Posted on 02/01/2016 12:21:23 PM PST by juliosevero
On October 2015 Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho said in his Brazilian Twitter, "A entidade chamada Inquisicao e uma invencao ficcional de protestantes." Translation: "The entity called the Inquisition was a fictional invention of Protestants." His original statement is here.
“Prove repeatedly posted false statements”
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.
“No doubt this is “you said the Catholic church is not the one true church” type of propaganda...”
No. I already posted an example of your errors. Also, in my last post I showed an error in your judgment.
Let’s get right to the heart of the matter: Have you ever read even one book about the inquisition researched and written by any reputable historian? Even one? I could be wrong, but I bet you have not read even one.
Have you read any scholarly articles about the inquisition? Even one? I could be wrong, but I bet you haven’t read any at all.
If you have never actually read anything worthwhile about the inquisition, then doesn’t that mean you know essentially nothing about it? Doesn’t that mean you’re ignorant about it?
“So supporting the inquisition does not mean supporting all its official means?”
1) “Killing of prots.” - and those are your words - was never an “official means” (your words) of the inquisition.
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.
“That’s desperate and contrary to what support infers.”
Support does not mean blanket support of all possibilities. Again, I am a loyal American citizen. I do NOT support everything my nation does.
“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.”
Nope. 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 and instructing heretics on the faith and bringing them back into communion with the Church. 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?
“Trying to say your support of the Spanish Inquisition does not support a single killing (why even the parenthesis?) is in-credible.”
I never said I do “not support a single killing”. You once again have to twist my words to suit your purposes, right? I have no problem with executing people for committing murder, for instance. Some people tried by the inquisition were tried for murder. Apparently you didn’t know that, but why would you when you’ve apparently never read a single book about it, right?
“What?! So you deny thanking God that there was no Spanish Reformed Sect because the Spanish Inquisition was up to the task?”
Your repeated twisting of my words sure seems deliberate. How could it not be? Let’s go back and see - once again - how you say things that are completely false.
You wrote:
“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? Now you write: “What?! So you deny thanking God that there was no Spanish Reformed Sect because the Spanish Inquisition was up to the task?”
Nope. I don’t deny it. But these were your false words: “So again you thank God for the killing of Prots.”
Like I said, you make false statements repeatedly.
“Or weasel out of this as including support of killing Prots?”
You can keep making up things, but then that would be the weaseling and it would be all your own.
“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. 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???
Next you’ll shift gears to cover your error perhaps?
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.
Reason for this? Quite clear that catholiciism is not Christianity any more than Islam or ISIS is Christianity, or Mormonism is Christianity. The Vatican indulged in satanic methodology with the Inquisition, revealing of what spirit it is built now.
As a popular Freeper has put it: 'you put a clean kid in to play with a dirty kid and you end up with two dirty kids.' What became the catholic church may have been Christian in origins, but the reality of the 'dirty works' rveals it is no longer Christian in leadership or action.
Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I’ll come in again.
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)?
“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. .”
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. Thus, you believed the webpage “to some extent” just as I said. You may not like what I’m saying and might hide behind a spurious claim of mind-reading but what you’re not doing and cannot do is produce a logical argument to refute what I just said because your own words convict you.
“Which you will fail to actually show,”
I just demonstrated it again. It’s just that easy. All you have to do is be left to your own devices and you will make error after error.
” which will add to your false charges.”
I made none. That’s why you’re failing to refute everything I said.
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.
“It is your job, since you made the charge of frequently posting false statements”
It’s NOT my job - but I keep doing it anyway in post after post. The errors are there for everyone to see.
“Only in your imagination, as your mind reading was false.”
There was no mind-reading - and that’s why you will not make any logical argument against what I said: Because the facts are not on your side.
“No, else why would i post something that invited correction, but which is irrelevant unless you deny that the SI did kill some Prots.”
You didn’t “invite correction”. You posted it for our “consideration”. 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.
“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.”
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. That’s the case is it not? Same thing for scholarly articles too, right? None, zip, nada. Also, since the inquisition is a specialized topic of research requiring skills and training most people don’t have (Latin, Roman Law, Canon Law, etc) your assumption that not having read a book on it doesn’t mean your ignorant on the topic is logically impossible.
“”Official” as meaning what?”
