Hello everyone

Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead. It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same. Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.And so on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually they were not revolutionary at all, the military was for defense, same as the American military was originally conceived to be. When you have enemies it's a great blessing to have the capacity for self defense.And as I've already said, power and wealth are neither bad nor good in themselves, depends on how you get them and how you use them and they are a great blessing in the need of self defense.The French Religious Wars from what little I've read about them, were the usual Catholic persecutions of the Protestants, against which the Protestants defended themselves when they had the means. The Huguenots needed an army for that purpose and they used it for that purpose. Most of the Protestants persecuted down the centuries didn't have any form of self protection whatever, and in the end it didn't do the Huguenots all that much good either as they were slaughtered easily enough in the Bartholomew's Day Massacre which began with the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I notice you did not present the link to the post where you first explained who Admiral Gaspard de Coligny was.I don't doubt that the sources you've read only show the Christian Cult of Ignorance propaganda about how peaceful the Protestants were. Try reading some sources that don't lie and that are in at least some touch with reality.

It was a Wikipedia article I linked to, jar, not exactly a bastion of Protestantism. And I just now happened to go back to find the post I had in mind and here it isI do apologize since I thought I said more there than I actually said, but I suppose I expected you to read the Wikipedia article where it was quite clear that the Huguenots were the persecuted ones and that Admiral de Coligny was murdered at the beginning of the B Day Massacre.And again, having a military or being a military man is no evidence of not being peaceful, although that seems to be the sum total of your evidence against Coligny and the Huguenots as NONpeaceable. I doubt you will find anything in the Wikipedia article or any other of their articles on related matters that suggests that the Huguenots were anything but peaceable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Having a military and being a political organization is evidence that the Huguenots where not simply a religious body. The French Wars of Religion were political in nature between the French kings and the Bourbons and about who would hold power, wealth and territory.You need to stop with your simplistic "the Protestants were just good folk persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church" dogma. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church played almost NO part in the French Wars of Religion.Edited by jar, : add " "

The French Wars of Religion were, as the title itself suggests, between Catholics and Protestants, as even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article says: Read further and you will see it said that the wars began with the Massacre of Vassy which was a persecution of the Huguenots by the Catholics, which you can find out by following the link to that Massacre, and that at least one phase of the wars was ended by the Edict of Nantes which granted rights to the Huguenots, that is, the Protestants, since they were the ones being persecuted: It appears that you'd much prefer that the Huguenots or any Protestants not have had any societal standing or military ability to defend themselves and just be perpetually persecuted as they had been before the Protestant Reformation.

Again I would like to say to scienceishonesty that I'm sorry for hogging this thread but as you can see, if I attempt to leave it I am accused of trying to evade the arguments which is far from my motive.Perhaps it will eventually reach a point where I can quietly bow out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd prefer a little honesty from you.As I have asked before, I understand you don't actually read the Bible but do you also NOT read all of your supposed support?From your very own quote:

quote:

---

The French Wars of Religion (1562—98) is the name of a period of civil infighting and military operations, primarily fought between French Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots). The conflict involved the factional disputes between the aristocratic houses of France, such as the House of Bourbon and House of Guise (Lorraine), and both sides received assistance from foreign sources.

---

Learn to read what is actually written.No one denied that religion played a part but the main point was factional and political between the houses of Bourbon and Lorraine.Remember I am a Protestant and stop posting really stupid shit like "It appears that you'd much prefer that the Huguenots or any Protestants not have had any societal standing or military ability to defend themselves and just be perpetually persecuted as they had been before the Protestant Reformation."What I prefer is honesty.

