invading Europeans. Modern scholarly consensus has shifted to about 50 million Native Americans, with some arguing for 100 million or more killed.
@Draugh39 Er, bullcrap much? If the Spanish killed 50 million natives, then Hitler and Stalin were both pussies compared to the Spanish, because both Hitler and Stalin killed 12 million to 23 million respectively, with Mao Zedong being even WORSE with killing some 60 million. If the Spanish did kill natives, it was only during times of war and foten, they were aided by the natives themselves against other tribes who would invade them and kill them mercilessly. I already said how Catholics cared
1) Hitler was a Catholic both according to public and private statement and according to church doctrine, and 94 % of all Germans where Christians (1939 census).
2) Stalin never renounced his Orthodoxy and did attend seminary, the vast majority of all Russians were Christian too. That the Church was attacked up to 1941 - when it was reinstated- was because it took the sida against the Red Army ion the Russian Civil war, which was lost.
@Draugh39 Hitler was Catholic? Give me a break. He certainly was baptized AS A KID but to call him a devout Catholic according to Church doctrine when he preached heresy, killed numerous priests and nuns, went against the actions of the Pope whe the latter saved the Jews, etc. You read a history book because I already did until I got sick. You'll see that when Hitler 'praised' the Church, he only did it to get support form Catholics when in reality he hated religion and was a satanist. Stalin
Hitler didn't kill a single priest or nun, he was never personally involved in that. On the contrary Hitler had good relations with priests and nuns. He stayed Catholic his whole life which was confirmed by Göring in the war trials.
"Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant." ( Nuremberg, 1945)
@Draugh39 Goring was also related to Gertrud von Le Fort, one of the world's leading Catholic writers of the time and who hated naziism with a passion, banned all Catholic newspapers to supress resistance to the german regime and had his daughter in 1935, 4 years before he actually started killing Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, POLES who sadly, were Catholic and were responsible for having Auschwitz on their soil. Don't look at me like that, Stephen Fry said it!
@Draugh39 never renounced his orthodoxy? HE WAS AN ATHEIST!
Now, the Vatican did praise Stepinac for his actions in favor of the Jews, and you don't know what Pius told Pavelic. Two world leaders meeting to discuss world matters? Gasp! Those bastards! And as I said, you don't know what Pius told Pavelic. Cardinal Tisserant whom I really dislike even compiled a list of clergy which were involved in the Ustase. If Pius saved so many Jews in Europe, why would he support killing them in Croatia?
As for Stalin he did study to become an orthodox priest but left the seminary before final exams and he NEVER renounced his orthodoxy. Did you know he wrote religious poetry?
Stalin "denied categorically to prescribe atheistic literature to his personal library, fastidiously calling it ""antireligious waste-paper (junk)"
His views appear to be against organized religion, not against religious faith.
"Now, the Vatican did praise Stepinac for his actions in favor of the Jews..."
Achbishop Stepinac was found guilty of collaboration with the fascist Ustaše movement and complicity in allowing the forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs to Catholicism. He is a convicted war crimminal.
@Draugh39 Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac was indicted on the charges of supporting the Ustaše government, urging forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs, and encouraging Ustaše resistance in Yugoslavia.[41] Phayer argues that Stepinac (who remained silent during his trial) could have defended himself from the charge of supporting forced conversions, but not the other two. In 1985, In 1985, his trial prosecutor Jakov Blazevic admited publically that Cardinal Stepinac's trial was entirely framed, and
@Draugh39 that Stepinac was tried only because he refused to sever thousand year old ties between Croatians and the Roman Catholic Church. Stepinac only supported the Ustase at first in so far as it would help Croatia. However: Stepinac] was one of the very rare men in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis' tyranny at a time when it was very difficult and dangerous for him to do so. Winston Churchill. 'nuff said. Schindler himself was viewed with hate at first yet what happened?
@Draugh39 Oh, so 94% of Germans were Christians eh? Does that make all Germans Nazis? Not even all the Nazis themselves were bad despite being part of the worst government ever. There was Oskar Schindler; there was the soldier who said 'one day, history will judge us' as he saved a woman from being shot. The Germans were no more shocked at the atrocities when they became known then the rest of the world which was itself predominantly Christian was, and they started years after Hitler came to
@Draugh39 for the natives so I won't go into more detail. I'm well aware of the atrocities commited in the Ustase regime yet the Ustase wasn't catholic because it cared for our religion, it was 'catholic' because of nationalism. They even held Islam as a good religion because of its national significance or soemthing. Some Priests did support the Ustase, yet thats like saying that since a democrat killed a person, so ALL democrats support murder. Its not true, especially since Archbishop
The Ustaše were actively supported by the Catholic church from the start. The support from the Vatican was just as important as that from Nazi-Germany. Ante Pavelić was given a private Papal audience in 1941, when he was instated and 2 years after starting the genocides the Pope still met him. The Pope was given information about that Catholic priests were doing in the concentration camps and didn't even reprimand a single one.
@Draugh39 Stepinac was regarded as a hero by nearly everyone except the oppressors of his country and he saved many Jews too. The Vatican was well aware of the atrocities and didn't support them at all. True, the Vatican did support the Croatian government AT FIRST or rather, it supported Croatia, calling it an outpost of Christianity and encouraging it to better itself but once the atrocities were clear, the Vatican didn't support Ustase. wikipedia: Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše.
"The Vatican was well aware of the atrocities and didn't support them at all."
They didn't condem them at all, they didn't repremand even the priests that committed massmurder of Serbs and they later HELPED the Nazis and and Ustaša to flee justice. Pope Pius XII personally gave Ante Pavelić refuge in the Vatican and assisted his flight to South America. Further they tried to pressure the USA and UK *not* to send arrested war criminals to trail in Yugoslavia
@Draugh39 I doubt very much Pius XII actually sheltered Pavelic and the 'documents' unearthed by the government or soemthing are probably FAKE. I'm reading a piece right now on this so I'll respond.
@Draugh39 But you sir are a rash, presumptous twat. You insult all the Catholics, protestants and Orthodox who fought against Hitler and saved so many Jews, you insult the victims of the holocaust for aquanting their rescuers with the Nazis. Do you care for the victims of the holocaust? Read a proper history book and see original sources rather than the utterly idiotic statements of that dumbass Fry and his anti-catholic rubbish.
"You insult all the Catholics, protestants and Orthodox who fought against Hitler"
Nope I attack those who fought WITH Hitler, and most of those were Christians, just as most Nazis were Christians.
You were the one that brought Hitler into this, not I. Furthermore I have based all comments on historical documents. That Hitler was a Catholic is a fact. He is that according to Church doctrine, and according to the sworn statements of his closest friends.
@Draugh39 yeah, the same close friends who said that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian." & that Jesus "also wanted to act against the Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome." Goebbels. "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been
I see that you quoted directly from Wikipedia. Now why didn't you include the next few lines:
"Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote in a confidential report that Hitler "undoubtedly lives in belief in God" and that he "recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture."
"Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
@Draugh39 Yeah, pity the Bishop was decieved by HITLER, the king of all unreliable narrators. Pity you left that bit out.
One diary quote which we don't even know is true doesn't count anything. Hitler by his own words and actions which I have given you show that he wasn't catholic evne in name only. Its an argument SOME of you dumb atheists make just to make us Caths look bad. You don't want to say that you hate catholics so you make an excuse and say you hate us because we are nazis. Bullcrap
"Yeah, pity the Bishop was decieved by HITLER,..."
False again.
It read "...Ian Kershaw BELIEVES that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber noting his, evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity...".
So what was written there was one persons, personal BELIEFS, not a historical quote - thus I left it out due to lack of space.
The stuff written in the book "Hitler's Table talk", from which much of the ideas that Hitler was not a Christian arises, that book is riddled with deliberate misquotes, mistranslations and outright lies. I again wonder why you don’t taker Hitler’s closest friend, Göring’s sworn testimony into account.
Furthermore Hitler was never excommunicated and didn't leave the Church thus he remains a Roman Catholic according to Church doctrine.