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.
” twenty-six were considered Protestants”
Which, of course, means they might not have been Protestants - and Kamen and others make the same point in a number of places.
“Thus capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, though you somehow imagine you can support the SI but not killing Prots!”
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. The one has NOTHING to do with the other logically. No matter how good or bad capital punishment is as a deterrent it has nothing to do with anything I might imagine about supporting or not support all actions taken by the state in executing anyone after an inquisition trial. This is yet another logic error on your part: error after error.
“Which hardly has impact unless there are penalties for doing so, which included Death.”
Which was almost never used - thus proving my point.
“By thanking God for the SI, esp. without any qualifiers, you are supporting its effective means.”
That isn’t 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:
“Despite much popular myth about the Spanish Inquisition relating to Protestants, it dealt with very few cases involving actual Protestants, as there were so few in Spain.[54] The first of the trials against those labeled by the Inquisition as “Lutheran” were those against the sect of mystics known as the “Alumbrados” of Guadalajara and Valladolid. The trials were long, and ended with prison sentences of differing lengths, though none of the sect were executed.” (wikipedia on Spanish Inquisition)
See that? A group that was labelled - perhaps incorrectly - as Protestant (specifically Lutheran although that was a general/blanket term) fell apart and yet there were no executions. See that?
“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.”
Your “incredulity” has everything to do with how you “honestly misunderstood” and nothing to do with me. Stop making error after error. It’s not that hard.
“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?”
Very honest. As shown with the “Alumbrados” it worked. The Spanish state believed differently in other cases. Again, however, entire groups of heretics were dealt without anyone being executed. Thus, I have been right all along. That won’t change. If you had spent time doing research you would have known this to be the case.
“Are we do imagine that you imagine that this would be effective if there was no killing of convicted Prot?”
Why wouldn’t it be if it ALREADY WAS WITH THE FIRST GROUP THAT WAS CALLED LUTHERAN???? Seriously, it’s as if you know and understand NOTHING. Again, however, the Spanish government officials thought otherwise so the point is moot. In the end, you’re still wrong. That won’t change.
“In any case, thus far you have affirmed that you support SI, as a RC state,”
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”.
“shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith.”
And?
“Or do you also reject these means which your credit with being effective against Protestant Revolutionaries while yet thanking God for the SI?”
No, I do not reject those means for the era in which they were used.
“here is no false statements”
No, it’s false.
” as it is unreasonable to assume supporting the SI against Prots while not supporting its ultimate effective means,”
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.
“while refusing to state, however equivocal, that you do not support the killing of Prots by the SI.”
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.
“So you want to settle for just imprisoning Prots for their beliefs?”
You know what? I’ll answer that question when YOU finally come clean about never having read a single book or scholarly article on the inquisition.
“Wrong, as it is logical that supporting the SI means supporting its effective means, which included death, esp. when you refuse to deny it.”
As we saw the most effective tool was not the death penalty. If it were, it would have been used far more often.
“That is what weaseling is, for Prots were obviously the focus,”
But they were NOT the focus. The vast majority of Spanish Inquisition cases were NOT about Protestants real or imagined. That’s just a fact.
“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.”
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. I’ll point it out again - I WAS NEVER ASKED IN THIS THREAD THAT I CAN RECALL WHETHER OR NOT I “support killing of Prots by the SI for their faith.” Yet you imply twice in your most recent post that I have refused to do this WHEN NO ONE ASKED ME THE QUESTION. 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.
“How simple, and your refusal to do so only indicates that you do so support this,”
I WAS NEVER ASKED. You were asked about reading books or scholarly articles on the inquisition at least twice. You never ONCE in this thread asked me what you’re claiming until the post I am responding to now. What you’re doing is not right.
“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.”
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!!! Also, what you just said is another error on your part. You’re saying that, if I answer a question you never asked me until this post I am responding to now, you’ll apologize “for assuming what seems most logical in such a case.” Your assumption was not “logical”. And let’s face it: No one offers to apologize for something unless he is in the wrong. If you believe you’re in the wrong apologize. If you did it, own up to it.
“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)?”
When you answer the questions I have asked you on at least two occasions - and which you have repeatedly failed to answer - I’ll consider answering your question.
Until then you have an apology to mull over and you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy. Enjoy.