Clearly the aristocratic houses are given to represent the Protestant and Catholic sides of the wars. As the text says the wars were "primarily fought between French Catholics and Protestants" and when it goes on to name the artistocratic houses of France it is clearly with the point of identifying them as Protestant versus Catholic houses.As I said, you would prefer that the Protestants had NO societal standing, which is represented by their HOUSE OF BOURBON in the above context. Their having social standing does not change the fact that the Religious Wars WERE religious wars and that the Huguenots were over and over persecuted by the Catholics which was the cause of all of it. Having social standing and a military as well obviously did not protect the Protestants from the Catholics anyway, and even the Edicts given to grant them religious freedoms didn't completely protect them. You are Protestant in name only, jar, and I don't know what you hope to gain by perpetuating that confusing fiction. In discussions like these you are always on the side of the Catholics against the Protestants, ignoring and twisting facts right and left.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

More falsehoods and misrepresentation from you Faith, but that seems to be the normI have not taken the sides of the Roman Catholics against the Protestants nor twisting facts.Nor am I Protestant in name only.What I have said is that your simplistic "Protestant Good, RCC Bad" is simply false and misleading.What I have pointed out is that the French Wars of Religion were more complex and that the Huguenots were a political and military revolutionary force and that the Roman Catholic Church played almost no part.

Denial must be your middle name. You're denying things you've actually said and done on this very thread. Funny how the facts keep bearing it out in that case, even facts as presented by Wikipedia. But I've never said Protestants are always guiltless. Let's make it 95-5 then, because in the historical contexts we've been discussing they've been the persecuted and not the offenders at least that percentage of the time. The direct influence of the RCC is often not apparent in historical events, but the fact that Catholics were always -- oh excuse me, make that 95% -- the perpetrators of conflicts with the Protestants certainly shows the influence of Catholic doctrine behind their actions, attitudes they got from their priests and from papal directives and so on.Again, there was nothing "revolutionary" about the Huguenot military, that's just your typical anti-Protestant spin, just like your insistence that the role of the aristocratic HOUSES somehow implies that the wars were not primarily religious or primarily Catholic against Protestant.Doesn't matter what you post in such discussions, jar, you always spin things against the Protestant side of the argument. I even noticed that on the Mandela thread you pretty much say that whatever evils Mandela may have committed (and I have no opinion myself) Andrew Jackson was worse. Typical of you, jar, to imply that an American general was worse than a terrorist (and I'm not saying that's what Mandela was, I don't know, but that is the context in which you said what you said).Same when you characterize "Protestants" as committing "genocide" and saying they were worse than the RCC, which is a blatant lie; either that or you simply don't know history. And you are bending over backwards in this thread to pretend that the French Religious Wars weren't about Catholic persecution of Protestants although even the Wikipedia articles make it plain how wrong you are.Yet you want to be called a Protestant.

No, I said Andrew Jackson was a terrorist, a traitor, a murderer and anti-Democracy.Please start a topic on it and I'll be glad to try to educate you. Again Faith, that is simply not true and in particular not in the case of the French Wars of Religion. You yourself has said that being Catholic is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. It was a civil war between two power bases in France.

If you can, you're keeping awfully quiet about it.

Wrong.

Catholics are just people, and American Catholics are generally completely ignorant of the evils committed by the Vatican and the papacy and the Jesuits over the centuries, as are most people, and me too until quite recently, and most European and other Catholics are too, but where there have been Catholic uprisings against the Protestants, that is due to official Catholic teaching against the heretics which the people had learned and took to be God's truth, and often there is direct influence by priests. There are cases like this all over the twentieth century, the massacre of the Jews in Jedwabne was a Catholic thing. The massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus was a Catholic thing, whipped up by Catholic propaganda against the Tutsis, calling them "cockroaches." The Catholic Croat persecutions of the Serbs are another incident. Today in South America there are uprisings all the time by the Catholics against the Protestants. They are just following the teachings of the priesthood, the papacy and the Inquisition.The French Wars were fomented by Catholics persecuting Protestants, like all those other incidents, as opposed to your insistence it was just a political thing. It was religious, and being religious you have the choice of saying that Catholics are naturally evil, or doesn't it seem more likely that they got their incentive from Catholic doctrine through priests down from the Vatican?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.