Posted on 04/18/2008 6:40:10 AM PDT by paterfamilias
Maher to Apologize for Calling Pope a 'Nazi' By Melanie Hunter-Omar CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 17, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Liberal talk show host Bill Maher, whose controversial comments about the pope drew fire from the Catholic community, is planning to apologize Friday night for falsely accusing Pope Benedict XVI of being a Nazi, the Catholic League announced Thursday.
Catholic League President Bill Donohue received a phone call Thursday from an HBO executive regarding comments Maher made last Friday on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Donohue said Maher "lied when he said the Pope 'used to be a Nazi.' Like all young men in Germany at the time, he was conscripted into a German Youth organization (from which he fled as soon as he could). Every responsible Jewish leader has acknowledged this reality and has never sought to brand the Pope a Nazi. That job falls to Maher."
Apparently HBO agreed with Donohue's assessment. "Apparently, now Maher does as well. Ergo, the apology," Donohue said.
So will the Catholic League accept Maher's apology?
"Assuming it comes across as genuine, the answer is yes. But I hasten to add that what we would really like to see is for Maher to stop with his hateful diatribes against the Catholic Church. So this is a start, but it hardly puts to rest our concerns," said Donohue.
"After all, there are plenty of factually accurate things Maher could say about other groups that would insult its members, but he chooses not to go there. Perhaps he can add Catholics and the Catholic Church to that protected list as well," he added.
Well, that was my opinion when everytime I turned on the TV I saw the Pope and people bowing down to him.
I thought to myself, what is this blithering idiot doing on TV!
LOL!
But I do agree with him about Maher.
You bear false witness with stunning facility. It's really quite amazing to watch.
Now, why would the Pope preach something he doesn't believe.
If it is a false witness, prove it.
Nope. Catholicism doesn't involve idolatry.
Yup.
The commandment states it is a sin to bow down before statues.
Nothing in the commandment says anything about it being alright if you are using it as a help for worship.
Mk.7:7
False. I do "accept the Word of God as truth." What really irritates you to no end is that I will not accept your personal interpretation of Scripture as truth.
No, it doesn't irritate me at all.
It just shows that you would deny what you read for what your church tells you.
Where in Exo.20 does it say that you can bow down to a statue if you are using it to aid your worship?
That is a Roman Catholic invention to justify the use of images and other pagan practices.
Actually, it just shows that I will deny what YOU read for what Christ's own Church tells me.
If that is a question, it is a nonsensical one. Of course the Pope believes in the Gospel of the grace of God. What he rejects is the heresy of sola fide.
That is your interpretation of the commandment.
ROFLMAO
Riiiight.
My point is that you bear false witness against Catholicism and about a billion Roman Catholics with dazzling, jaw-dropping facility.
I will pray for you.
That does not save you from your ridiculous historical error: "The Hilter youth were the most fanatical Hilter supporters..." (again, presuming you meant Hitler).
Does your Bible even have a verse at Exodus 20:16, or just a blank space?
They were not kneeling down to him. Let me help you. In that white space where Exodus 20:16 SHOULD be, jot this down: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
True.
...you just refuse to read it...
You are bearing false witness against me.
...and then use the dodge that what I am saying it says is my interpretation.
It's not a dodge: what you claim it says IS your interpretation. That's the very definition of interpretation.
I wanted you to be more specific about “(Ja.2)” since you appear to be referring to an entire chapter of the Epistle of James.
How about Ja.2:17-26, specific enough?
Since I was talking about faith and works, I figured you would know what verses to look at.
True.
If I gave you clear scripture then it isn't my interpretation.
[ ...you just refuse to read it...]
You are bearing false witness against me.
Not at all, you refuse to read what you admit is clear scripture.
[ ...and then use the dodge that what I am saying it says is my interpretation. ]
It's not a dodge: what you claim it says IS your interpretation. That's the very definition of interpretation.
No, since I am saying it is what the scripture clearly says it is not an interpretation, I am only saying what it says.
Saying a STOP sign says STOP is not an interpretation, it is simply saying what the sign says.
But when you say that it is only my interpretation of what the sign says', you are avoiding dealing with the truth by evasion.
, They were not kneeling down to him. Let me help you. In that white space where Exodus 20:16 SHOULD be, jot this down: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Ofcourse, they were kneeling down before Him, I didn't see anyone else there.
Acts, 10 25: And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26: But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
For it to be 'false witness' it has to be actually false not that you don't like it being exposed as a pagan practice.
Does your Bible even have a verse at Exodus 20:16, or just a blank space?
No, it has Ex.20:16 but it also has Ex.20:4-5 which shows that I am not bearing anyone 'false witness'
: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
That does not save you from your ridiculous historical error: "The Hilter youth were the most fanatical Hilter supporters..." (again, presuming you meant Hitler).
Ofcourse it does, since they became SS, it shows that they were fanatical supporters of Hitler
And how do you know that the SS were more fanatical supporter of Hitler than the Youth members, who eventually became SS?
You don't, so there was no historical error, only word quibbling on your part.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.