@Draugh39 Draugh, if you're trying to make feel guilty about my Church ebcause it INVOLUNTARILY contained a complete asshole as Hitler and Mussolini, you are mistaken; I heard that poor excuse of rhetoric before and I didn't find it convincing the first time. Instead of giving me a reason why you're not Catholic, either in its doctrines and beliefs, you and Fry/Hitchens instead give me a list of the 'atrocities' commited by the Church, without thinking whether some were justified or not. You
The reason that the Catholic Church is still a force for evil isbecause of it's actions in regards to, Child molestations by priests, The discrimination against homosexuals, and the massive dammage it does due to its stance against condom use in Africa. We know that condom use reduces the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Safe sex and sexual education as well as family planning helps and is a good thing, working against it is thus evil.
"Instead of giving me a reason why you're not Catholic..."
The reason I'm not a Catholic is because I don't believe in any gods. I think the Catholic "moral codes" are horribly inhuman, I think the Church is actively causing pain and problems today; I think the church is hypocritical and built on lies.
If you wanted my views you just had to ask. However what I have done up to know was to address falsehoods you stated.
@Draugh39 don't have the guts to say ''Hey, I don't like the Catholic Church because it teaches and supports genocide because it never excommunicated Hitler'' despite the NUMEROUS Catholics and the Pope himself who condemned racism and saved all those Jews from a bad fate. You'd rather believe Hitler's words than consider the fact the Catholic Church did alot of good in the past and the fact that the actions of utterly lukewarm and fallen Catholics like Hitler who killed Catholics themselves.
@Draugh39 To you, the Catholic Church equals an organization the commited genocide throughout the ages despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic. Don't give me the Albigensian crusade because it was never intended as a genocide in the first place. The war was conducted to REGAIN lands from the Cathars and the nobles that supported them and to make Catholicism be spread there without struggle. Eventually, the Inquisition was established which I consider
@philipmarie1854 "despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic"
"destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends" and "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins."
Pope Urban II in his speech against the infidels in Chartre 1095.
@TomFynn That sentence wasn't a call of extermination and race shouldn't be taken literally, the Pope only meant that Muslim rule over such lands should be removed. If it did mean mass extermination, why did Catholics and Muslims live in peace for ten years in Jerusalem until the latter attacked back? Even Muslims admitted they were treated good by Caths, saying they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they
@philipmarie1854 Your original comment stated, and I quote: "despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic". Mass extermination has nothing to do with it.
Bit strange for a religion that says You shall not kill, eh?
@TomFynn they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.' That was said by Muslim traveller Ibn Jubayr. During the crusades, which were at first led mostly by nobles from northern France who claimed descent from Charlemagne, both Muslims and Christians used Franks and other names as ethnonyms to describe crusaders
@TomFynn Oh, and indulgences don't work that way. Indulgences aren't a forgiveness of sin but a removal of some punishments for sin or all of the punishments for sin, these removals being called partial and plenary indulgences respectively; you also have to be in the state of grace to recieve them because if you died happy that you burned a whole village and raped 100 women, how do you expect God and Mary to accept you in heaven? We always preached that as atheists themselves should know.
@TomFynn Er, yes? While I don't think you want to become Catholic, you provided a quote form Urban VII talking about granting forgiveness to knights so you MUST have expected an explanation from me explaining my self out of this situation, no? If not, then you aren't really being srirous about scholary research and finding the right answers.
The Catholic Church have committed genocide throughout the ages either directly through actions of priests or indirectly thought orders from priests or the Pope.
Sorry are you saying that the use of military might to by force take over an area and to root out a religion present there wasn't intended to kill anyone?! Are you really that naive?! Tell me, what was to happen to people that refuced to become Catholic?
@Draugh39 a very smart move. Nobody was forced to convert, although the Church did forbid alot fo the dangerous practices of the Cathars such as their sexual promiscuity.
@Draugh39 much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Speer, quoting Hitler. And if you took all your piss poor research from Mein Kampf, know that historians regard it with contempt and say that it was nothing but a piece of propaganda and that Hitler was an unreliable narrator (as everyone who hs half a brain wouldn't take Hitler for his word).
@wulfbaen1993 that means sugar is bad, along with toothbrush mustaches... therefore, Charlie Chaplin is bad! That means since Pope Paul III was corrupt then the whole Church corrupt despite there being many, many holy Popes. Of course, you think Christianity is great, yet ignore the fact that Catholics are the first Christians and the only ones who can say they are real Christians as they are descended from the Apostles. Don't say that the Church did SOME good but you don't accept it as the only
@wulfbaen1993 true form of Christianity; Jesus didn't want it that way. Christ today would be ashamed at the corruption found within many bishops and priests but before Vatican II, he'd be ashamed of the many lukewarm Catholics and not the Bishops, most who were actually religious back then and actually cared for God and Mary. Today, He'd be ashamed of Mr. Fry for being such a jerk and a manipulative bastard. Oh, we're obsessed about sex even though the media oloves big breasts! WTF!
"We think gays are immoral ONLY if they are promiscous and fantasize sexually about people."
Ha ha ha. So you think that thought crimes are bad! To fanazise is "immoral".
Funny that, considering the very real actions that the RCC have taken in regards to real sexual crimes, committed by real church officials against real people.
@Draugh39 Pity those corrupt bishops weren't Pius V or Anthony Mary Claret; the former would hand over pedophiles to the secular authorities so that they would be executed while the latter forced Priests who even attended brothels into retirement and to spent the rest of thei life in harsh penance. And Bishop Claret lived in the 1800's. There was even an American Priest who found homes for Priests suffering personal problems and sent letters to Bishops telling them of priestly pedophiles.
You are listing some small actions of individual priests. So? What is talked about here is the actions (and deliberate inactions) of the Church itself. This is also stated by mr. Fry.
@Draugh39 Are the actions of Pius V, Benedict XIV and Cardinal Peter Damian whose effect on Priests were very widespread only individual actions of some priests? They certainly weren't inactive!
@Draugh39 To fantazise is immoral and bad for your health, because if that chick down the street were to find out one was thinking about screwing with her, she'd kick you in the shin or put an arrow to your knee.
"To fantazise is immoral and bad for your health..."
What a silly notion. To dream is essential to our wellbeing. Good sleep (which includes dreams which in turn are fantasies) is important for good health.
Any system, political or religious, which states that thoughts and dreams are immoral, is totalitarian and fundamentally evil.
@Draugh39 Thoughts and dreams aren't immoral, oly sexual ones which aren't needed. If you're thinking of hugging a friend and what not, or even thinking about sexuality as a topic or concept, its not wrong. What is wrong is sexually fanatsizing about others and viewing them as nothing but a sexual object. Of course, sexual thoughts are utterly absolutely permitted during sex and in preparation for it. And the idea these thoughts are bad for your healthw ere obviously a JOKE you twat.
@philipmarie1854 For example, when the Catholic church wanted to make Mother Teresa a saint (for which she had to have performed three miracles) we find that all three were absurd. What's worse, Christopher Hitchens played the role of devils advocate for the church. He argued that Mother Teresa was not a believer in god, we now know that to be true with the latest release of her letters and yet she is still a saint. I'm sorry, I am asking for scientifically verifiable proof of god. Still waiting
@zetronman Sorry, but Mother Teresa never said in any of her letters to her religious advisers that she did not believe in God. If you would have read the letters and not believed blindly what Christopher Hitchens and others have proposed (sort of how many believers of faith believe blindly, right or wrong), you would realize that she did question his existence and struggled to find him in her life. She said his existence may never be proven, and that he was a mystery much like what happens to
@zukuzukuzuna Mother Teresa said "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me." More importantly she wrote that at the end of her life, she feared being a hypocrite. The miracle you reference is laughable (and doctor evaluation agrees with Hitchens and not the Vatican). Further more, it is important to stamp out absurd beliefs, if we fail to do so then we invite our own demise over a war of words.