“What kind of reasoning is this?”
Have you ever read any books on the inquisition?
Have you ever read any scholarly articles on the inquisition?
Simple questions. I have asked at least three times now.
The same goes for the people who think the mormons are about to take over and impose "theocracy."
Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
If/when there are Catholics who say the SPanish Inquisition never happened or it was a good thing, I have a problem with my head exploding.
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)
Sorry, didn’t mean to cause you anguish.
Have you ever read any books on the inquisition?
Have you ever read any scholarly articles on the inquisition?
Since much of what you’re posting now seems like nothing other than dissembling on your part and you hypocritically will not answer questions I have repeatedly asked you while you’re complaining that I did not answer a question you never even brought up in the form you use now (post #58 is different), I see no reason to continue with this back-and-forth unless you answer the questions hereby put to you for at least the fourth time.
Fourth time.
Have you ever read any books on the inquisition?
Have you ever read any scholarly articles on the inquisition?
If you can’t find what is necessary within yourself to answer those two simple questions, then there is no point in continuing this. I have pointed out a number of your errors for others to see and no one can miss that you repeatedly have refused to answer these questions so there it is.
And by the way, when you say, “No, it is not RIDICULOUS, and i asked you first to make your denial...” check the posts again. What you asked me to deny in post 58 - and why do I have to deny something from 450 years ago for you to apologize for a wrongdoing you did now? - you’ll see it’s different than what you demanded later. If you don’t like that fact you have no one to blame but yourself. Also, I mentioned in post 56: “Also, since I am the only one between us who has most likely ever read a book or a scholarly article about the inquisition your only option for a “reasonable exchange” about the inquisition may be me.” It was “most likely” or downright guaranteed - as you have repeatedly shown by refusing to answer the questions I posed.
I was right all along, while you made error after error and will continue to do so.
Since you won’t answer the questions that I have now asked four times and undoubtedly will post yet another long post to justify yourself I will ignore it unless I see answers to the questions I have repeatedly asked.
Fourth time.
You poor soul. The poster has answered you in prior posts that He says he has not read any books on the SI, and even explained why that is not the issue! But you are so focused upon your needy ego and last wording and being seen as always right that you apparently cannot see the answer! Pitiful, vlad, just sadly pitiful. Therapy might be able to help you with that fixation problem though ...
“You poor soul. The poster has answered you in prior posts that He says he has not read any books on the SI, and even explained why that is not the issue!”
That is not true. What he has said is that reading books on the subject hasn’t mattered. He may have made one comment about not having read an entire book. My questions are, however, are pertinent, and since a question (which was not at all pertinent) was put to me and I was attacked for not answering it, and an apology was was made contingent to it (which is ridiculous) I decided to oppose that clear hypocrisy.
“But you are so focused upon your needy ego and last wording and being seen as always right that you apparently cannot see the answer!”
Again, I have read everything posted. And the point is, if he answered my question, then I answered his. Only my question was directly pertinent. His wasn’t. How someone feels about an issue is meaningless in a debate about an issue. What someone KNOWS about an issue is ALWAYS pertinent in a debate on an issue.
“{Pitiful, vlad, just sadly pitiful. Therapy might be able to help you with that fixation problem though ...”
I am fixated - on the TRUTH. I don’t think you’re familiar with Him or it.
BTW, vlad, I know Him well enough to know He needs no mediatrix and is not being eaten at Catholic altars. God has given to us His Word, and therein I find all that one needs to be born from above and live in a relationship with The Soter. It must be nearly impossible for a catholic to believe God does not need nor does He correspond with a magicsteeringthem oligarchy. Try to catch the image of a band of red-robed religious oligarchy, leading a vast parade of souls behind them, along a wide road, paved and polished, toward a broad gate, tall and wide, ever so slowly opening to receive this parade. What lies on the other side of the gate is not Heaven
LOL!
I have this marvellous brown fluid from Kentucky. It palliates anguish wonderfully!
Alas, as an ex bartender years ago, I learned that corn whiskies do not agree with my digestive tract. I made and still make (on rare occasions) a very good Martini, Vodka or Gin. But a good glass of Ruby Port is my preferred libation of alcohol. Only one glass at a time. A hearty Merlo is also appreciated.
A good port is a joy forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.