The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

YouTube ^ | 160906 | Stefan Molyneux / Duke Pesta

[Arthur McGowan]

What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.

[vladimir998]

Kitchen Sink,

St. Aretas was a martyr for Christ murdered by a Jew. Why shouldn’t he be considered a saint then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arethas_(martyr)

[vladimir998]

“Because, unlike your indulgence peddlers, he’s honest and tested it against scripture.”

No, he isn’t, Kitchen Sink.

[HLPhat]

>> Khadija worshiped an Arabian pagan goddess named Al-‘Uzzá.

That's not a problem under your sects practice of syncretic pagan accomodation.

"According to the traditional Sunni narrative, when Muhammad reported his first revelation from the Angel Gabriel (Jibril), Khadija was the first person to convert to Islam.^[25

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid}

Convert from what?  Hmmm.

Tell us ag^]ain how Rome had no influence in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Pre-Islamic period[edit]
The earliest Arab Christians belong to the pre-Islamic period. There were many Arab tribes that adopted Christianity. These included the Nabateans and the Ghassanids, who were of Qahtani origin and spoke Yemeni Arabic as well as Greek. These tribes received subsidies and protected the south-eastern frontiers of the Roman and Byzantine Empires in north Arabia. However, a number of minority Christian sects were persecuted as heretic under Roman and Byzantine rules.

The tribes of Tayy, Abd Al-Qais, and Taghlib were also known to have included a large number of Christians prior to Islam.

The southern Arabian city of Najran was also a center of Arab Christianity. Letters exist in Syriac that record the persecution of believers by the king of Yemen in the 6th century, when the latter had adopted Judaism. Cosmas Indicopleustes records the launch of a punitive expedition from Ethiopia in response. The leader of the Arabs of Najran during the period of persecution, Al-Harith, was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church as St. Aretas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Arab_Christians

That was pretty funny. 

[boatbums]

Believe whatever you want.

I will still keep praying for you anyway.

[HLPhat]

>>No, he isn’t, Kitchen Sink.

Well that’s your opinion.

Unlike you, he also knew “Rome” had influence in pre-Islam Arabia.

Maybe you should watch his presentation so you’re actually informed for a change? Then you can address/refute specific points without quacking about plumbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTL0PM9CdNE

[boatbums]

contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses

whose campaign to raise funds for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica by supporting use of indulgences served as a key impetus for Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.” (sigh)...It says NOTHING ABOUT ANY POPE SELLING INDULGENCES OR OKAYING THE SALE OF INDULGENCES. Of course the popes knew money would be contributed. No sales.

If you go into a store and they are "offering" their products and accepting money for them, are you saying they are NOT selling their products?

If the Pope approved the "preaching" of indulgences and the Vatican accepted money for the granting of them (among other ways, of course) - NEVER telling anyone not to take money - and Rome used the funds to finance St. Peter's Basilica and other projects, are we still supposed to believe with a straight face that no pope ever approved the sale of indulgences? C'mon, Vlad. It's this kind of word parsing and semantical games that everyone sees through.

But...like I said, you just go on believing whatever you want. You have failed to convince me you are right on this. If you want to hold that against me and call me an anti-Catholic, go ahead. My conscience is clear before God.

[HLPhat]

>>NEXT!

What does “Financing with indulgences” mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica#Financing_with_indulgences

When that tinkling sound stops resonating in your cranial plumbing, maybe you can tell the class why man made indulgences were required in addition to the finished work of Christ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

[ealgeone]

I like it!

[ealgeone]

Good grief. You are clintonian. Rome gives the ok to grant/sell/preach/distribute, whatever you want to call it, the indulgence.

The pope gave the ok in any case.

[vladimir998]

“Convert from what? Hmmm.”

Paganism. Some online sources say she was Jewish. She wasn’t.

“Tell us ag]ain how Rome had no influence in pre-Islamic Arabia.”

Kitchen Sink, Rome had no influence there. Disprove that if you can. You can’t.

“That was pretty funny.”

Only funny in how you have failed again. You don’t know the difference between Yemen and Arabia. I guess you’re a product of the public schools. By the time we’re talking about there was only the Byzantine and Persian Empires in the East - no Roman Empire as such. So you have failed again.

[vladimir998]

“Believe whatever you want.”

No. I will always believe what is true.

“I will still keep praying for you anyway.”

Thank you. I appreciate the prayers.

[vladimir998]

“Well that’s your opinion.”

No, actually it’s a certainty.

“Unlike you, he also knew “Rome” had influence in pre-Islam Arabia.”