@zetronman Actually, I was countering your argument that you claimed Mother Teresa was canonized. You made the statement that the Vatican had canonized her with three absurd miracles. They have only recognized one, and the doctors examining the woman could not actually describe what had happened with the woman's apparent tumor, so they said it was medically misdiagnosed. Mother Teresa spent her life trying to discover God, and admittedly never could, but she did say she never could in herself.
@zetronman . . . She could only find God in the people she was helping. In their joy and love for those around them, even though they had nothing. The fact that they found happiness in non-material goods. That is why she devoted her life to the poor, to the sick and helpless. She wanted to feel God as they felt God. Alas, she was unable to, but she never denied his existence. She apologized that she was unable to find him in herself.
@zetronman The soul in death. These questions do not boldly state that she did not have faith. The second issue I have with this statement, is that the Vatican has not canonized Mother Teresa. They have confirmed one miracle, the miracle of the tumor being healed inside of Monica Besra after she prayed to Mother Teresa. Christopher Hitchens original argument, before he questioned her faith, was that she was not working for the poor, but she was working to spread Christianity. This again was not
when Mr.Fry talks you STFU and Listen.
TheHandsomeKing1992 6 days ago
One of the best speeches ive ever heard! Any christian, or religious person of any faith, with an ounce of inteligance should listen to this and WAKE UP!! well done Stephen!
ustrip2008 1 week ago
2/3s a year's salary! FUCK!
mrfishgun 1 week ago
Great !
I suspect Jesus is going 'finally, someone that actually was listening'
Peekingduck 1 week ago
That was amazing!
w00zyhead 1 week ago
i'm a huge fan of both Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, and i honestly think that Stephen Fry's presentation was the best by far in the this debate.
Bobselete 2 weeks ago 14
What an engaging and intelligent man.
101truthhurts 3 weeks ago
good for him ! religions are false and ppl who follow them are nuts !
flexbrat 1 month ago
Saying it as it is since 1957. Good Job Mr Fry.
VoxJoxx 1 month ago in playlist Enlightenment
Stephen Fry is the closest thing to God there is
Evenflowist314 1 month ago 28
Alot of people compare Stephen Fry to God!!
well honestly, he's okay, but he's no Fry..
TheNameIsntSam 1 month ago
The word genius is far too often used these days but you must consed that he is one.
drb11139 1 month ago
'And the Lord said i will destroy humans whom i have created from the face of the earth'
Tworonnies1 1 month ago
Philipmarie1854
(cont) Surely any honest person has to concede that. Of course when faced with these inevitable "voids" in their own dogma they too fall back on religious tradition. It fascinates me to no end, especially when I see so many followers of Hitchens et. al. get it wrong.
My apology for misspelling your screen name previously.
Jblod240 2 months ago
Philipmarrie1884
Because for all the rhetoric among atheist about the goodness of the enlightenment abound they will NEVER speak badly of their own dogma and reveal that in fact there is no compulsory principal contained within to actually DO any good. Doesnt mean they can't of course, but there is no requirement to do so.
Jblod240 2 months ago
In reference with what Stephen said about Thomas Moore with the Calothic Church "being the only owner of the truth." It backs up the statement made in the Davinchi Code about the church, "whoever keeps the keys to heaven rules the world."
westernlions 2 months ago
Absolutely brilliant speech, don't miss to next ones.
harriman1952 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistPlanet2
Absolutely brilliant
harriman1952 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AtheistPlanet2
Rock on Fry - I'm going to use this speech for an edm track
dirtboxdivas 2 months ago
I honestly have this on my ipod..
Toby99ism 2 months ago 7
@Toby99ism So do I. I also have him and Hitch at the Blasphemy Debate at the Hay Festival.
fkerpants 1 month ago
"Yes, I wrote it down.(.....bitch)"
madjack18 3 months ago
Simply put, the Catholic church needs reformation. This is not the 5th, 15th, or even the 20th century. It's time to see women as people too.
gmaureen 3 months ago
@gmaureen A reformation? What little semblance of the catholic church there is visible today IS a result of a reformation done by Vatican II... IN THE SIXTIES, and look how it turned out. Priests are ignorant and more corrupt than ever, bishops are stupid people and most catholics can change their name to agnostics (not that I have anything against them, unlike this dumbass that is Stephen Fry. His statements are so bigotted and so pompous, he makes Richard Dawkins look like a care bear). The
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen thing is, there have ALWAYS been reformations inside the Church, not done by idiots such as Luther who fialed miserably at his false goals, not by changing doctrines of the faith but by enforcing stricter laws but at the same time conforming to the times in so far as it is not a sin. The Council of Trent did it and was very successful at making holy Catholics. The crusades and inquisition I've explained before but I can explain them again but really, the only time I ever saw the RCC
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen before Vatican II abuse its power, so much so that it's priests were hypocrital were during the late middle ages in regards the Jews. If you've done your research, you'll see that the Popes and the Saints (including Vincente Ferrer according to 'Vicente Ferrer and the Kings Jews') and whole Catholic countries actually helped the Jews and condemend forced conversions. Hell, unlike Protestants (understandable) and other religions, they could practice Judaism in public, though to be fair
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen if you were Protestant and lived in the Papal states, you weren't forced to become catholic; public worship of false religions was forbidden but pravately it was not. Anyway, the abuses I'm talking about isn't forbidding public exercise of religion; I'm not talking about condemning Judaism as a heresy for obvious reasons. I'm not even talking about the times catholics kings and lords expelled Jews from their lands. I'm talking about when the Popes, Pius V actually was the only Pope who
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen actually did expel Jews from his lands, when They and the councils (through non infallible means though) humiliated the Jews. I can even forgive putting them into ghettos as a seperate society 'cos not only did Jews and rabbis establish them but the Church's intention was to supress the spread of heresy, but did they have to go and force the Jews to wear distinctive dress and in spain at least, to force them to not have any valid business?
I'm a conservative in my politics but even
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen more in my faith. Because two Church councils forced harsh laws on the Jews and because a Pope whom I expected MUCH more kindness out of did the same, and non-infallibly at that will not make lose faith in the good that Catholics did or what the Catholic religion did. When Catholics such as Francis de Sales, Euphrasia Pelletier, Saint Dominic, etc... did good, it wasn't in spite of religion, it was BECAUSE of it. They changed things for the better and left a wide influence. But Fry?
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen He's been what? 30 years speaking against religion? What has he changed? He won an award from an obscure atheist company yet what has he changed? He bitches about 'evil religion''yet what has he done? Has the government of UK instituted anti-religious laws? Has it accepted him as the arbiter of all morals? He may have his fans, some of them deservedly so because of his charity work (despite there being others who do the same and more and aren't appreciated for it) but culturally, he's
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@gmaureen he's invisible. He moans about religion, and nothing changes. What good did this debate do? Did it make the 'catholic church' bow down to his pompous 'intelligence' or do catholic apologists and historians grate tear their hair out at his innacuracies and our side's very lukewarm performance? (a hologram of Christ and Mary could do a better job defending the RCC).
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
Stephen Fry is one of the most intelligent and elequent people of our time. This is one of the most brilliant speeches I've ever come across. It's passionate, informative and most importantly the truth. It's all very well people having their faith, but not when overrides common sense, basic human rights and descriminates against homosexuals, women and others. In short keep your religion to yourself and don't force it on others who don't want it. Peace:)
veldrin1000 3 months ago
@veldrin1000 I've seen more truth and common sense in the faith than in Fry's blatantly anti-catholic speech with all its historical bias, lies and crocodile tears. Common sense? How does Catholic teaching override common sense? Homosexuals do have rights, just as promiscuous people have rights. Theres a diffirence between being transsexual and homosexual which only involves lust and not real romantic love of the same sex. Sex isn't love, its only an expression of love ebtween married partners.
