HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Carson  Cruz  Bush  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 1st quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $37,988
43%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 43% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Google to point extremist searches towards anti-radicalisation websites

    02/05/2016 8:12:40 PM PST · 7 of 8
    daniel1212 to Buckeye McFrog
    So if you try and Google “Free Republic” it will redirect to MoveOn.org?

    That is where this dangerous train would likely headed. After all, and searches like "Islam promotes violence" already results in mostly liberal pages which deny it as the top results. As if is is even debatable.

  • HIJRAH: Why Is Small Town America Being Flooded With Islamic "Refugees"?

    02/05/2016 6:28:37 PM PST · 71 of 73
    daniel1212 to metmom

    There is a mosque (though it is called by another name) not far from here in this crowded small city, and a weekday afternoon there are meetings with 200 attendees. We have given them tracts as they came out and placed them on cars before, but i find it astounding that the can get that many people together for prayer on a regularly on a weekday afternoon when they are such a minority. Unless we can see a similar and greater response by real Christians then the future belongs to them and or atheists.

  • HIJRAH: Why Is Small Town America Being Flooded With Islamic "Refugees"?

    02/05/2016 5:48:50 PM PST · 70 of 73
    daniel1212 to Arthur Wildfire! March; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ..
    Of the 100 mosques surveyed 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence 81% in all.

    Of course, since the Qur'an does. MUHAMMAD VERSUS JESUS CHRIST

    Outside political action, evangelicals need to proactively confrontationally evangelize, as in gracious offering gospel tracts and literature to them in their language, and actually outreach to them in other ways as well with the love and truth of God, and engage them about the Biblical faith, and expose Islam as needed. Maybe mail them all a DVD of Muslim to Christ conversion testimonies .

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 5:27:53 PM PST · 71 of 75
    daniel1212 to T-Bone Texan
    My wife bargains with our 4 yr old. It infuriates me. I tell her “That child does not get to vote”. This is the only time in my daughters’ life when my word is law. It all goes downhill from here, balance of power-wise, so I strive to indoctrinate her with my values now, before it is too late. If done incorrectly she will, in a few years, bring home a boyfriend with piercings and purple hair, and I will go to prison for murder. I seek to avoid that scenario.

    Hyperbole, but it is not good that your wife is not in union with you on this, and represents the liberal party.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 5:24:10 PM PST · 70 of 75
    daniel1212 to Hebrews 11:6
    I once encountered the mother of triplet babies and asked her, “What do you do when all three cry at once?” She smiled and said, “I just listen.”

    Yes, a wise mom knows the difference btwn real need and just often wanting needless attention. Give into the latter and you raise a liberal.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 5:21:47 PM PST · 69 of 75
    daniel1212 to SaraJohnson

    Quite wise, yet that could put you on a watch list in some places with the increasing laws against leaving any child unattended: http://www.freerangekids.com/laws/

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 8:26:44 AM PST · 62 of 75
    daniel1212 to OhioBuckeye
    My mother was “infested” with children (btw, I think that is funny). Five kids in 6 years and we would follow quietly behind her everywhere we went. How did she do it? She’d paddle our asses right in front of God and everyone. “If you embarrass me in public, I’ll em-barr-ass you right back.” The people at Lazarus (now a defunct clothing store) received a real good view of my brother’s butt. Spare the rod, spoil the child was the foundation of our home.

    Which is now largely another museum displays in the West.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 8:24:19 AM PST · 61 of 75
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Wow! Not just “blessed,” but Biblical-level Blessed!

    Yes indeed, now and in the kingdom: And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. (Zechariah 8:5)

    Be there by repentant faith/trust in the risen Son of God to save damned and destitute sinners on His account, not our merits or that of church and saints or physically eating and drinking.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 8:19:05 AM PST · 60 of 75
    daniel1212 to EternalVigilance
    I’ve always believed that there is a duality about children. On the one hand they have the quality of child-likeness, which Jesus Himself said was “of the kingdom of heaven.” This must be lovingly tended and nurtured. On the other hand they have the quality of childishness; a rebellious, selfish quality which is an expression of the child’s fallen nature that he inherited from his parents, a nature that must be combated and conquered by any loving parent, lest left undealt with, it cost the child his chance at any decent earthly life, or even his eternal soul. By the way, I’m the father of nine - three of whom are decent, independent, upstanding, responsible adults, and six more who will someday also be that, I trust.

    Yes, and if we were God (or see things as He does) then we would only want one thing to be done to our flesh/sinful nature/old man, which is to crucify it in heart and deed. Which i need to be better doing.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 8:16:15 AM PST · 59 of 75
    daniel1212 to Mr. Blond
    My mom would never have let it get that far. We got taken out to the car the first time, and knew better than to try throwing a tantrum again.

    Indeed, but your mom today would risk what 48 tells of.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 8:09:22 AM PST · 58 of 75
    daniel1212 to Teacher317

    Wise political insight.

  • Sarah Palin's PAC spent $1.4 million in 2015, gave just $23,500 to campaigns

    02/05/2016 7:18:45 AM PST · 146 of 181
    daniel1212 to napscoordinator
    I gave 50 bucks and would never ask that question. I bet he gives even more. Once you give, that is it. I think even the Bible says you shouldn’t worry about charity just give it.

    Not really. It teaches us that we are not be self-conscious about how charitable we are,

    Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:2-4)

    But we are also to be wise and good stewards of the mani-fold grace of God, (1Pt. 4:10) "There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up." (Proverbs 21:20) "He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:22-23)

    And thus we should seek to give to those who make the best use of it. The Lord Jesus did allow a known thief to hold the bag however, (Jn. 12:6) which served to manifest him as a child of the devil.

    Two of the highest rated (5 star efficiency) Christian charities is http://persecutionproject.org/ and http://www.frontline.org.za/

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 6:23:15 AM PST · 40 of 75
    daniel1212 to GOYAKLA
    During the late 30s and early 40s my Mother and Father were inVested with 3 boys of their own an 30+ foster and a few day care children. There was a war going on in the world. My Dad’s WW1 job had him on call 24-7, but at home base. None of us children and our children, ever spent a day in jail. Even a few became came Ministers and Missionaries. Good MOTHERs inVest! God Bless them! God help those that need help!

