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?
“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?