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@philipmarie1854 I was going to prepare a long and drawn speech to reply to all you said to me. However, the simple fact is you don't even have the premise for a debate. Also, certain things can't be ignored...
veldrin1000 2 months ago
@veldrin1000 Human rights? The only time the Church seriously infringed on human rights were at the third and fourth councils of Alteran adn some of Pius V's actions, otherwise, the Church's actions such as only allowing private worship of false religions where normal for those times.
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
Absolutely brilliant. If was possible to knight someone for services to eloquence, wisdom, and the power of the spoken language, then none is more deserving than Stephen Fry. This is fantastic. It's about time the Roman Catholic Church realised its failures and remedied them. Roman Catholics are lovely people - my head boy at school is one and I cannot think of a more delightful young gentlemen. But the church as an institution needs to look at itself in a damned good mirror.
wulfbaen1993 3 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 So do atheists, Jews, Muslims and every damned one of us. We're all sons of bitches except Jesus and Mary but wheareas some traditionalist Cathlics and admittedly the vast majority of Jews (around 80% or so) support a worthless cause in having a nationalsit and religious state, Fry, Dawkins Pullman and Hitchens have it even worse. Imagine spending 30 years preaching hatred and changing no life for the better, influencing nobody's morality nor the government, or reaching your goal
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 of showing th world just how 'evil' religion is. If only they weren't so hateful, bigotted and inaccurate/unfair/did not do the bloody research, MAYBE they would have had some influence. They may have their fans but culturally, they're invisible. What have Fry, Dawkins and Hitchens changed? How did they affect our morality in a way nobody else didn't or how we wouldn't naturally get it by following other better philosophers? Fry wise? I think he's more pompous and arrogant.
philipmarie1854 3 months ago
@philipmarie1854 He isn't hateful of religion, as he clearly points out that he likes people with faith; he thinks it is a wonderful thing to have, and we shouldn't try to take it away. What he's saying is that the institutions are corrupt, and needs change. He isn't challenging morality, or trying to change our perspective of it. All he is doing is highlighting the failures of the Catholic Church in response to the motion. And he is wise, amazingly so.
wulfbaen1993 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 Mister, you don't understand so I'm going to be nice but harsh: you CAN point out the corruption there is nowadays in the Vatican II church as all these cover-ups and lukewarmness IN DEVOTION will tell you. But it wasn't always like this. There were corrupt Bishops in the middle ages yet theey weren't the majority. In fac,t the middle ages were more holy then today and until Vatican II, the Church was very devout. We have morals that we think are good while Fry has morals HE
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 thinks are good. Fry goes beyond that. He says that he has nothing against religious people and yet he ridicules our Catholic faith and beliefs, as if people who beleive in the Catholic faith can't do good, a belief that Hitchens held. Organized religion was found by Christ so that there would be no confusion to what He really thaught. If it wasn't for the RCC, Jesus would have no legacy, He and His Mum would just be a legend. If we know the RCC was found by Christ, how can we have
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 our own interpretation of Scripture and what Jesus thaught when we know we made it up? I once heard that an Anglican asked his pastor what a certain verse of scripture meant. The pastor told him but the Anglican said: 'Wait, how can we be sure that it really means that?' The pastor told him he can't be sure, he must have faith that it does. 'Well,' said the Anglican,' I'm joing the RCC where I can be sure of what it means.' And did just that.
Catholics of old pointed out the
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 the failures of the Popes or protested against injusteces all the time, such as the Spanish enslaving people (BTW, they were successful in their protests because Philip III eventually illegalized american slavery in 1600). Rape and pillage indeed. There were wars in the middle gaes but they weren't caused by the Church but by greedy nobles. If wasn't trying to lead us away from the RCC, he'd have done his research. No mister Fry, the Church DIDN'T fail to save the Jews as they
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@philipmarie1854
"There were wars in the middle gaes but they weren't caused by the Church..."
Really? Who ordered the Albigensian Crusade (and all other crusadews) and why? What was the Catholic Church response to the reformation? What was the initiating reason to the 30-year war?
What is the origin for the word "Ghetto"?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 The Albigensian crusade wasn't what the Popes had in mind at first. They actually tried to convert them but resorted to war after the ALBIGENSIANS killed the papal legate. Of course, the war went into excess but how does the action of a few Catholic KINGS and not bishops show that Catholicism is bad? America initiated the war in Iraq, therefore all of the american government is bad. The crusade doesn't show that my faith is bad because ithas nothing to do with it. However, the crusades
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"ALBIGENSIANS killed the papal legate"
Wrong, the Papal deligate was murdere but there were many French nobels that were not Cathars that had issues with the Pope, especially Raymond VI, who had been excommunicated before this. The Pope then ORDERED the Crusade against the gnostic Christians in France and Spain. The whole basis for this was because the gnostics were considdered heretics and the Catholic church wanted to kill them off.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 against the saracens WERE justified in the sense that there were valid reasons they were done. Google Listverse: the 8 crusades explained for more. As for the 30 year war, the Pope didn't participate in it; Martin Luther started the peasants war long before it. The history is complicated as atrocities were commited by both sides. There were neither good nor bad sides yet at the same time, both sides fought for their own freedom. Its like a song of ci and fire if it was real, actually.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The pope never directly participated, he ordered with the threat of excommunication the Kings and Nobility. The problem he had with the 30 year war was because the people had stopped believing that the Pope was Christ vicar on earth. especially due to the massive frauds and dishonesty by the RCC. That mean that the threat of excommunication of a Noble had little effect in an area that was protestant in belief. And the Pope wanted his power back, via war.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Bullcrap, people still believed he was Christs vicar, they believe it today still. People acted either because of their own selfish needs or for survival. The peace of Hapsburg wasn't just as both Catholic and Protestant princes forced their subjects to practice the religion of the state no matter what religion they professed. As for frauds and dishonesty, you can look no further than every government that existed, especially that of the US. The thing, just because a FEW people in the
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Bullcrap, people still believed he was Christs vicar, "
Name one protestant christian or orthodox that believes that the Pope is Christ vicar on earth. Only Catholics have this view. And with protestantism and the translation of the Bible into other languages that belief was erroded. The behaviour of the RCC at that time didn't help them either. Just look at Pope Alexander VI, Leo X and Paul III. Truly evil selfish bastards, don't you agree?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Not only do Catholics themselves have translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate (Latin was the most common language) but Protestant bibles differ SO MUCH intranslations its ridiculus. At a Baptist convention in the 1800's, they themselves adressed this problem. Now, a Pope is infallible only if he teaches things by his authority as Pope. Lets take the american president: he has a family, friends but he's also human, so when Bill Clinton had that sex scandal, nobody declared America
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 to be a sex crazed country because Clinton's actions weren't an act of government. Likewise, if a Pope is corrupt or holy, it doesn't affect Church doctrine. When Paul IV made those laws against Jews, he didn't act as Pope but only as governer of the Papal states; when he declared that no heretic can be Pope in Cum ex Apostolatus officcio, that was a papal act, 100% infallible, signed by the fisherman's ring, EX CATHEDRA. And if you think that I'm declaring the actions of the Popes to
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 be infallible or not according to my caprices, don't; alot of the infallible declarations of the Church aren't liked by todays ears at all though to me they make perfect sense and in some cases, I endorse them with my whole heart. Such as Mary's Immacualte Conception, thats a dogma; no salvation outside the Church; recognition of the Catholic religion by the state; prayer, all dogmas. However, Absurdum by Paul IV and Innocent III's cries for battle aren't infallible.
Not only that
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 but even corrupt Popes did good ex cathedra such as Paul III declaring natives to have souls and what not. If a corrupt pope makes the whole church corrupt, does that mean that a saintly Pope like Pius V, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Leo the great and Gregory VII make the whole Church saintly? The Popes you mentioned were corrupt and catholics themselves knew this and hated them but none of them ever thaught of deposing them and getting rid of the Papacy.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
If any pope ordered the church to do a good action then that obviously means the Church did a good action. None of the Popes you list were all good though. And the fact that the Catholic Church improved doesn't mean it is a good institution.