    Which are now largely to be found only in museums. (Actually imagine a museum of such families, now nearing extinction in post-Christian America.)

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 6:20:40 AM PST · 39 of 75
    daniel1212 to reegs
    Years ago when I told my manager at the time that we were expecting our third or fourth child (I can’t remember which) looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears and asked, “What are you thinking??!!” What little respect I had for her then ended right there.

    Yes, that corresponds to my #1 response by liberals above.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 6:18:34 AM PST · 37 of 75
    daniel1212 to Popman
    My wife and I raised six children all very close in age except for the last one...he was an -gift- eight years later! The idea that my three year old child would conduct an argument with me in a public place would not register in my brain or theirs... That simply was not allowed to happen... We did it though training and godly discipline... Throwing a temper tantrum is a form of passive rebellion, basically a child telling you I'm going to make your life miserable until I got what I want and be in control... Child are not the center of the universe, the faster they are taught that the better behaved they are...

    I can only imagine what a MONSTER you would be called if you posted that on MSM forums! Even by so-called Christians.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 6:12:15 AM PST · 35 of 75
    daniel1212 to Gaffer
    Yes a poor choice. I think the tone of the article was admiring, and I think the choice of “infesting” was intended more to convey that this woman was dealing with extenuating circumstance that maybe the author or someone else would consider extreme, but one with she handled rather routinely.

    You are right, whereas the liberal response could likely be something like:

    1. "What is this women doing with 3 young children (did she ever hear of contraception or abortion), especially when she is obviously struggling to care for them."

    2. "As a psychiatrist I can say that the mother obviously does not realize the emotional damage that she is inflicting upon the child by not giving proper attention to his cries for attention, and meeting them. The author should have reprimanded the mother or called child services."

    3. "It is cruel to let a child [who actually sounds like he is at least 5] suffer like that [cold hands] due to his poor choices [a jacket with no pockets], and expect him to learn what kind of jacket to wear."

    4. "What is this women doing dragging three young kids around? Maybe she cannot afford day care, and which is a reason why we need the government to pay for this."

    5. "The women sounds like one of those misguided stay-at-home career mothers who and likely believes in the physical discipline of children, thus likely producing another future angry male."

    For the record, i think children are a blessing from God and are to be loved and cared for as such, but that lack of discipline and not teaching them to be self reliant (in dependence upon God) and to make do in difficult situations is a degree of a form of child abuse. The same hands that hug may have to sometimes spank.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 5:21:31 AM PST · 11 of 75
    daniel1212 to Nifster
    I quit reading when the stupid author said the woman was infested withcjildren

    Yes, that is a sad choice of a word. Try "blessed." But this is consistent with today's contraceptive country with 1.7 children and 4 times as many pets as kids. On the other extreme, I have a energetic working 63 year old Costa Rican neighbor, whose kids work as well, who is the youngest of 18 kids by one mom, who herself was one of 24 children, all from one (very busy) mom. And most all of whom he said lived to about 90 years old! Glory to God.

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 5:13:40 AM PST · 7 of 75
    daniel1212 to disndat; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...

    I can imagine what the comments would be (none are provided for on the source) if this were the Huffington Post or the like

  • He threw a tantrum. She ignored him.

    02/05/2016 4:56:59 AM PST · 1 of 75
    daniel1212
    This is an excerpt.

    If the mom was a liberal pol she would... (add your reply)

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/04/2016 5:31:05 AM PST · 88 of 160
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    This particular post includes the particulars of what we are called to expose ...

    Which has been, extensively by the grace of God. But you are dealing with certain souls who cannot perceive (or perhaps read) what they ask for and charge is missing, and their multiple errors while alleging that of others, nor even acknowledge good faith apologies and compliments. Such relegate themselves as unfit for meaningful exchange.

  • The Parish Church in a Changeable Community: Some Basic Requirements for Survival

    02/04/2016 5:05:25 AM PST · 31 of 33
    daniel1212 to ADSUM
    Your comment: “the one true church is the corporate body of Christ as it alone 100% consists of only believers” Yes, there is one true church that is one holy catholic and apostolic. We welcome all sinners and even non believers as did Jesus.

    Which if equating the visible unholy Catholic amalgam of tares and wheat as being one and the same as the corporate body of Christ of 100% believers is blasphemous.

    Our mission is to baptize and spread the Word of God. We are not the judge of sinners or non believers, as that is God’s role.

    That is simply not Scriptural, as the spreading the Word of God includes judging of sinners and non believers:

    The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. (John 7:7)

    Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23)

    But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; (Acts 3:14)

    And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: (Acts 14:15)

    And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. (Acts 24:25)

    Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:16)

    You may believe in your own church or your own fallible views of religion as certainly man has created many churches over the years separate from the one founded by Jesus Christ. The man made churches may do many good things in spreading the Word of God, but do not always follow the teachings of Jesus.

    And what is the basis for your assurance that this one true church is uniquely today that which was founded by Jesus Christ, and always follows the teachings of Jesus. Which is much the opposite, while i come short also.

  • The Internet’s favorite conspiracies would involve too many people to stay secret, says science

    02/04/2016 4:55:05 AM PST · 45 of 45
    daniel1212 to Vermont Lt
    When you take the “religion” out of the “bible process”, it makes perfect sense that some stuff had to be left on the editing floor.

    But like the many men claiming to be of the God of Abraham, that which was of God became established as being such not because of magisterial decree, but progressively over time, without compulsion, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, like as with true men of God, even despite magisterial opposition. Thus did the NT church begin and continued.

  • The Internet’s favorite conspiracies would involve too many people to stay secret, says science

    02/03/2016 6:51:33 AM PST · 29 of 45
    daniel1212 to r_barton
    If NASA faked the moon landing, by now they would have faked something better. ;-)

    Like the claim that the Catholic church changed the Bible. Yet forgot to add something so simple and basic as just one prayer to an angel or early martyr in Heaven.

