Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

No, I'm not for burning heretics.

I don't justify his divine right of kings, he obviously overdid it to an extreme, all I said was that it's understandable in the light of papal intentions against Protestant kings, and assumption of power over all kings for that matter.

quote:

---

I don't recall posting anything "vicious" but hey, you here all know my mind so much better than I possibly could.

---

If your think that your posts are entirely in your mind then you have far bigger problems than us.Didn't you complain that you couldn't find any modern anti-Catholic sources that were extreme enough for you ? Preferring stuff from the 1920s and earlier, as I recall ?Anyway, do you have any reliable sources for these 19th Century allegations ?The institution formerly called the Inquisition still exists (it's not a big secret, I've known it for years), but it doesn't do much persecution of anyone outside the RC Church.Quoting Ian Paisley - a man linked to terrorism - hardly helps your case, either.Finally, the Tap blog seems less than reliable itself Sitchen, Maxwell, Icke...

quote:

---

No, I'm not for burning heretics.

---

Then maybe you should reevaluate Stephen Coston (who is fine with burning heretics), and the idea of King James' "blameless life", based on Coston's claims.

The vilification of King James has been extreme and slanderous and the point is to bring him back into human focus. Overall he WAS a very good man and a good king, though flawed and a creature of his time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am in awe of how ready you are to put the nastiest possible interpretation on anything I write.The point was that the sources from about that time on have been tampered with and whitewashed, but you can still find the truth in older books. The point is TRUTH.(Naaa, it's really viciousness, you should know.)As the author of that page I posted a few posts back complained, he couldn't even find pictures at Google Image of the torture cells Garibaldi found when he opened the dungeons of Rome in 1848, though they are published in old books.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You were the one who said that James lived a blameless life. And your source is biased enough to regard burning heretics as justified- because James did it. Not someone I'd trust.

quote:

---

I am in awe of how ready you are to put the nastiest possible interpretation on anything I write.

---

Yes, Faith I know you get upset when people tell the truth about you.

quote:

---

The point was that the sources from about that time on have been tampered with and whitewashed, but you can still find the truth in older books. The point is TRUTH.

---

And how exactly do you know that the more extreme accusations of older sources are "TRUE" ? I mean come on. You fell for Chiniquy's claim that the Lincoln assassination was all about him. You are prepared to say that Foxe is always right, even if he claims that gnostic Cathars are good Protestant Christians.No, it isn't about truth. If it was you wouldn't fall for such things.

The point is that he tortured and killed heretics, and you are justifying it with moral relativism.And you haven't made any attempt to bring Charles Emmanuel II or Pope Gregory Sixtus V into human focus. You've basically only slammed on the likes of them.

I'd say he did live a blameless life. That describes his commitment to all good things in the light of the Bible and his living them in his daily life, including apologizing when he wronged someone, truly loving his wife and things like that, not typical of kings. I do still have to read through more of the links on him, but my assessment at the moment is that certainly he shouldn't have approved of the torture of anyone, but I write that off as the times he lived in, it wasn't some personal quirk of his own, try as hard as you will to make it so.And the more you all carry on about that the more I see the typical style I find at EvC anyway, that comes against me all the time, accuse accuse accuse, twist, distort, vilify, upbraid, revile, never give the slightest benefit of the doubt, make whoever you choose to vilify out to be the worst creature that ever lived. It's like you train your beady eyes closely on every word in the attempt to find something you can condemn in me or anything or anybody I support. It's so extreme I can't take anything you say seriously at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'd say he did live a blameless life.

---

So, having heretics burned to death is just a little thing, hardly worth counting ? On top of the other documented things he did.

quote:

---

...but my assessment at the moment is that certainly he shouldn't have approved of the torture of anyone, but I write that off as the times he lived in, it wasn't some personal quirk of his own, try as hard as you will to make it so.

---

I never said it was a "personal quirk". I don't think that anyone else has either. But he did it, and even if it was a common attitude I consider it blameworthy. More so than, say, Charles Darwin's racism, such as it was (let us also not forget that Darwin was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery).

quote:

---

And the more you all carry on about that the more I see the typical style I find at EvC anyway, that comes against me all the time, accuse accuse accuse, twist, distort, vilify, upbraid, revile, never give the slightest benefit of the doubt, make whoever you choose to vilify out to be the worst creature that ever lived.

---

You come in for a lot of criticism - most of it deserved. I know that you don't like it, but you could at least try to be a better person instead of going off on self-righteous rants.

Why are you focussed on Catholic torture? Is it because Pinto has something to say about that so you don't have to think too hard? Torture in the 19th Century was not unheard of, several torture instruments were invented around this time such as the Iron Maiden. Even Protestant Americans were torturing people. Which is called moral relativism. He was good because you heard a report where he apologized and that he felt love for another person, and we can ignore the torture because it was 'of his time'.

quote:

---

Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth. Indeed, variability in what is seen as moral is seen throughout history: with the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi Party, the enslavement of the African people by both European and American powers, the persecution (including torture and murder) of Christians...

---

I have checked out the basis of Simonides' claims. (My source is "The Sinaitic Codex", British Quarterly Review, 1863.) The attribution of the Matthew papyrus to the 1st century was not in fact made on paleographical grounds. Rather, the papyrus itself stated that it was made "in the fifteenth year of our Lord's ascension" and, wait for it, that it was dictated by Matthew to the deacon Nicholas.In short, either it's the most arrant fraud or it's the Gospel of Matthew.Anyone who puts trust in Simonides should think that this is the most important MS in the world. Instead of worrying about minutiae, why aren't you getting all excited about that?

Fac-similes of certain portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of Ss. James & Jude: written on papyrus in the first century, and preserved in the Egyptian museum of Joseph Mayer ... Liverpool. With a portrait of St. Matthew, from a fresco painting at Mount Athos. Edited and illustrated with notes and historical and literary prolegomena, containing confirmatory fac-similes of the same portions of Holy Scripture from papyri and parchment mss. in the monasteries of Mount Athos, of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, of St. Sabba in Palestine, and other sources, Kōnstantinos Simōnidēs, Joseph Mayer, 1862Is the Google Books source. The pictures are better in over at this blogAs you can see, it is very similar to Oxy_v0064_n4404_a_01_hires.jpg]-->P104 or The Magdalen Papyrus, and 077-Mat-23_30-34-POxy4405-II-III.jpg]-->P 77You can tell how an expert in paleography like Simonides might have really thought them genuine 1st century originals/near originals.

Yes, "overdid it to an extreme" sounds pretty blameless.