It's like a wife-beater that stops hitting his wife on Sundays. It is an improvement but he is still an evil bastard.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Now, the reformation: Luther left the Church not because he saw how 'corrupt' it was but because he was a lazy bastard and invented moral relavatism or its percusor. I could get any 1 dollar bible, look up a line, declare it says something and claim the holy spirit made me do it. thus, a zillion other people did the same thing and divided not only Protestants from the Church but division occured between THEMSELVES.Not only did the reformation reform NOTHING in the Catholic Church;
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 what, did the reformation inspire Priests to become more holy? On the conrary, Luther himself was not only very anti-semitic but he said 'sin and sin more to have more confidence in Christ'. he thaught that people can do no good in this world and are capable only of sinning; he thaught that attempting to be virtuous was sinful and that faith alone saves. Basically, as long as you beleive in Jesus, you dont have to lift a finger to do good and you'll still go to heaven or worse, you can
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 commit genocide and still go to heaven as long as you accept Christ as your personal saviour and the word of the Bible wich is the only rule of faith. Whats wrong with this picture?
Besides, numerous saints did better reformations of the Church's discipline such as Teresa of Avila, Saint Francis, Saint Cajetan and the COuncil of Trent and none of them left the Church but their work was encouraged by it. Luther was an ordinary man who without claiming that Christ appeared to him withno
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
I'm not trying to say that protestanmtism is good. I think all Christian denominations are fundamentally bad - but this was specifically about Catholisism. The Bible itself is an evil book with some very bad advice in it. We would do much better without it.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 what??? what hole did you crawl oout of????
Sgtheckler 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sgtheckler
"what??? what hole did you crawl oout of????"
A vagina like most of us. Don't you know about things like that?
Draugh39 3 weeks ago
@Sgtheckler Apperantly the right hole
MSilentstrikeM 1 week ago
@Draugh39 encouragement from the Church claimed that God gave into his hands to 'reform' the Catholic Church which at SOME point fell into error. When did the Church fall into error and teach a doctrine diffirent than it always thaught?
'Vatican II'.
Vatican II was run by freemasons and occured only 40 years ago.
'Thats a cop out.'
Shut up, its complicated.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 in the Church are corrupt doesn't mean that the FAITH itself is corrupt. Scientists made nuclear weapons and experiment on animals, therefore, science is bad. So, Leo X was a greedy bastard, therefore, all Popes are greedy bastards. False. Say what you will about Innocent III but he was a VERY good leader and VERY intelligent but at the same time, he was prudent and when the crusaders took over Constantinople, he criticized them, especially sicne they were never rodered by him to take
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"The thing, just because a FEW people in the in the Church are corrupt doesn't mean that the FAITH itself is corrupt"
It is if, if it is the Pope itself and all his crony cardinals. If the leader of the church itself is a corrupt, selfish bastard like Alexander VI then the church itself is corrupt. The actions of Alexander VI and Leo X is what sparked off the protestant reformation.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Scientists made nuclear weapons and experiment on animals, therefore, science is bad."
No scientist is claiming to be gods’ representative on earth. Science is not a religious hierarchal belief. People that questions scientists are not burned at the stake or tortured in the name of science.
The Catholic Church on the other hand did this. And the order of the pope is doctrine.
Your analogy with science is silly
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 it over. Likewise, there was some corruption in the middle ages but not all nor the majority of the people of the Church were corrupt. The iddle ages gave us the Dominicans and the Franciscans who begged for their living and preached everywhere, there were the missioanries in the Americas who opposed slavery severely and succeeded in the end, there was the COuncil of Trent which reformed and defined many things in the Catholic Church and made laws much stricter for Priests. Really,
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 the truly last corrupt Pope was Urban VIII because after he died, the Church abolished the office of Cardinal nephew and Popes could only appoint one relative as a Cardinal. After that, the Popes, especially Pius IX removed alot of the restrictions on the Jews and Pius IX was exiled AFTER he tore down the ghetto gates and the Jews turned against him. I'm aware of the Mortara case but Edgardo truly was baptized and the Pope acted only because he wanted to save the kids soul, even though
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"I'm aware of the Mortara case but Edgardo truly was baptized ."
Edgardo was baptized by a fourteen-year-old illiterate Catholic servant, without his parents’ permission, consent or knowledge. Then the Pope kidnap the child from the parents, saying that since he was baptised as Catholic (even though the girl was no priest) he was forever a Catholic and shouldn't be raised Jewish.
Well the same is true for Hitler, another Catholic that never left the Church.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 the id had the freedom at least late ron to see his family and the Pope was well aware of the pain he caused his parents but the incident doesn't show that Pius IX was an asshole and anti-semitic; if he was so anti-semitic, why didn't he jsut force all Jewish parents to give up their children to Catholic institutions? Not even the Popes of the middle ages did that, why would the liberal Pius IX do that?
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 As for the ghetto, while the Church didn't outright persecute Jews and condemned killing them or forcing them to convert, it certainly did discriminate agaisnt them not as a race but as a RELIGION because normal Jewish Catholics had the same rights as non-jewish ones. Ghettos were actually established in the papal states in the late 1500's by Paul IV. Before, the Jews though forced to wear distinctive clothing were allowed to live in the cities without being walled away and even in
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The Catholic Church did force converstion of any people they considdered "herretics". They did that up to 1945 in Croatia where forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs, along with the Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant Germanic minorities in the hundreds of thousands happened.
Anti-Semetism was part of Church doctrine up to Vatican II, and is still prevalent in smaller Catholic Cults.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Anti-JUDAISM was part of Church doctrine, just as the Church is anti-atheism, anti-protestantism, etc... but it certainly wasn't anti-semitic. Not only did Catholic ethnic Jews have the same rights as non-jewish caths, we have saints among them, like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. The Church condemend forced conversion of Jews as you'll see on wikipedia: chrstianity and ant-semitism, forbade and condemned molesting them, Bishops passed bills to not harass them and denounced the
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 the idea that Jews practice ritual murder (Simon of Trent was murdered by a satanic Jewish sect and not real Jewish Jews). Incidentally, it was the Popes (and Muslims) who recieved the Jews in their countries when they were expelled and things truly became bad for them when that dumbass Paul IV made his stupid laws, not ex cathedra though, he made them as an act of government and not as a doctrinal issue. Besides, Stepinac didn't want Jews to be forced converted and Pius XII even
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 demanded that children, even if they were baptized, be returned to their parents or guardians unless they truly had no one to go to.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
Most of the forced conversions were orthodox Christians forced to Catholicism, this was not just children most of them were adults. Stepinac was informed of all of these and never stopped them, the Vatican was also informed and never punished the priest doing it even when those priests were committing genocide on the orthodox Serbs. In fact the Vatican helped many of the perpetrators of genocide to flee justice after the war.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
As for how the Vatican treated someone baptised as a Christian, look no further to than Edgardo Mortara. The little boy was born to Jewish parents and was baptized by their Catholic nanny when he was ill. He was then kidnapped by the Vatican police into the Vatican under the orders of Pope Pius IX. The reason was that by baptising him Catholic the child became Catholic forever.
Thus Hitler according to papal decrees and doctrine is forever a Catholic.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Baptism leaves a mark that is permanent an in that sense, Martin Luther himself was forever catohlic. He didn't need to be rebaptized if he wanted to become Catholic again. Neither Hitler nor Luther were Catholic; the former was an apostate, the latter a narcistic pagan. You employ insane troll logic when you say Hitler was catholic forever: its like saying Hitchens was born an anglican, therefore he's anglican forever according to anglican doctrine despite renouncing it as Hitler did.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 the case of ghettos, they weren't forced into it like prison, they were only allowed to live in it although before Paul IV and AFTER him, the Popes didn't concern themselves with what jobs the jews could or could not have.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@wulfbaen1993 themselves might have told you in defense of their hero, Pius XII, showing that you pulled your research out of your ass. No Mr. Fry, we don't think you're evil because you're homsoexual, in yur case, we just think you're an asshole. We think gays are immoral ONLY if they are promiscous and fantasize sexually about people. We think the same of horny heterosexuals.
