“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?
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)?