  • The Internet’s favorite conspiracies would involve too many people to stay secret, says science

    02/03/2016 6:48:02 AM PST · 26 of 45
    daniel1212 to ChessExpert
    But this just in: Sea Levels Could Rise At Least 20 Feet | Climate Central!
  • The Internet’s favorite conspiracies would involve too many people to stay secret, says science

    02/03/2016 6:21:55 AM PST · 14 of 45
    daniel1212 to dirtboy; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Strawman on two levels. The email release a few years back shows AGW proponents ARE working together to suppress skeptics. And it doesn't take a conspiracy - a shared belief system is more than sufficient.

    Both are valid objections, but the missing factor is the needed scope, degree and manner of evidence relative to the kind of claims being made, and their motivation, and likewise the contrary evidence. The ethos of Climate Change requires not simply evidence that testifies to change of climate, but that of a novel and overall deleterious change that will continue unabated and have such radical negative effects that it warrants the radical expansive and expensive programs proposed by the alarmist of this. And which thus have a vested interest in gaining $upport for Climate Change research which supports it.

    And which evidence i do not see as warranting the present extreme claims, and especially that of overall deleterious change that will continue unabated and have such radical negative effects that it warrants the proposed radical expansive and expensive programs. If the world is warming, i do not see this as unprecedented, or overall negative, while being in the NE i thank God for the warmer winter we are having!

    Now how the claim against conspiracy relates to the evidence for the risen Christ is another issue i have not the energy for now.

  • I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why

    02/03/2016 5:37:21 AM PST · 44 of 44
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind
    yet Jesus never once condemned homosexuality, and discrimination is not a Christian value.

    What Bible is he reading:

    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Matthew 19:4-5)

    For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,...All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

    And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:23) \

    More refutations by the grace of God.

  • The Parish Church in a Changeable Community: Some Basic Requirements for Survival

    02/03/2016 5:18:04 AM PST · 21 of 33
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    . Since there is only once Church, the Pastor (together with his parish to help) is the shepherd of every human person within those boundaries: Catholic or Protestant, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist.

    Nonsense: the one true church is the corporate body of Christ as it alone 100% consists of only believers, while the visible church is an amalgam of both wheat and tares, esp. the church of Rome and liberal Prot churches, yet as even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church then perhaps this allows the church of Rome to be called a church.

    While arrogantly refusing to consider evangelical churches as worthy to proper be called churches, though converts from which she covets to enliven her pews,V2 generally affirmed such as being children of God in whom the Spirit resides, but in addition to the fundamental and substantial deformation of the NT church that Rome is the most manifest example of doctrinally, as she treats even publicly known proabortion, prosodomite public souls as members in life and in death, then for that reason alone we must separate from her.

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

  • Just an observation.

    02/02/2016 8:04:06 PM PST · 16 of 21
    daniel1212 to soycd
    ? Does rejecting God and a Godly man equals a collapsing culture? Does anyone even think that if more of us were Christians that walked the walk, would we have the same problems we fight today? Would we have the numbers of problems we have today? Would we have China, Russia, and ISIS breathing down our necks if we were once again a "blessed" country? Can any reasonable person look at abortion, gay marriage, drugs, fornication, ect, and say it's better today than when you were growing up?

    Loaded question. Atheists will compare secular countries as Sweden with religious ones like the Philippines, but that is not a valid comparison, as would be a comparison btwn groups in which basically all other things are equal, or weighted accordingly when not.

    But that the liberal ethos is destructive is well evidenced. See here .

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 7:46:40 PM PST · 72 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    It’s NOT my job - but I keep doing it anyway in post after post. The errors are there for everyone to see.

    Indeed, the fact that you thanked God for the Spanish Inquisition preventing the Prot reformation in Spain, which it did by persecution and even dead, but while you support rooting out their secret groups and meetings and the like, you claim you are not supporting the ultimate deterrent means, but refuse to actually say you do not support killing Prots due to their beliefs, at least in a RC state. And then you accuse the opposition of weaseling!"

    You didn’t “invite correction”. You posted it for our “consideration”.

    Are you desperate or what? So posting something for consideration is not to invite correction? Get real! Strike 2.

    Also, you keep changing numerically qualifying words as if you’re changing your story. . First, it was killing “of” Protestants - which could mean many, few, most, who knows? Then it was killing of “any” Protestants. Now it’s killing “some” Protestants. This sort of changing of your story may be one of the reasons why you make so many errors.

    You have yet to show one error, aside from misunderstanding a sentence of yours, and thus must resort the above. “Killing of” Protestants includes "any” Protestants and “some” Protestants are not changing of my story but refer to what you support, that of the killing of any/some Protestants, which are not contradictory (support for killing any Prots at all is support for killing some, as opposed to all, which obviously was not the charge), except to a desperate RC apologist! Strike 3.

    The false assumption is yours. Let’s face it, you’re seemingly now hedging things by saying “never read a complete account”. Why can’t you just be honest and answer the question by saying: Correct, I’ve never read a single book on the inquisition.

    You asked, "Have you ever read even one book about the inquisition," to which i replied , "No, else why would i post something that invited correction." Then you asked, "If you have never actually read anything worthwhile about the inquisition, then doesn’t that mean you know essentially nothing about it?" To which i replied, "That is a false assumption and argument. I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it." Thus you are misrepresenting me as not saying i did not read even one book about the inquisition. Strike 4.

    Now why not be honest and admit that the fact that the SI did kill Prots, and that this was a real threat and deterrent.

    That’s the case is it not? Same thing for scholarly articles too, right?

    I can only say i have done and posted research on it from scholarly sources, but again, but just state that you did not mean and do not now support the killing of Prots for their faith, as per the charge at issue, and will apologize for assuming that, rather than going off on verbose defense that avoids this.

    Are you now saying you don’t know how to define a word YOU chose to use? Here’s what you said: “So supporting the inquisition does not mean supporting all its official means?” This is clearly another reason why you make so many errors. You use words and you must not understand them if you have to ask the definition AFTER you used them. “Such being obviously sanction by by king Phillip is official enough.” I don’t think you even know what you’re TRYING to say.