I don't think Fry is wise. He exagerates the Church's faults desregarding the immense good it did.
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@philipmarie1854 Of course he's going to exaggerate the Church's faults, he's arguing against them. And immense good? Seriously? All I can see is an institution that dominates people's belief systems, hordes money from them to build lavish churches that surely go against everything the Bible and Christianity teaches. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is great; especially the notion of giving money to the poor in the form of charity. But taking this point, isn't it odd that the RCC use this money
wulfbaen1993 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 to build huge, luxurious churches? Also, why is it that the Catholic Church doesn't have that many female bishops/priests and so on and so forth. Has there ever been a female pope? Why does your spiritual leader have to be male, hmm? Doesn't seem to me as if the Catholic Church understands equal rights. If women are allowed to lead nations... why can't they lead Churches?
wulfbaen1993 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 Also, "we're all sons of bitches"? Seriously?? Way to begin an argument there. You're not going to win anyone over when you're opening statement contains that.
wulfbaen1993 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 Hitchens used bad words in his arguments and swearing (or precision F strike) could be used to show that you're serous. Sons of bitches was uttered by a scientist after the very first nuclear bomb test. Hitler killed millions but now, the 'good guys' had weapons of mass destruction at their hands, hence, those who accept nuclear warfare are all bastards so screw them bitches! Likewise, Fry thinks Catholicism is bad yet he's as lying and hateful as he claims we are... so fuck him!!!
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 Of course he's going to exagerate? What, seriously? And you treat half truths and lies as good? Yes Christianity is great. On the subject of woman not being Priests, we DON'T and NEVER did regard men as better than women as the Bible will tell you. Men and women are equal, diffirent in FUCTION. Women could own stores, they could leave home when they wanted, choose to be married to whom they liked, etc... hell, they aided the war effort by helping soldiers and what not. According to
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philipmarie1854
"we DON'T and NEVER did regard men as better than women as the Bible will tell you."
Utter Bollocks again.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " (1 Timmothy 2:11-14)
(and that is one reason for male only priests)
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Let also men be silent in Church because we don't allow neither women nor men to preach; we only allow Priests. We regard women as being equal to men but diffirent in function; there never was a time when the Church said that woman can't gain as much grace as men or that they can't make their own decisions and can onyl ask the permission of men to make them. Your comments are utter bollocks.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@wulfbaen1993 one poet, they seemed like 'angels'. But they can't become Priests, becae Christ didn't want to and because the Priesthood is reserved exclusively for men. LayPEOPLE can teach but only PRIESTS can preach. Men who aren't Priests can't teach. We never had a female Pope because the office of a Pope is that of the Priesthood. Even if we wanted to make women Priests, we can't because ordination in this regards is invalid.
Secondly, the Bible doesn't say that being rich is exactly bad.
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 What pisses me off is that Fry deigns to condemn our Church for being so rich yet he himself is rich, enjoys gadgets and what not. How hypocital. He ignores the poverty which religious have to live with and that alot of Popes themselves, while being rich in money lived very frugal lifestyles and gave their money to the poor and missions, Popes like Pius V, Benedict XV and Pius 'died poor' X.
We build Churches to honor God and Mary and the Saints. We have statues so that if youpray
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 you'll feel like you're actually praying to God and Mary. Churches and cathedrals represent the majesty of God. They are beautiful but luxurious? If they were so luxurious, we would have used them as dinner halls, brothels and other bad things but we don't; the vikings did that. They are places where you pray. Lots of religions have beautiful places to pray in such as Buddhism and even Islam. However, the Church puts feeding the poor first. However, even I'll admit that the
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 multi billion dollar hadron space collider benifited humanity in every way even though those dollars could have been used to feed poorer African countries. Just saying. The same with the billions spent on war.
You ignore the good the RCC did. It established morality as we at least USED to know it until last century until the enlightment came and perverted some of it; without the RCC, America wouldn't exist and it'd be an entire slave market thanks to Colombus or at least they'd
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philipmarie1854
" without the RCC, America wouldn't exist and it'd be an entire slave market .."
The Catholic Church didn't sponsor Columbus and the native anericands had been there for millenia before. Furthermore, the church actually ran slave auctions out of their missions in California. As late as 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Bullcrap, Paul III condemend enslaving Americans and Greegory XVi condemend it also in one of his encyclicals. Eventually, Philip III follwoed suite and illegalized slavery in 1600.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
Gregory XVI made his bull in 1839.
Paul III REMOVED the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill. He "declared the LAWFULLNESS of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome". What he was against was "unjust" kinds of enslavement relating Native Americans. The bull did not ban transatlantic slave trade or "Just" enslavement.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@wulfbaen1993 still be oracticing mass human sacrifice. Without the RCC, 860,000 Jews wouldn't have been saved and in the middle ages, it was the Church that opposed alot of tyrannical rulers.
I still can't get over your statement admitting that Fry is exagerating. Do you treat that as good? What if I said that since Mao, Stalin,Robespierre, etc... killed millions and that the enlightment was spread by the sword in America than it means that all of atheism is bad? Hitler ate sugar you know, so
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@philipmarie1854
"Without the RCC, 860,000 Jews wouldn't have been saved ..."
That is utter bollocks. The Nazi regime in Germany had as a policy to expell the Jews up to the start of WW2. The Death-camps were established after the fall of Poland.
Look at Croatia. Here the RCC actively supported the Ustaše regime and Catholic priest even ran some of the death-camps and participated in the killings, nost notorius was the Franciscan Miroslav Filipović.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"... or at least they'd still be oracticing mass human sacrifice."
Those killings were a pittance compared to the mass-killings of Native Americans that were done by the invading Europeans. Modern scholarly consensus has shifted to about 50 million Native Americans, with some arguing for 100 million or more killed.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Er, bullcrap much? If the Spanish killed 50 million natives, then Hitler and Stalin were both pussies compared to the Spanish, because both Hitler and Stalin killed 12 million to 23 million respectively, with Mao Zedong being even WORSE with killing some 60 million. If the Spanish did kill natives, it was only during times of war and foten, they were aided by the natives themselves against other tribes who would invade them and kill them mercilessly. I already said how Catholics cared
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
1) Hitler was a Catholic both according to public and private statement and according to church doctrine, and 94 % of all Germans where Christians (1939 census).
2) Stalin never renounced his Orthodoxy and did attend seminary, the vast majority of all Russians were Christian too. That the Church was attacked up to 1941 - when it was reinstated- was because it took the sida against the Red Army ion the Russian Civil war, which was lost.
Read a history book.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Hitler was Catholic? Give me a break. He certainly was baptized AS A KID but to call him a devout Catholic according to Church doctrine when he preached heresy, killed numerous priests and nuns, went against the actions of the Pope whe the latter saved the Jews, etc. You read a history book because I already did until I got sick. You'll see that when Hitler 'praised' the Church, he only did it to get support form Catholics when in reality he hated religion and was a satanist. Stalin
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
Hitler didn't kill a single priest or nun, he was never personally involved in that. On the contrary Hitler had good relations with priests and nuns. He stayed Catholic his whole life which was confirmed by Göring in the war trials.
"Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant." ( Nuremberg, 1945)
Hitler was even godfather to Görings daughter.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Goring was also related to Gertrud von Le Fort, one of the world's leading Catholic writers of the time and who hated naziism with a passion, banned all Catholic newspapers to supress resistance to the german regime and had his daughter in 1935, 4 years before he actually started killing Jews, homosexuals, Catholics, POLES who sadly, were Catholic and were responsible for having Auschwitz on their soil. Don't look at me like that, Stephen Fry said it!
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 never renounced his orthodoxy? HE WAS AN ATHEIST!
Now, the Vatican did praise Stepinac for his actions in favor of the Jews, and you don't know what Pius told Pavelic. Two world leaders meeting to discuss world matters? Gasp! Those bastards! And as I said, you don't know what Pius told Pavelic. Cardinal Tisserant whom I really dislike even compiled a list of clergy which were involved in the Ustase. If Pius saved so many Jews in Europe, why would he support killing them in Croatia?
