Where did I say I wanted to ban anything? I pointed out you took the opportunity to compare muslim jihad with the reformation and stick it to fellow Christians that aren’t Roman Church members. And I would not have done so but I have seen your screen name before and know the kinds of posts you post.
And give me a break about the Inquistion only being done on Roman church members. Or that only the protestants were violent. The Holy Roman Empire’s subjects included everyone who lived where it was whether they were Romanish or not. Didn’t stop them from persecuting the Anabaptists, or others that stated they were not Roman Church folks.
I think it was just in poor taste to make the comparison because it’s a narrow, one-sided taunt, ignoring the negatives the Roman Church contributed to the Reformation itself. Any excuse to get a dig in.
And don’t deny it. We see it all the time in the Roman pieces that get posted here and the back-handed slams at those who aren’t Roman Church folks. The articles that lay out the Roman Church position that can’t help but make little insults and barbs in snarky comments in said articles. No different than your comment here. But you couldn’t just pass up an opportunity to throw it out.
"And give me a break about the Inquistion only being done on Roman church members."
That's not what I said. I didn't even mention "Roman" church members. I said they had and claimed no authority over the unbaptized.
"Or that only the protestants were violent."
I never said that! That's a manifest absurdity
"It’s a narrow, one-sided taunt, ignoring the negatives the Roman Church contributed to the Reformation itself."
Once again, its not a taunt. It's a historical comparison. Anybody ought to be able to look at the list of bullet points and say whether they're true or false. I do wish somebody would critique it as factually correct or incorrect, historically true or false, without taking it as a personal affront, which I assure you it was not.
Moreover, I didn't say anything about what caused the Reformation. Everyone knows that negatives the Roman Church contributed to the Reformation itself. In my post I wasn't talking about the causes at all. (Where did I talk about causes?) I was talking about the historical characteristics of ardent iconoclastic, "back to the basics" religious movements.
"And don’t deny it...he articles that lay out the Roman Church position that can’t help but make little insults and barbs in snarky comments in said articles."
I do deny it. I don't think any Christian today embraces the position of either the Renaissance papacy or the 16th century Reformation. Catholics aren't selling indulgences, Calvinists aren't looting monasteries and smashing crosses and Madonnas.
I did not even attempt to lay out the "Roman Catholic Position." I didn't say one word about the merits or (many!) demerits of the Renaissance papacy. That was not the point of the post. The point of the post was that the Muslims are in the midst of their Reformation right now, motivated by their concept of religious purity and a return to their literal texts and norms.
That goes a ways to explaining why the Bush-era "nation-building" thing was bound to fail. They aren't looking for democracy, clean water, internet and soap. They're looking for a pure religious ideal: the Caliphate. It could be Catholic Florence (Savonarola). It could be Consistory of Geneva (Calvin). It's their conception of the Kingdom of God.
I would never willingly have offended you as a person, nor your faith community. I was making a comparison of powerful religious historic movements, 16th century and 21st century. For brusque words or having no sensitivity to tone, please forgive me.