    Another failed demonstration of error, as despite your thinking, asking a definition is because the definition varies with RCs. If Rome appoints bishops and who sanction a Bible, then for me Rome has officially sanctioned it, while for another it must mean the pope himself has done so. Here, do you deny that sanction of killing Prots for their faith by king Phillip 1 does not constitute official sanction of that means? Or do you deny that he did?

    Which, of course, means they might not have been Protestants - and Kamen and others make the same point in a number of places.

    Similarly my use of "consideration" does no translate into belief, while some did hold identifiable Prot beliefs, according to Kamen. And today RCs even hold Mormons to be Prots, and some call SSPX types by the same name.

    Your logic is so bizarrely twisted. You’re actually saying that because capital punishment is a deterrent (which it is) that that means I imagine something.

    It is your illogical that is apparent, for to support SI preventing any Prot reformation from taking hold, when killing and the threat of it was an effectual means, then without any qualifications it is logically assumed that you support includes those means, esp. since you refuse to come right out and deny you do.

    Which was almost never used - thus proving my point.

    Relatively (though in addition to what i quoted from Kamem, "In Northern Spain, as a result of the proximity of the Calvinists areas of France, Frenchmen were singled out for suspicion. Between 1560 and 100, the Inquisition in the province of Aragon and Naverre executed some eighty Frenchmen as presumed heretics." - Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, p. 109) But shall we presume that a government who only shoots Prots occasionally, but which remains a real threat, can claim it has little to no effect? Sounds like those who oppose everything from physical discipline of children to the death penalty.

    Historians disagree on what the most effective tool was in stopping the spread of Protestantism but they all agree it wasn’t executions. And thus, your grand point crashes into pieces. If you read some history - and you have already admitted you’ve read not even a single book on this subject - you would know that:

    I know enough to say that my argument was not that capital punishment was the most effective tool, arguing as if i did is erroneous, but that it certainly would be an important deterrent, even as a real, not theoretical, threat, as was other physical punishments, etc. And while the effect of capital punishment is debatable even today, but Biblically it must have been, as despite the great multitude of capital crimes, we see little record of the magisterial use of it in the overall historical history of Biblical Israel.

    See that? A group that was labelled - perhaps incorrectly - as Protestant

    Which is simply does not translate into all. Kamen affirms of some others who held Protestant beliefs, while RC today define Protestant as those who hold such distinctive beliefs.

    Your “incredulity” has everything to do with how you “honestly misunderstood” and nothing to do with me. Stop making error after error

    What? The Spanish Inquisition is not an “RC state”. It is a governmental institution used to ensure national unity through suppression of heresy and the reconciliation of heretics with the Church. I have no idea what you mean by “as a RC state”.

    Basically, where the rulers enforce compliance with RC faith.

    Another false statement. As we already saw, the death penalty - which the inquisition didn’t even administer - cannot be considered it most effective means since Protestant groups could be dealt with without it. Thus, everything falls apart for you again.

    So now we play word games, as if the inquisition not actually administering capital punishment did not mean if was responsible for the death of those is handed over to the state to "exterminate the heretics." And then we have another false statement by using "ultimate effective means" which means it ultimately is obviously most effective in silencing a Prot, since he is dead, and as real threat, to contradict "most effective means" since lesser means, what they are being debatable, were more effective overall in preventing any Prot. reformation, but which assumes that with death being a real threat lesser means would work, which cannot be proved. There certainly are other factors, societal and otherwise, but the abundant capital crimes in Scripture infers capital punishment is ultimately effective.

    Going on to more in your diatribe,

    “shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith.”... No, I do not reject those means for the era in which they were used.

    See how easy that was? Why not with the primary question? And while you admit you support such for that era, i find it suspicious that you did not answer, "It that what you hope for America as the ideal (not that the liberals are any better)?”

    Do you even see the hypocrisy of making such a statement as you just did when you can’t even simply say, “No, I have no read any books on the inquisition. No, I have no read any scholarly articles on the inquisition.” Seriously, the best you can do - even though you have been asked about this at least twice is: “ I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.”

    I don’t remember you EVER asking me in this thread whether or not I actually “however equivocal, ...support the killing of Prots by the SI.” You never did - not even ONCE. Yet I have asked you at least twice if you have read a book - EVEN ONE BOOK - on the inquisition and you REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead play games with: “I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.” Seriously, you cannot see the hypocrisy of that???? To keep it simple for you: you have made yet another error.

    Misrepresentation again. You asked, "Have you ever read even one book about the inquisition," to which i replied , "No, else why would i post something that invited correction." To keep it simple for you: this was another one of your errors.

    Your next question was "If you have never actually read anything worthwhile about the inquisition, then doesn’t that mean you know essentially nothing about it?" (eph. mine) To which i replied, "That is a false assumption and argument." [for i have read accounts i consider worthile, including some of Kamen. But as regards your need to read a whole book premise,] I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it." Thus your desperation is again showing.

    I, however, ASKED YOU AT LEAST TWICE if you have ever read even a single book or scholarly article on the inquisition and you have refused to answer both times. Hypocrisy.

    If you cannot see a denial in the first case by "no," and by "That is a false assumption" to your reiteration of the second, then you are too desperate to gain a debate point, while this scholarly demand is not necessary unless you can prove it means support for the SI preventing the reformation excludes support for killing any/some Prots (in the context of stopping the reformation, not murderers). Which i offered to apologize for many many words ago if you would simply affirm this denial, yet you refuse, thus indicating you do.

    No. It is RIDICULOUS that I have to answer a question I was never asked while you have refused to answer a question you have been asked twice!!!

    No, it is not RIDICULOUS, and i asked you first to make your denial, which your tried to excuse (as if the context of killing Prots in helping to stop the reformation really included murderers), and have affirmed i did not read any whole books in the matter, while that i had not read any worthy articles was a false assumption, and argument.

    Now we come to the end, as we are not to continually badger a person with a question they refuse to answer, and as you have taken up too much time with your attempts to prove your arrogant charges, then this will be my last transmission to you if you once more refuse to affirm that you did not and do not support killing of Prots for their faith, however equivocal you want to state it, and easily could have. I for my part will apologize anyway for assuming that that is not the case, and charging so, being unable to read your mind to know this, yet your support for shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith,” even if under the context of the SI, sounds ominous apart from clarification.