No actually he didn’t because it didn’t. And no amount of influence from “Rome” could have created a false religion in Arabia whose ultimate goal is the conquest of “Rome”. That just proves how stupid this fantasist theory is as well as how stupid the people are who believe in it. Veith is a huckster. And you believe him. One born every minute.

“Maybe you should watch his presentation so you’re actually informed for a change?”

I’m vastly better informed than he will ever be. He’s a zoologist. If I want info on animals I’ll look him up. I’m a historian with a PhD in medieval history.

“Then you can address/refute specific points without quacking about plumbing.”

His whole conspiracy theory is wrong. There is no individual part worthy of attention if the end point is utter nonsense and it is utter nonsense.

And you fell for it.

[MHGinTN]

Help me recall, what were the stated points the eleven Apostles cited when choosing Apostolic successor to Judas? And they put up two names then drew lots to see which of their choices God had to approve of ... because they couldn’t wait for GOD to bring Saul out of his rages.

[HLPhat]

>>HLPhat actually seems to think it is possible that “Rome” created Islam as part of the “Catholic Counter-Reformation.”

That's your serpentine (Fallible and Uninspired) opinion Saint Vladigeorge. 

What I said was - there is an ALLEGATION that "Rome" created Islam as part of the counter-reformation.

The existence of that allegation can be observed by simply Googling "Jesuits Islam"; and the most obvious problem with that line of questioning is that the Jesuit order doesn't seem to exist until Loyola allegedly contemplated it into existence in his cave, circa 1522..1534 CE; whereas Islam was constituted after Muhamad allegedly contemplated Islam into existence, in his cave, circa 610 CE.

But wait, as other eyes have self-evidently noticed....

"I Confess, I Confess"

--Auuuuuuuuuughhh, Deplorable Bible Thumpers R Us, circa 1530

 ....the rabbit cave/hole doesn't stop there!

Eventually it leads to the assertion that Muhammad's wife was a wealthy, allegedly Catholic, widow (of the sort mentioned in Chapter VII of Jerome Zajorowski's playful Dantean screw: How such widows are to be secured, and in what manner their effects are to be disposed of) - named Khadija who, allegedly, participated in the creation of the obviously (not allegedly) fraudulent religion of Islam:

"Islam did not rise except through Ali's sword and Khadijah's wealth," 

(That's an Islamic source linked above BTW)

 

So -  Does the Roman enterprise have an indulgent position paper that will give us the Full Monty on (or at least addresses) that allegation?

[vladimir998]

You keep proving me right.

“If you go into a store and they are “offering” their products and accepting money for them, are you saying they are NOT selling their products?”

boatbums, the problem is you literally have no idea of what you’re talking about. You’re talking about a store selling items - something you’re undoubtedly familiar with and you’re assuming that’s what happened with papally approved indulgence preaching. It isn’t. This is part of the problem when talking with anti-Catholics about anything historical. Since they have little or no concept about history, they literally make stuff up in an anachronistic way and insist that that was how it was. Well, that’s not how it was. I have repeatedly mentioned the instruction letter of the Archbishop of Mainz. Have you read it? No, of course not, right? If you did, you would realize that your store analogy is a load of rubbish. Now, go into any store and tell them you want an item for free. Will they give it to you? Perhaps. Maybe the store owner will take pity on you. But, more than likely, they will not give yuou the item - even if you are poor and can’t give them money for it. If you read the instruction letter of the Archbishop of Mainz - which you most certainly have not read and will not lift a finger to read, right? - you will see that he says the poor are to be given the indulgence for completing all that is necessary to receive it. No contribution of any kind was necessary. That in itself shows that there were to be no sales of indulgences because if it were about selling them then you couldn’t get one if you had no money to “buy” it with. NO SALES.

“If the Pope approved the “preaching” of indulgences and the Vatican accepted money for the granting of them (among other ways, of course) - NEVER telling anyone not to take money - and Rome used the funds to finance St. Peter’s Basilica and other projects, are we still supposed to believe with a straight face that no pope ever approved the sale of indulgences?”

Contributions are not sales. Every week millions of Catholics go to Mass and make contributions of varying sizes. None of that is a sale. Again, I don’t doubt for a second that there were unscrupulous men who sold indulgences - the vast majority of whom were not even really working for the Church as indulgence preachers - but the popes never once - and I mean NEVER ONCE - authorized the sale of indulgences. Indulgence preaching was revival preaching. Contributions came in that were not even connected in any way to the indulgences and any money connected with the indulgences were supposed to be contributions and NOT SALES.

