Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
But we are also precise, and there is more humor in a well thought out gag than an insult.
I don't pray through my Calvin bobble-head, I just take him around Europe with me. Kind of a Where's Waldo type thing. Here he is crossing the Tiber coming out of the Vatican and headed back towards Geneva.
Those are a riot - where else has Calvin travelled to?
You wrote: "May I recommend a book for you to read?"
Please do.
"The Martyr's Mirror."
Been there, done that. I can't claim to have read the whole thing, but I read enough of the chapters online to know it is so biased that it mentions nothing about the destruction wrought by anabaptists at Munster, their polygamy there, etc. The anabaptists were kooks -- or at least were viewed that way by all of society (both by Catholics and Lutherans), they broke the law, they paid the price. The stories are also rather embellished to say the least. These people abandoned and attacked true Christianity. That was viewed as a crime by the state. They were sometimes put to death by the state.
You should know: "Of course, the masterly work of van Braght is neither complete nor without error. He did not do scholarly work in the method of modern historiography, and too often he uncritically inserted accounts without checking them. There are mistakes, both in the names of the martyrs and in the dates of their execution. Some martyrs are named twice. The question has arisen whether van Braght may have falsified history. This accusation was made by Christian Schotanus in Van de Gronden der Mennisterij (Leeuwarden, 1671), while Hermann Haupt called the Martyrs' mirror a prejudiced book, composed mostly from impure sources (DB 1899, 72; ML III, 53). W. Wilde, a Dutch Roman Catholic, attacked van Braght in two papers published in Studiën (1877, 1-88; 1894, 270-332) and in Zonderlinge Critiek (Amsterdam, 1900). (See DB 1899, 70-72; 1900, 192-210.) Also Karel Vos (DB 1917, 161, 170-74) and recently A. F. Mellink (Wederdopers, 419 and passim) accused van Braght of partiality. But Samuel Cramer proved (DB 1899, 65-164; 1900, 184-210) that van Braght, though sometimes too unsuspecting and naive, and a few times careless, may in general be called reliable. Those who criticized van Braght and accused him of omitting a large number of Anabaptists who were executed, forget that van Braght only wanted to list such martyrs as gave testimony to a Biblical faith and held the strict nonresistant principles. For this reason he excluded all those Anabaptists put to death because of their religious convictions who had contacts with or were influenced by the Münsterite or other revolutionary principles, though occasionally a few Münsterites were inserted in the Martyrs' mirror, of whose real opinions van Braght was not aware. The fact that van Braght, a champion of Trinitarianism and averse to all kind of Unitarianism, did not do justice to a martyr like Herman van Vlekwijk is a shortcoming in his work, which is, however, excusable not only on the basis of his personal convictions, but also by the fact that the martyr book of 1626 had likewise omitted a few sentences from the accounts of some anti-Trinitarian martyrs. The same explicable imperfection may be noted concerning the doctrine of the Incarnation. In summary it may be said that van Braght's Martyrs' mirror is a reliable, trustworthy book, as has been stated not only by Cramer, but also by other outstanding historians like Ludwig Keller, Chr. Sepp, J. G. de Hoop Scheffer, F. van der Haeghen, Adolf Fluri, L. Knappert, and W. J. Kühler."
http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/m37858me.html
I have never thought that The Martyr's Mirror was spot on. Most history books of that era do have some mistakes. He did pick and choose his martyrs, based on his own beliefs.
But that doesn't discount the whole book.
As for omitting the polygamists, I wouldn't call them martyrs.
(sigh) You wrote: "As for Anabaptists being kooks, I must disagree. Those people were my ancestors."
If I had ancestors who I knew to be kooks I would call them kooks. You seem to suggest that you can't consider these people, or some of these people, kooks simply because they are your ancestors. Is that really a logical approach? If you had a grandfather who was a raving a political or religious wacko would you deny it simply because he was your grandfather?
"They might have been viewed so back then, and they died for their faith."
I see it as they died for denying and attacking THE faith as well as the bonds that held together society.
"Having to die is a pretty high price to pay for breaking the law, laws that were made by the Catholic Church."
Nope. The Catholic Church has no death penalty. Never did. The Catholic Church has no power or authority to draw or spill blood. Any anabaptist who was ever executed in a Catholic country was executed by a secular court for committing a secular crime (the problem was that heresy was a secular crime and not merely a religious one).
And why aren't you attacking Protestants for their executions of anabaptists? Uldrych Zwingli ring a bell?
"The movement continued and grew, however, with the result that a new trial was held in March of 1526, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment for the three leaders and fourteen others, including six women. On March 7, the council issued a decree against rebaptizing; the penalty for disobedience was to be death by drowning. Two weeks later the prisoners escaped. The three leaders went their separate ways, still preaching their faith. Zwingli's policy toward the Anabaptists continued to harden; in November the council decreed the death penalty for anyone listening to Anabaptist preaching.
"In December Manz and Blaurock were caught and tried. Blaurock, who was not a citizen of Zurich, was whipped and banished. Manz was executed by drowning on January 5, 1527, thereby becoming the first Anabaptist martyr. Grebel had already died, apparently of the plague, around August 1526."
So Protestants hated and hunted the early anabaptists. It was Protestants, in fact, who killed the first anabaptist "martyr".
So when will you post about that? Or will you continue to only attack Catholics?
It's just my hunch but I doubt if Gamecock prays to the Calvin statue. Now if it had been a grilled cheese sandwich there might have been big bucks in his future.
***Those are a riot - where else has Calvin travelled to?***
In about 25 years he can go to Mecca.