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
As for Stalin he did study to become an orthodox priest but left the seminary before final exams and he NEVER renounced his orthodoxy. Did you know he wrote religious poetry?
Stalin "denied categorically to prescribe atheistic literature to his personal library, fastidiously calling it ""antireligious waste-paper (junk)"
His views appear to be against organized religion, not against religious faith.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Now, the Vatican did praise Stepinac for his actions in favor of the Jews..."
Achbishop Stepinac was found guilty of collaboration with the fascist Ustaše movement and complicity in allowing the forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs to Catholicism. He is a convicted war crimminal.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac was indicted on the charges of supporting the Ustaše government, urging forced conversions of Orthodox Serbs, and encouraging Ustaše resistance in Yugoslavia.[41] Phayer argues that Stepinac (who remained silent during his trial) could have defended himself from the charge of supporting forced conversions, but not the other two. In 1985, In 1985, his trial prosecutor Jakov Blazevic admited publically that Cardinal Stepinac's trial was entirely framed, and
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 that Stepinac was tried only because he refused to sever thousand year old ties between Croatians and the Roman Catholic Church. Stepinac only supported the Ustase at first in so far as it would help Croatia. However: Stepinac] was one of the very rare men in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis' tyranny at a time when it was very difficult and dangerous for him to do so. Winston Churchill. 'nuff said. Schindler himself was viewed with hate at first yet what happened?
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Oh, so 94% of Germans were Christians eh? Does that make all Germans Nazis? Not even all the Nazis themselves were bad despite being part of the worst government ever. There was Oskar Schindler; there was the soldier who said 'one day, history will judge us' as he saved a woman from being shot. The Germans were no more shocked at the atrocities when they became known then the rest of the world which was itself predominantly Christian was, and they started years after Hitler came to
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Oh, so 94% of Germans were Christians eh? Does that make all Germans Nazis?"
No, it makes the majority of all Nazis Christian.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 for the natives so I won't go into more detail. I'm well aware of the atrocities commited in the Ustase regime yet the Ustase wasn't catholic because it cared for our religion, it was 'catholic' because of nationalism. They even held Islam as a good religion because of its national significance or soemthing. Some Priests did support the Ustase, yet thats like saying that since a democrat killed a person, so ALL democrats support murder. Its not true, especially since Archbishop
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The Ustaše were actively supported by the Catholic church from the start. The support from the Vatican was just as important as that from Nazi-Germany. Ante Pavelić was given a private Papal audience in 1941, when he was instated and 2 years after starting the genocides the Pope still met him. The Pope was given information about that Catholic priests were doing in the concentration camps and didn't even reprimand a single one.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Stepinac was regarded as a hero by nearly everyone except the oppressors of his country and he saved many Jews too. The Vatican was well aware of the atrocities and didn't support them at all. True, the Vatican did support the Croatian government AT FIRST or rather, it supported Croatia, calling it an outpost of Christianity and encouraging it to better itself but once the atrocities were clear, the Vatican didn't support Ustase. wikipedia: Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"The Vatican was well aware of the atrocities and didn't support them at all."
They didn't condem them at all, they didn't repremand even the priests that committed massmurder of Serbs and they later HELPED the Nazis and and Ustaša to flee justice. Pope Pius XII personally gave Ante Pavelić refuge in the Vatican and assisted his flight to South America. Further they tried to pressure the USA and UK *not* to send arrested war criminals to trail in Yugoslavia
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 I doubt very much Pius XII actually sheltered Pavelic and the 'documents' unearthed by the government or soemthing are probably FAKE. I'm reading a piece right now on this so I'll respond.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 But you sir are a rash, presumptous twat. You insult all the Catholics, protestants and Orthodox who fought against Hitler and saved so many Jews, you insult the victims of the holocaust for aquanting their rescuers with the Nazis. Do you care for the victims of the holocaust? Read a proper history book and see original sources rather than the utterly idiotic statements of that dumbass Fry and his anti-catholic rubbish.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"You insult all the Catholics, protestants and Orthodox who fought against Hitler"
Nope I attack those who fought WITH Hitler, and most of those were Christians, just as most Nazis were Christians.
You were the one that brought Hitler into this, not I. Furthermore I have based all comments on historical documents. That Hitler was a Catholic is a fact. He is that according to Church doctrine, and according to the sworn statements of his closest friends.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 yeah, the same close friends who said that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian." & that Jesus "also wanted to act against the Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome." Goebbels. "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
I see that you quoted directly from Wikipedia. Now why didn't you include the next few lines:
"Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote in a confidential report that Hitler "undoubtedly lives in belief in God" and that he "recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture."
"Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Yeah, pity the Bishop was decieved by HITLER, the king of all unreliable narrators. Pity you left that bit out.
One diary quote which we don't even know is true doesn't count anything. Hitler by his own words and actions which I have given you show that he wasn't catholic evne in name only. Its an argument SOME of you dumb atheists make just to make us Caths look bad. You don't want to say that you hate catholics so you make an excuse and say you hate us because we are nazis. Bullcrap
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Yeah, pity the Bishop was decieved by HITLER,..."
False again.
It read "...Ian Kershaw BELIEVES that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber noting his, evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity...".
So what was written there was one persons, personal BELIEFS, not a historical quote - thus I left it out due to lack of space.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The stuff written in the book "Hitler's Table talk", from which much of the ideas that Hitler was not a Christian arises, that book is riddled with deliberate misquotes, mistranslations and outright lies. I again wonder why you don’t taker Hitler’s closest friend, Göring’s sworn testimony into account.
Furthermore Hitler was never excommunicated and didn't leave the Church thus he remains a Roman Catholic according to Church doctrine.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Draugh, if you're trying to make feel guilty about my Church ebcause it INVOLUNTARILY contained a complete asshole as Hitler and Mussolini, you are mistaken; I heard that poor excuse of rhetoric before and I didn't find it convincing the first time. Instead of giving me a reason why you're not Catholic, either in its doctrines and beliefs, you and Fry/Hitchens instead give me a list of the 'atrocities' commited by the Church, without thinking whether some were justified or not. You
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The reason that the Catholic Church is still a force for evil isbecause of it's actions in regards to, Child molestations by priests, The discrimination against homosexuals, and the massive dammage it does due to its stance against condom use in Africa. We know that condom use reduces the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Safe sex and sexual education as well as family planning helps and is a good thing, working against it is thus evil.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Instead of giving me a reason why you're not Catholic..."
The reason I'm not a Catholic is because I don't believe in any gods. I think the Catholic "moral codes" are horribly inhuman, I think the Church is actively causing pain and problems today; I think the church is hypocritical and built on lies.
If you wanted my views you just had to ask. However what I have done up to know was to address falsehoods you stated.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 don't have the guts to say ''Hey, I don't like the Catholic Church because it teaches and supports genocide because it never excommunicated Hitler'' despite the NUMEROUS Catholics and the Pope himself who condemned racism and saved all those Jews from a bad fate. You'd rather believe Hitler's words than consider the fact the Catholic Church did alot of good in the past and the fact that the actions of utterly lukewarm and fallen Catholics like Hitler who killed Catholics themselves.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 To you, the Catholic Church equals an organization the commited genocide throughout the ages despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic. Don't give me the Albigensian crusade because it was never intended as a genocide in the first place. The war was conducted to REGAIN lands from the Cathars and the nobles that supported them and to make Catholicism be spread there without struggle. Eventually, the Inquisition was established which I consider
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854 "despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic"
"destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends" and "All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins."
Pope Urban II in his speech against the infidels in Chartre 1095.
How much clearer can you get?
TomFynn 1 month ago
@TomFynn That sentence wasn't a call of extermination and race shouldn't be taken literally, the Pope only meant that Muslim rule over such lands should be removed. If it did mean mass extermination, why did Catholics and Muslims live in peace for ten years in Jerusalem until the latter attacked back? Even Muslims admitted they were treated good by Caths, saying they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854 Your original comment stated, and I quote: "despite it never teaching that killing people is acceptable if they aren't Catholic". Mass extermination has nothing to do with it.