“C’mon, Vlad. It’s this kind of word parsing and semantical games that everyone sees through.”

I’m not doing any “word parsing” or “semantical games”. CONTRIBUTIONS are NOT SALES. Those are two ENTIRELY different concepts. That’s not word parsing. That’s not a semantical game. It’s TWO DIFFERENT WORDS AND TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS. And the end is always the same: No pope EVER authorized the sale of indulgences. Not even one.

“But...like I said, you just go on believing whatever you want.”

No, I will choose always to believe what is true.

“You have failed to convince me you are right on this.”

No, much more likely is that you have no desire to see the truth. Remember, you’re actually insisting on something for which there literally is NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, AT ALL anywhere in the world. There is not one document ANYWHERE that ANYONE has EVER been able to find that shows ANY POPE ever sold indulgences of okayed their sale. NONE.

“If you want to hold that against me and call me an anti-Catholic, go ahead.”

I think you know why I call you an anti-Catholic. Again, you CHOOSE to believe something for which there is not a single scrap of evidence. Your choices make you who you are.

“My conscience is clear before God.”

And yet you still won’t read the instructional letter of the Archbishop of Mainz, right? You won’t even bother to look for it, right? You won’t lift a finger to do any real research, right? A close conscience can feel just as clear to a fallen man as a clear one to an upright man.

Your choices make you who you are.

[vladimir998]

“That’s your serpentine (Fallible and Uninspired) opinion Saint Vladigeorge.”

No, it’s the absolute truth. You posted it.

“What I said was - there is an ALLEGATION that “Rome” created Islam as part of the counter-reformation.”

And you’ve been trying to prove the Catholic Church started Islam ever since - and failing miserably at it. Clearly, you’re not treating it as an “allegation”.

“The existence of that allegation can be observed by simply Googling “Jesuits Islam”; and the most obvious problem with that line of questioning is that the Jesuit order doesn’t seem to exist until Loyola allegedly contemplated it into existence in his cave, circa 1522..1534 CE; whereas Islam was constituted after Muhamad allegedly contemplated Islam into existence, in his cave, circa 610 CE.”

So now you’re admitting what you posted was complete bunk? How fitting.

“But wait, as other eyes have self-evidently noticed....”

Posting your family photos are you?

“Eventually it leads to the assertion that Muhammad’s wife was a wealthy, allegedly Catholic, widow (of the sort mentioned in Chapter VII of Jerome Zajorowski’s playful Dantean screw: How such widows are to be secured, and in what manner their effects are to be disposed of) - named Khadija who, allegedly, participated in the creation of the obviously (not allegedly) fraudulent religion of Islam:”

So you’re trying to substantiate one fraud by posting another? Khadija wasn’t Catholic Christian. She wasn’t a Christian of any type.

You should really get professional help, Kitchen Sink.

[Arrian]

Since antiquity, ranking scholars, religious and non-religious, secular and non-secular, have asserted that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the font of the wisdom which produced governance, education, logic and philosophy, science including architecture and geometry, the arts including comedy and tragedy as well as language. These disciplines allowed Western Civilization to flourish for almost 3000 years. But fear trumps all this. Hmm........how could all of them be so wrong????????????

[vladimir998]

“Good grief. You are clintonian. Rome gives the ok to grant/sell/preach/distribute, whatever you want to call it, the indulgence.”

Honestly, anti-Catholics show how much liberalism has retarded the ability of said anti-Catholics to think. If you think all of these words - “grant/sell/preach/distribute, whatever you want to call it” - mean the same thing and have the same import, then you do not understand the English language. How can anyone have a conversation with you about anything meaningful if you literally think all of those words mean the same thing? None of those words mean the same thing. Granting is not selling nor is it preaching nor is it distributing. And there sure isn’t ANYTHING Clintonian about pointing out that none of those words mean the same thing. They literally mean entirely different things.

“The pope gave the ok in any case.”

Not to sell. So when you say, “The pope gave the ok IN ANY CASE” that’s a flat out falsehood. He never once gave the okay to SELL INDULGENCES. Never once.

Post after post, error after error, all you’re showing is that you apparently have no interest in the actual facts. You seem to think it’s all “whatever you want to call it”. No, it isn’t.

[HLPhat]

Remember - the Manual says count to THREE, not five.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

 

[vladimir998]

“Remember - the Manual says count to THREE, not five.”

Remember - you failed. You fell for an internet hoax. One born every minute, Kitchen Sink. Every minute.