St Bartholomew's day will then be completely forgotten then as all Europe will face u-no-where under pain of having their head cut off.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a legendary collection of myths disguised as history. No serious historian would consider referencing Foxe in any way other than as a demonstration of Protestant propaganda of the 16th century.
Even Protestant publishers have seen fit to "correct and revise" his work 10 times (twice during his lifetime).
Well, he did bring a copy of The Institutes hoping the current resident would plant a big sloppy kiss on it. When that didn't happen, he wandered down the street and checked out the latest in priestly garb.
Ping to 192.
**(And shame on me for falling for trying to meet a devil half-way!)**
Hard to resist the temptation to swing at a high slow ball dropping right over the plate even though the next one would have had enough heat on it for you to put it over the fence.
One good thing though. A worthy priest Fr. John Hardon, now deceased, once warned never to debate with a devil, because you will lose. The ease with attacks against the Eternal Church of Christ by the Jack Chicks of the world are disposed of should at least convince us that it is not Satan that drives them, it is merely human pride and vanity.
Further somber reflection should make us all realize that Satan launches his attacks where the true battle ground is. That the TRUE Church is under such assult by true evil (as opposed to mere sneering/snickering calumny) today is an obvious sign of the reality that it is the Real Church. If Satan is leaving your Church alone it's a fair indication that you are doing nothing that concerns him, or that he realizes that before too long, your church will have "rightly divided" itself into oblivion.
Did you marry a Catholic?
Or perhaps Satan has finished his work there and moved less fertile ground
I especially liked the last shot -- John Calvin's shadow haunts the baubbles and trinkets of misdirection even to this day.
Sola fide. Sola Gracia. Soli Deo Gloria. Solus Christus. Sola Scriptura.
Calvin: "Well, somebody's out to get me!"Hobbes: "Do you think there's a God?
LOL! They are really well done!
I'm such a spaghetti bender that at first glance I thought Calvin was holding a caramel macchiato in his hand just in front of the Coliseum (sp?). Funny, I didn't expect the indefatigable Calvin to be so blue eyed or look so well rested!
Perhaps, Gamecock, you could do your next production showing a chance meeting between Calvin and Sadoleto (sp?) or Pighius at a local cafe bar?
"Perdona me, quella sedia (sp?) e la tua?" (Pardon me, but is that your chair?)
Calvin did have the power to have someone executed. Isn't that what happened to Servetus?
1) Calvin long said he wanted to kill Servetus for his beliefs. Servetus denied the Trinity.
2) When Servetus was dumb enough to come to Geneva Calvin concocted a way for Servetus to be accused by someone other than himself. Why? Because the civil law demanded that, in heresy cases, accused and accuser both be held in custody until the matter was resolved. Calvin thought this was too inconvenient for himself so he convinced one of his lackeys to do it for him. That man was named Nicolas de la Fontaine.
3) All scholars agree that Calvin ruled Geneva. There may have been a city council, but he ruled that too from behind the scenes. Even Protestant scholars admit this readily enough. This is clearly seen in how Calvin dealt with one of his political opponents from the Libertine party (so-called) -- he had him beheaded in 1547. The Libertines responded by insulting Calvin at every opportunity. They named their dogs "Calvin" for instance.
4) The formal complaints against Servetus, 38 articles worth, were drawn up by guess who? Calvin.
5) Among the charges were that Servetus had been a heretic for 24 years and in various countries. Calvin in other words had decided he, and his puppet council/court, held the authority to try Servetus for things done outside of their supposed jurisdiction. Calvin was determined to kill Servetus.
6) The charges included Servetus' defaming of Calvin.
7) When the trial began, Servetus took a swipe at Calvin again saying he would prove his beliefs with scripture. Soon afterward the prosecution side had another helper – a friend of Calvin’s.
8) While the trial proceeded Calvin continued a constant series of sermons from the pulpit denouncing Servetus.
9) Servetus came before the court with a motion that the charges be dropped. His said that it was not the custom of the Apostles nor of the first Christian emperors to treat heretics as guilty of capital crime, but only to excommunicate or at the most banish them. He also pointed out that he had committed no crime in their territory. He also pointed out that he was a stranger and ignorant of the customs of the land and of Geneva’s legal procedure, so he asked for legal counsel to conduct his case for him.
10) The city of Vienne which had once captured Servetus and had a case against him asked that he be sent back because he had actually committed crimes there unlike in Geneva. REMEMBER, SERVETUS COMMITTED NO CRIME IN GENEVA. Geneva refused to send Servetus back and determined to prosecute him there.
11) The judges, under the influence of Calvin, decided not to allow the Trinitarian arguments to take place in open court, but instead ordered that Servetus conduct a written debate with…wait for it….Calvin.
12) The written results were to be sent to all of the Swiss reformed churches for their opinions. This could not have pleased Calvin because two years prior to that that same process had freed Bolsec whom Calvin demanded be put to death for disagreeing with his teachings on predestination!
13) Repeated calls by Servetus for legal counsel were ignored.
14) At length Servetus was condemned to be burned. Geneva had the old imperial (CIVIL) law still on the books even though Calvin himself had revised Geneva’s law code. Calvin tried to get beheading substituted for burning, but the matter had passed beyond his control.
15) Servetus was burned to death with his books on Oct. 27, 1553.
16) Many people were horrified by this event. Calvin wrote that “the dogs are now barking at me on all sides.” Calvin was said to be hated more in Protestant Basel than in Catholic Paris.
Why?
Because everyone knew that Calvin killed Servetus, and killed him for personal reasons and not just for heresy.
17) Two months after Servetus’ burning Calvin was almost driven from Geneva by the complaints.
18) The following year he published a book to defend his actions. Why did he feel the need?
Calvin most certainly did kill Servetus.
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.