    But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Galatians 4:29)

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 1:31:22 PM PST · 67 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    That’s a false statement - again. You, YOURSELF, said you believe the figures were exaggerations. You then thanked me for pointing out obvious flaws - which means you could not have recognized them as such or else you would not have needed anyone to pint them out to you.

    What kind of reasoning is this? I did not say i believed the vast numbers, and in fact have invoked Kamen with his smaller numbers before, but presented this other side i had come across which needed examination in case there was a possibility of some truth, but which examination i had not gone into myself. Exampling the other side for examination is simply not the same as believing them, thus you are grasping at straws. Your desperation is showing prosecutor.

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 11:28:38 AM PST · 65 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    No. All anyone has to do is read your posts. It is not my job to prove the obvious. Let your posts speak for themselves. You make numerous enough errors that anyone can find some.

    It is your job, since you made the charge of frequently posting false statements and in numerous enough places, but as expected, you cannot prove such, and true to form, will labor to find a technicality whereby you may excuse yourself.

    No. I already posted an example of your errors. Also, in my last post I showed an error in your judgment.

    Only in your imagination, as your mind reading was false.

    Let’s get right to the heart of the matter: Have you ever read even one book about the inquisition

    No, else why would i post something that invited correction, but which is irrelevant unless you deny that the SI did kill some Prots.

    If you have never actually read anything worthwhile about the inquisition, then doesn’t that mean you know essentially nothing about it?

    That is a false assumption and argument. I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.

    1) “Killing of prots.” - and those are your words - was never an “official means” (your words) of the inquisition.

    "Official" as meaning what? Such being obviously sanction by by king Phillip is official enough.

    2) Of course supporting an institution DOES NOT mean supporting everything that institution might do. I am a loyal American citizen. I do NOT support everything my nation does...The inquisition was effective against Protestant Revolutionaries in Spain by shutting down their propaganda machine, rooting out their secret groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected heretics

    Which hardly has impact unless there are penalties for doing so, which included Death. By thanking God for the SI, esp. without any qualifiers, you are supporting its effective means.

    The number of cases involving Protestant Revolutionaries in Spain was incredibly small. Henry Arthur Francis Kamen points this out in the 2014 edition of his book The Spanish Inquisition on page 100. I doubt you’ll ever take the time to read it, however, right?

    I will, as a physical copy is on order , while i have before posted from Kamen, including from the following:

    ..in the presence of Phillip, who had now returned to spain and for whom an impressive ceremony was mounted. Of the thirty accused, twenty-six were considered Protestants, and of these, twelve (including four nuns) were burnt at the stake.

    .The first great auto there [Seville] was held on Sunday, 24, September 1559. Of the seventy-six accused present, nineteen were burnt as Lutherans, one of them in effigy only. This was followed by the auto held on Sunday, 22, September 1560..fourteen were burnt..forty of the accused were Protestant....The whole of that year 1562 saw eight-eight cases of Protestants punished: of these, eighteen were burnt in person.. ..the tribunals of the Inquisition devoted themselves to hunt for Lutheran heresy, and drew into their net scores of Spaniards.... (pp. 96)

    The great auto de fe up to 1562 served to remind the populations of the gravity of the crisis and to identify Lutherans in their midst. As a consequence, .the tribunals of the Inquisition devoted themselves to hunt for Lutheran heresy, and drew into their net scores of Spaniards who i an unguarded moment had made statements praising Luther or attacking the clergy. p. 97

    In perspective, the Protestant crisis in Spain, often presented as a singularly harsh period of repression, was somewhat less bloody than the ferocious religious persecution in other countries.. ...it has been calculated that no more than eighty-three persons....died at the hands of the Inquisition between [just] 1559 and 1663. (p. 107)

    Thus capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, though you somehow imagine you can support the SI but not killing Prots!

    Support does not mean blanket support of all possibilities. Again, I am a loyal American citizen. I do NOT support everything my nation does.

    No, but the devil is in the details, and supporting the war on terror but not the ultimate effective means of combating them is hardly credible. So you want to settle for just imprisoning Prots for their beliefs?

    never said I do “not support a single killing”. You once again have to twist my words to suit your purposes, right?

    No, I honestly misunderstood, "That doesn’t mean a single “killing” need result." But which is absurd, as the power of the state is ultimately the use of its sword, which SI did use to deterrent effect, but which we are to believe you do not support but have not yet stated. Thus my incredulity.

    “So again you thank God for the killing of Prots.” So again you’re equating two things that are not the same. How honest is that of you?

    Again, how honest is to support the SI in preventing the Reformation by merely going so far as rooting out their secret groups and meetings yet not support the ultimate deterrent that was used? Are we do imagine that you imagine that this would be effective if there was no killing of convicted Prot? In any case, thus far you have affirmed that you support SI, as a RC state, shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith. Or do you also reject these means which your credit with being effective against Protestant Revolutionaries while yet thanking God for the SI?

    Like I said, you make false statements repeatedly.You can keep making up things, but then that would be the weaseling and it would be all your own.

    There is no false statements as it is unreasonable to assume supporting the SI against Prots while not supporting its ultimate effective means, while refusing to state, however equivocal, that you do not support the killing of Prots by the SI.

    “But tell you what, if you will state that you do not support the killing of any Prots by the Spanish Inquisition then i will apologize for presuming your support of the Spanish Inquisition included that. Fair enough?”

    No. You posted false statements - and quite frankly there is no logical possibility that a person posting them would not know they were false.

    Wrong, as it is logical that supporting the SI means supporting its effective means, which included death, esp. when you refuse to deny it.

    Also, if a Protestant was a murderer why would I have to say I “do not support” his execution under the law by the proper authorities apparently just to salve your conscience about posting things that are objectively false? And what kind of person would demand a statement specifically denouncing the execution of ONLY Protestants as if non-Protestants did not matter? What does that sort of bizarre view tell us about a person who apparently only cares about Protestants being executed???