Bit strange for a religion that says You shall not kill, eh?
TomFynn 1 month ago
@TomFynn they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.' That was said by Muslim traveller Ibn Jubayr. During the crusades, which were at first led mostly by nobles from northern France who claimed descent from Charlemagne, both Muslims and Christians used Franks and other names as ethnonyms to describe crusaders
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@TomFynn Oh, and indulgences don't work that way. Indulgences aren't a forgiveness of sin but a removal of some punishments for sin or all of the punishments for sin, these removals being called partial and plenary indulgences respectively; you also have to be in the state of grace to recieve them because if you died happy that you burned a whole village and raped 100 women, how do you expect God and Mary to accept you in heaven? We always preached that as atheists themselves should know.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854 Indulgences? What are you blabbering on about? Do you honestly think I give a rats ass about some theological persnicketies?
TomFynn 1 month ago
@TomFynn Er, yes? While I don't think you want to become Catholic, you provided a quote form Urban VII talking about granting forgiveness to knights so you MUST have expected an explanation from me explaining my self out of this situation, no? If not, then you aren't really being srirous about scholary research and finding the right answers.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854 I have no idea what you are on about.
TomFynn 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
The Catholic Church have committed genocide throughout the ages either directly through actions of priests or indirectly thought orders from priests or the Pope.
Sorry are you saying that the use of military might to by force take over an area and to root out a religion present there wasn't intended to kill anyone?! Are you really that naive?! Tell me, what was to happen to people that refuced to become Catholic?
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 a very smart move. Nobody was forced to convert, although the Church did forbid alot fo the dangerous practices of the Cathars such as their sexual promiscuity.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"Eventually, the Inquisition was established which I consider a very smart move."
Ha ha ha.
Well that says everything I needed to know about your own morals. Anyone that supports the inquisition and what it did is by himself immoral.
So you are supporting torture of people based on their religion, the burning of heretics on the stake etc.
I can now only see you as a truly evil person.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Speer, quoting Hitler. And if you took all your piss poor research from Mein Kampf, know that historians regard it with contempt and say that it was nothing but a piece of propaganda and that Hitler was an unreliable narrator (as everyone who hs half a brain wouldn't take Hitler for his word).
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@wulfbaen1993 that means sugar is bad, along with toothbrush mustaches... therefore, Charlie Chaplin is bad! That means since Pope Paul III was corrupt then the whole Church corrupt despite there being many, many holy Popes. Of course, you think Christianity is great, yet ignore the fact that Catholics are the first Christians and the only ones who can say they are real Christians as they are descended from the Apostles. Don't say that the Church did SOME good but you don't accept it as the only
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@wulfbaen1993 true form of Christianity; Jesus didn't want it that way. Christ today would be ashamed at the corruption found within many bishops and priests but before Vatican II, he'd be ashamed of the many lukewarm Catholics and not the Bishops, most who were actually religious back then and actually cared for God and Mary. Today, He'd be ashamed of Mr. Fry for being such a jerk and a manipulative bastard. Oh, we're obsessed about sex even though the media oloves big breasts! WTF!
philipmarie1854 2 months ago
@philipmarie1854
"We think gays are immoral ONLY if they are promiscous and fantasize sexually about people."
Ha ha ha. So you think that thought crimes are bad! To fanazise is "immoral".
Funny that, considering the very real actions that the RCC have taken in regards to real sexual crimes, committed by real church officials against real people.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Pity those corrupt bishops weren't Pius V or Anthony Mary Claret; the former would hand over pedophiles to the secular authorities so that they would be executed while the latter forced Priests who even attended brothels into retirement and to spent the rest of thei life in harsh penance. And Bishop Claret lived in the 1800's. There was even an American Priest who found homes for Priests suffering personal problems and sent letters to Bishops telling them of priestly pedophiles.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
You are listing some small actions of individual priests. So? What is talked about here is the actions (and deliberate inactions) of the Church itself. This is also stated by mr. Fry.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Are the actions of Pius V, Benedict XIV and Cardinal Peter Damian whose effect on Priests were very widespread only individual actions of some priests? They certainly weren't inactive!
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@Draugh39 To fantazise is immoral and bad for your health, because if that chick down the street were to find out one was thinking about screwing with her, she'd kick you in the shin or put an arrow to your knee.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
@philipmarie1854
"To fantazise is immoral and bad for your health..."
What a silly notion. To dream is essential to our wellbeing. Good sleep (which includes dreams which in turn are fantasies) is important for good health.
Any system, political or religious, which states that thoughts and dreams are immoral, is totalitarian and fundamentally evil.
Draugh39 1 month ago
@Draugh39 Thoughts and dreams aren't immoral, oly sexual ones which aren't needed. If you're thinking of hugging a friend and what not, or even thinking about sexuality as a topic or concept, its not wrong. What is wrong is sexually fanatsizing about others and viewing them as nothing but a sexual object. Of course, sexual thoughts are utterly absolutely permitted during sex and in preparation for it. And the idea these thoughts are bad for your healthw ere obviously a JOKE you twat.
philipmarie1854 1 month ago
his nose is incredibly cooked. great speaker though, lol
dustang66 3 months ago in playlist Intelligence Squared Debate, Hitchens/Fry vs Catholics
I have seen few men with such a mastery, and indeed, love of the English language as Mr. Fry.
YNot1989 4 months ago 32
@YNot1989 I know of one....Christopher Hitchens
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
stephen fry = great enlightened man
bigswano 4 months ago
@philipmarie1854 For example, when the Catholic church wanted to make Mother Teresa a saint (for which she had to have performed three miracles) we find that all three were absurd. What's worse, Christopher Hitchens played the role of devils advocate for the church. He argued that Mother Teresa was not a believer in god, we now know that to be true with the latest release of her letters and yet she is still a saint. I'm sorry, I am asking for scientifically verifiable proof of god. Still waiting
zetronman 4 months ago
@zetronman Sorry, but Mother Teresa never said in any of her letters to her religious advisers that she did not believe in God. If you would have read the letters and not believed blindly what Christopher Hitchens and others have proposed (sort of how many believers of faith believe blindly, right or wrong), you would realize that she did question his existence and struggled to find him in her life. She said his existence may never be proven, and that he was a mystery much like what happens to
zukuzukuzuna 3 months ago
@zukuzukuzuna Mother Teresa said "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me." More importantly she wrote that at the end of her life, she feared being a hypocrite. The miracle you reference is laughable (and doctor evaluation agrees with Hitchens and not the Vatican). Further more, it is important to stamp out absurd beliefs, if we fail to do so then we invite our own demise over a war of words.
zetronman 3 months ago
@zetronman Actually, I was countering your argument that you claimed Mother Teresa was canonized. You made the statement that the Vatican had canonized her with three absurd miracles. They have only recognized one, and the doctors examining the woman could not actually describe what had happened with the woman's apparent tumor, so they said it was medically misdiagnosed. Mother Teresa spent her life trying to discover God, and admittedly never could, but she did say she never could in herself.
zukuzukuzuna 3 months ago
@zetronman . . . She could only find God in the people she was helping. In their joy and love for those around them, even though they had nothing. The fact that they found happiness in non-material goods. That is why she devoted her life to the poor, to the sick and helpless. She wanted to feel God as they felt God. Alas, she was unable to, but she never denied his existence. She apologized that she was unable to find him in herself.
zukuzukuzuna 3 months ago
@zetronman The soul in death. These questions do not boldly state that she did not have faith. The second issue I have with this statement, is that the Vatican has not canonized Mother Teresa. They have confirmed one miracle, the miracle of the tumor being healed inside of Monica Besra after she prayed to Mother Teresa. Christopher Hitchens original argument, before he questioned her faith, was that she was not working for the poor, but she was working to spread Christianity. This again was not
zukuzukuzuna 3 months ago