    That is what weaseling is, for Prots were obviously the focus, which does not mean others are do not matter, and it would not be hard to simply qualify that you do not support killing of Prots by the SI for their faith. How simple, and your refusal to do so only indicates that you do so support this, which is what support of the SI in squashing Prots indicates. So there is my offer: simply state that you do not support the killing of Prots for their faith, at least by the SI, and i will apologize for assuming what seems most logical in such a case.

    But as said, given enough rope, at the least you do manifest support for a RC state shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith. It that what you hope for America as the ideal (not that the liberals are any better)?

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 9:22:27 AM PST · 62 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    The idiot you linked to produced a pile of garbage and you - to some extent - believed it. . . or else you would not have said you were posting it for everyone’s consideration.

    That is mind reading and a false charge, as if i did believe it then i would have enlisted it as such, rather than something to be examined, and which i am actually glad you did. But you seem to be such a rabid head hunter than you cannot even accept this. .

    You made an error.

    If any, it was in any way inferring any possibility of truth, but which is why i am glad to have it examined.

    It is not your first. It won’t be your last. You make them often.

    Which you will fail to actually show, which will add to your false charges.

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 5:50:39 AM PST · 58 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    “About you?” Not just about me. Frequently enough and in numerous enough places.

    Prove repeatedly posted false statements, frequently enough and in numerous enough places. No doubt this is "you said the Catholic church is not the one true church" type of propaganda, or such vain attempts such as charging that "sanctioned by Rome" must expressly mean the Bishop of Rome vs what the its American bishops may officially do.

    “So again you thank God for the killing of Prots.” No. I said inquisition. That doesn’t mean a single “killing” need result. See how you twist things? See how you just posted a completely false statement? Yeah, you do it frequently enough as I said.

    So supporting the inquisition does not mean supporting all its official means? That's desperate and contrary to what support infers. You thanked God that there was no Spanish Reformed Sect because the Spanish Inquisition was up to the task, and as the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed souls, if far less than the often alleged millions, then it means supporting killing of some Prots, and likely potential ones, and using the fear of which to prevent such. Trying to say your support of the Spanish Inquisition does not support a single killing (why even the parenthesis?) is in-credible.

    Well, since I never said what you just accused me of saying the first thing you should bother with is an apology for that false statement of yours.

    What?! So you deny thanking God that there was no Spanish Reformed Sect because the Spanish Inquisition was up to the task? Or weasel out of this as including support of killing Prots? But tell you what, if you will state that you do not support the killing of any Prots by the Spanish Inquisition then i will apologize for presuming your support of the Spanish Inquisition included that. Fair enough?

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/02/2016 5:15:48 AM PST · 57 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    No, the numbers are fraudulent. They are made up. They have no basis in fact whatsoever according to any reputable historian alive today - and that is NOT an exaggeration. As soon as some starts claiming to you that millions were executed you know they are lying or ignorant. All reputable historians agree on this.

    That the extravagant numbers of souls murdered have been found to be fraudulent is correct.

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/01/2016 9:20:50 PM PST · 54 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    Here’s a fact: You repeatedly posted false statements. Nothing will change that fact.

    About you? Where and what?

    If He chose to use the inquisition to preserve orthodox Christianity in Spain, I have no problem with His choice.

    So again you thank God for the killing of Prots. Why should be even bother attempting reasonable exchange with such a arrogant advocate? /

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/01/2016 9:20:31 PM PST · 53 of 160
    daniel1212 to vladimir998
    What you’ve linked to is an atrociously ridiculous collection of fraudulent works like Llorente’s.

    Thank you for the research. It was posted not as fact but for consideration as something i had come across who gave large numbers, and invited critique, after i said i believed numbers were exaggerated. Again, thanks for the critique, as i am interested in accuracy.

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/01/2016 4:15:38 PM PST · 41 of 160
    daniel1212 to yefragetuwrabrumuy; HiTech RedNeck
    Meanwhile, back in Spain, the Inquisition did what it could before it went utterly rotten. While they did persecute the Jews and others, this was at the behest of the monarch. It also engaged in a lot of de-Islamification as well.

    It was more than just in Spain, and long before that,we have the mandate to RC rulers:

    ► Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

    But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

    The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

    Also as regards torture only being used once,

    The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1] — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.)

    And getting back to the Jews, the light of historical Cath anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism testifies that Luther's attitude was much like Catholics had evidenced, both of which provided Hitler with historical pretext for his wicked actions. Sadly, such history also testifies to a degree of iniquity and recalcitrant hardness manifest in much of Jewish culture against the Christianity they saw, which rendered them hard to love and fostered invectives (but which does not excuse all such), and inexcusable actions against them.

    The Lord sent the apostles to the Jews first, and Paul was willing to go to Hell if that could mean there salvation. Rome has also resisted, and been slow and weak in its support of the state of Israel, and American bishops especially seem to favor Muslims over their enemies.

    Any emphasis throughout is mine.

    Canons of the 4th Lateran Council (convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213)

    CANON 67

    Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses...

    Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

    CANON 68

    Summary. Jews and Saracens [a generic term for Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.

    Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

    Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

    This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

    [Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]

    CANON 70

    Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.

    Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

    (From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296) — http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344latj.html

    Popes Against the Jews

    In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

    the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

    In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

    But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

    In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

    It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

    When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

    Pope Leo XII

    As cardinal vicar of Rome, Della Genga [the new Pope Leo XII] had been outraged to discover that not all of the Holy City’s Jews had returned to their ghetto following the restoration of the papal regime. One of his major projects as cardinal vicar had been to oversee a modest enlargement of the ghetto, to undermine the Jews’ complaint that it was impossible for them all to fit in the densely packed space within the old ghetto walls. Now, as pope, he redoubled these efforts. In 1823, in one of his first pontifical acts [which the Church can officially dismiss as if it were nothing], Leo XII ordered the Jews back into the ghetto, “to overcome the evil consequences of the freedom that [they] have enjoyed…

    In the first year of his papacy, he had the Holy Office investigate the extent to which the old restrictions on the Jews in the Papal States were still being enforced. The goal as an internal Inquisition report expressed it, was “to contain the wickedness of the obstinate Jews so that the danger of perversion of the Catholic faithful” could be avoided. The report expressed dismay that some Jews lived outside the ghettoes, some traveled from place to place without the special permits they were required to get from the local office of the bishop or the inquisitor, and some had opened stores and businesses beyond the ghetto’s walls...

    The new Pope’s efforts to enforce these restrictions on the Jews relied on the bureaucracy of control provided by the Inquisition and by various other agencies of the Papal States. — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-5-you-will.html

    Note that according to the Catechism:

    2032 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-3-positing-big.html

    What follows falls under judgments on human affairs which is justified as being necessary for the salvation of souls.

    Cum nimis absurdum

    Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555 [after Luther]. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

    The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

    The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

    The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

    Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

    Cum nimis absurdum text

    Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

    Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the [very] name Christian...

    1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit,

    2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves...

    § 3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity...

    7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians...

    9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

    10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

    11.And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians...

    14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime:..just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

    Inquisition

    In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32

    One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

    King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See [but the prior Fourth Lateran Council did require Christians leaders to exterminate all the heretics its prelates convicted under his rule, or else Catholics were not bound to obey him]. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

    In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition.— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

    The Inquisition

    While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

    In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

    In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

    First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

    More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492...

    The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

    By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance [or else].

    The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved. — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html:

    Goa Inquisition

    The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

    The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

    Portuguese Inquisition

    ...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

    The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

    Spanish Inquisition

    On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

    In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

    Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition

    Tomás de Torquemada

    The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

    Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

    Related: A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium. (http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm)

    • In addition is The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.

    Papal–Israel relations

    Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]

    On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...

    If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

    It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]

    The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:

    "I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]
    by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]
    On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]
    Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]
    Relations since 1993[edit]
    The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
    • A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.
    • A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.
    The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
    Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
    Evangelical support for Jews.
    In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
    As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. — http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-13%20Foreign%20Policy%20Release.pdf
    Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/
    Egregious ecumenism
    In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)
    Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.
    Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
    And,
    We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.
    I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
    Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
    As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
    We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
    Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

  • The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

    02/01/2016 4:06:29 PM PST · 40 of 160
    daniel1212 to Dqban22
    adly, too often (just) some of the history from the other side is fitting in the light of one-sided self-righteous indignation by a few whose irrational rage against a man they

    What about Protestants apologizing for their murder of Catholics? Because we do not represent the church that so, and do not support one particular church, unlike some RCs here, we do not support such, and which early Prots had to unlearn, as well as other things from Rome.

    Kamen adds that “ it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Protestant Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition (Catholic) issued one.

    I think Kamen is disputed, and while i believe figures are exaggerated, here is one man's work to consider: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.html

  • I am the student loan crisis at its ugliest: I graduated and found out I have $200,000 in debt

    02/01/2016 3:20:04 PM PST · 162 of 162
    daniel1212 to csivils

    But if he works for the government or secular non-profit (no religious: there’s a legal challenge) for 10 years, making 120 continual payments, then the debt is all “forgiven.”

  • Myth Busted: 'Separation of Church and State'

    01/31/2016 9:04:05 PM PST · 19 of 32
    daniel1212 to nathanbedford; mtrott; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    What this article does not understand is that Christians must now make a choice. Either we accept the Warren court view and demand that it be applied equally against Muslims, or we look to impose a Christian sharia on Muslims-but there is no third way.

    Their is indeed a third way, which is not that of Christian sharia, as the gov. cannot punish which faith one simply professes, only its actions, nor and teach formal religious education, but there is that which was the Constitutional way for about 150 years, which is to recognize that the state cannot be separate from religion the ACLU way, as its moral laws flowed from religion, and reflected the beliefs of the Founders overall and the general Christian faith of those who choose them, and indirectly those who elect the early interpreters of the Constitution. The latter electorate is what has changed, often with a form of "secular sharia law' reflecting the secularization of society.

    But if the Constitution was truly interpreted the way the Founders manifested they intended, many of whom said and did things that the ACLU type would object to, then there could not be Islamic sharia law, nor the secular sharia that is hostile to any official proclamation expressive of Christian (vs. Muslim) faith, but our laws would reflect the general Christian faith under which the Constitution was written and reflects.

  • Gay man reacts to Military Spouse of the Year nomination

    01/31/2016 4:39:42 AM PST · 51 of 54
    daniel1212 to sparklite2

    Hard to believe that double meaning was not intentional, while a nation that is not under God is a nation that has gone under, and a nation that sanctions abomination is under condemnation and is headed for damnation, which happens when the devil becomes the chief executive by proxy, as the people overall choose darkness over Light.

  • Tech help needed

    01/28/2016 3:58:49 PM PST · 45 of 45
    daniel1212 to conservativesister
    Error message was file not found

    That is good, as it seems to manifest the problem. Sometimes it is deleted as a result of a virus infection cleanup. However, other people have had that problem and tried the usual solution, of running sfc /scannow from a command line or from the Run window, which should replace the file, but which did not fix it. Therefore I would first manually search C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\spoolsv.exe and C:\WINDOWS\ServicePackFiles\i386\spoolsv.exe for spoolsv.exe. Agent Ransack is a well established, no strings nice utility for searching, or use the Windows search function. But first go to Tools>Folder Options and deselect "Hide operating system files," and check "Show all..." If it is really missing in SYSTEM32\ but it is in \i386 then try copying it into the former.

    If not, try Method 1 here: http://www.techsupportall.com/print-spooler-service-is-missing/ You can try the other two if needed.

    More help, esp. if it is a Lexmark, here http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/CleanPrinterDrivers.htm

    Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus

  • Pope Francis Asks Protestants to Forgive Catholics for Persecution

    01/28/2016 3:20:55 AM PST · 75 of 123
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    Baptizing dogs, cats and hamsters. Scripture doesn’t forbid it.

    I would caution you about baptizing cats thought. From experience, I can tell you they are not Christians and they do not appreciate immersion. Caths cults and atheists (in charging God) much rely on the specious hermeneutic that if it is not forbidden then it much be sanctioned. As for cat-olics, i once gave our cat a bath and i never heard those demonic-sounding howls cats can make.

  • Pope Francis Asks Protestants to Forgive Catholics for Persecution

    01/27/2016 8:39:02 PM PST · 68 of 123
    daniel1212 to Bryanw92; aMorePerfectUnion; CA Conservative
    What does “entire household” mean to you. If a house burns down at you get the entire household out, would you leave the babies behind to burn?

    That no more proves there were infants in the house than texts as Acts 18:8 proves there were. And see 65 above by God's grace. Moreover the baptism of John did not remove sin, but was in regards ("eis") to forgiveness, as forgiveness was always by repentance, and did not require baptism but which signified it.

  • Pope Francis Asks Protestants to Forgive Catholics for Persecution

    01/27/2016 8:30:27 PM PST · 67 of 123
    daniel1212 to Campion; chuckles
    Since heresy wasn't a capital crime until the 12th century (and then only in some places) how exactly did that work?

    Not for heresy, but early on you have Catholicism employing or relying on the use of the sword of men to deal with foes in church matters, even with Damasus 1 hiring a murderous band of thugs to secure his seat.

    Why don't you ask Henry VIII and Elizabeth I why they murdered so many Catholics?

    Yet it is RCs who are found here commending such by Rome, and or apparently hoping for a RC monarchy to suppress us.

    Then why does the chapter start by commanding intercessory prayer, a form of mediation? Which simply does not refute the charge and translate into there being another heavenly intercessor besides the only One the Holy Spirit teaches of, (1Tim. 2:15) and points us to, who ever lives to do so, thanks be to God. (Heb. 2:19; 4:15; 7:25) And despite approx 200 prayers in Scripture, the Holy Spirit does not even record one single prayer or offering by believers to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, to whom believers have direect access to by the sinless shed blood of the Divine Son of God. (Heb. 10:19)

    Instead, prayer to created beings is only seen among pagans in Scripture, and is a late development in Jewish history.

    This was an innovation, as Salomon Reinach nicely observes: "Pagans prayed to the dead, Christians prayed for the dead." Now, it is of course true that beliefs and mentalities do not change overnight, so it should come as no surprise that we do find instances, particularly in the domain of popular belief, in which non-Christians prayed for the suffering dead in the other world....

    These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."

    "The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background." It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net.

  • Pope Francis Asks Protestants to Forgive Catholics for Persecution

    01/27/2016 8:12:32 PM PST · 66 of 123
    daniel1212 to Campion
    When, exactly, did the Holy Spirit begin His long vacation? When, exactly, did Christ's promises to "be with you always, until the end of the age" and to lead His Church "to all truth" turn out to have been fraudulent?

    That no more refers to one organic church and precludes any error than do the many promises of Divine presence, guidance and preservation given to the OT people of God, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)

    Nor do we know all the truth that there is to know, or can claim comprehensive doctrinal unity, but the Spirit will be guiding the body of Christ into all Truth, though here we yet see thru a glass, darkly.

  • Pope Francis Asks Protestants to Forgive Catholics for Persecution

    01/27/2016 8:02:17 PM PST · 65 of 123
    daniel1212 to impimp; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Acts 18:8 and the Didache. Infant baptism is biblical.

    It is not Biblical, and basic mentions of whole household baptisms do not constitute evidence of it but are only speculative regarding it, while the Holy Spirit's stated requirements for baptist is wholehearted repentance faith:

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

    And where there is more details it is shown that the subjects could hear the word and respond.

    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

    There is no salvation by proxy faith, while it is the faith behind baptism that appropriates justification, (Rm. 4:1-7ff) as the regeneration of Cornelius and household b4 baptism shows, God "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 10:43-47; 15:79)

    Burning at the stake was typically done by secular authorities who wanted pure Catholicism in their land.

    As required by Rome for RC leaders:

    Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

    But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

  • Tech help needed

    01/27/2016 7:40:36 PM PST · 38 of 45
    daniel1212 to conservativesister

    You need to start the print spooler as has been said. The actual file should be C:\WINDOWS\System32\spoolsv.exe. Paste that string into your Run command and hit Enter if you want.

  • Grand Jury Thinks Fake License Worse Than Slaughtered Babies

    01/27/2016 11:04:39 AM PST · 17 of 23
    daniel1212 to Mr. K
    Daleiden was nearing the end of a 30-month caper, which saw him train a team of undercover activists to help him infiltrate Planned Parenthood by posing as representatives of a fake tissue-procurement company. The goal was to surreptitiously record videos that could prove the organization had illegally sold fetal tissue for profit.

    Daleiden and an associate breezed past the building’s metal detector, and allegedly presented as identification a phony California drivers license with the name of an alias, Robert Sarkis. In normal cases, the use of a fake ID would not warrant felony charges; a grand jury would not, for example, throw the book at an underage kid using a phony government ID to pick up a six-pack of beer. But Texas state law includes a provision that elevates this transgression—knowingly using a fake government document—to a second-degree felony if “the intent is to defraud or harm another.” The grand jury decided that Daleiden’s goal was to do just that, by using his cover story to make a covert recording designed to damage Planned Parenthood’s reputation...

    The grand jury never even took a vote on whether to charge Planned Parenthood with a crime. Instead, it concluded that Daleiden and his associate, identified as Sandra Merritt, 62, should be indicted...

    The additional misdemeanor charge against Daleiden stems from a letter he sent to the Planned Parenthood affiliate a few months after the meeting, according to Josh Schaffer, an attorney for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. .. Attaching a proposed contract, Daleiden offered to pay up to $1,600 per fetal tissue specimen, according to Schaffer, who suggests the steep price was designed to illustrate profit...

    But Schaffer, the Planned Parenthood lawyer, told TIME that Planned Parenthood officials never responded to the offer. “In Texas, the crime is the offer to buy,” he said. “The other party does not have to accept the offer.” More: http://time.com/4194226/planned-parenthood-david-daleiden-felony/

  • Vatican: Iran must join fight against terrorism (!!!)

    01/27/2016 5:30:40 AM PST · 23 of 27
    daniel1212 to tgusa; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Talk about inviting a fox into your chicken coop ....

    Indeed. Might as well ask the Mafia to help stop organized crime. This seems to be an extension of the papal. “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists? [Muslims/Scientologists/etc]’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there." - Pope Francis, from Vatican Radio’s account of a recent Papal pronouncement: http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445;