|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paul Serup Answers Theodoric: Credibility of Authors and Book | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
Well, you do realize that you have to look at the source.
For example... Chiniquy had a grudge against the RCC, because they excommunicated him because of his sexual indiscretions. Now, that does raise a red flag about Chiniguy as a source. ... because there is a reason for prejudice. So, you have to see if there is an independent source to confirm anything he said. There is not. I am sure Paul uses sources.. but, there is a difference between a source and a reliable source. Conspiracy theories have existed a long time.. and so did lies. The whole 'blood libel' claim against the Jews lasted for centuries, and there are people out there that still take the 'protocols of zion' seriously, even though it is bigoted fiction from front to back. Paul Serup does interviews with groups that are very Anti-Roman Catholic. He seems to have an agenda. That alone would make me examine his sources for that kind of bias from the very beginning.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Chiniquy's few chapters on the Lincoln assassination in his lengthy autobiography are quite credible to an honest reader who doesn't have a bias against the idea that the Vatican/Jesuits do manipulate events. Wow!!That statement in itself is astounding. A bias against some the belief that there is some sort of Vatican/Jesuit cabal manipulating world events. As opposed to the bias that they are? You have no clue how crazy that statement makes you sound do you. You guys are hilarious, and you have no idea how insular you are here with your smug self-righteous opinions.
Ok either you are the crazy one or the rest of the world is. Which do you think is more likely?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
It's the bias that calls it unfounded conspiracy theory to suggest the Vatican and/or Jesuits manipulate events But like all your other nutball ideas and theories, you can provide no evidence to support this.Serup has provided no evidence, so you can't use anything he says. Tell you what you and Paul get together, find some evidence and then present it. Assertions and wild ass ideas are not evidence.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hi Faith,
I guess those who have no facts are left with empty bluster. When you can explain how Catholics can be responsible for an assassination planned and carried out almost exclusively by protestants, and how a conspiracy can be Catholic when there's no evidence of any link to the Catholic church or the Jesuits, then you can deny being suckered without everyone rolling their eyes. If there ever comes a time when you find yourself on the same side of an argument as the evidence, then you can accuse others of bias without drawing guffaws.
You guys are hilarious, and you have no idea how insular you are here with your smug self-righteous opinions. It's like you don't even know what insular means. Insular does not describe people who let evidence guide their opinions. Insular describes people who form themselves into closed communities that exclude ideas they don't like.
I also wonder what "guys like him" means. It means someone who misleads his honest, hardworking, well-intentioned publicist into doing his battles for him by leading her to believe her work was being criticized. It means someone who makes accusations he can't back up. In other words, it means a sleazebag. I'm sorry to hear you ordered the book. Have a rational moment, Faith. Consider how likely it is that the book contains evidence that its author was apparently unaware of. Is it too late to cancel your order? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm sorry to hear you ordered the book. Have a rational moment, Faith. Consider how likely it is that the book contains evidence that its author was apparently unaware of. Is it too late to cancel your order? Faith's copy of the book will soon be in the best possible place; in the hands of one of the already convinced. Yes, the contents will reinforce her already firm beliefs, but no harm there. It's not like her opinion of the Catholic church isn't at whale excrement levels already.
Consider how likely it is that the book contains evidence that its author was apparently unaware of Evidence? Is that what you expect is important for this purchase.Seriously? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, you do realize that you have to look at the source. For example... Chiniquy had a grudge against the RCC, because they excommunicated him because of his sexual indiscretions. THAT is a bald-faced lie. Which Jesuit source did you pick that up from? Such things were alleged against him in a court case, which is what Lincoln defended him against, and they won. You know, as in Chiniquy was EXONERATED. Really, his accusers threw in the towel when a certain witness for Chiniquy presented herself to Lincoln. And there is absolutely nothing in Chiniquy's book to suggest he was ever guilty of any wrongdoing, in fact what his superiors had against him was that he was always calling them on THEIR misdeeds. That's why they set him up.
Now, that does raise a red flag about Chiniguy as a source. ... because there is a reason for prejudice. So, you have to see if there is an independent source to confirm anything he said. Which is what Serup's book purports to do, as he researched NEWSPAPER REPORTS and other HISTORICAL sources for pete's sake.
I am sure Paul uses sources.. but, there is a difference between a source and a reliable source. Newspaper reports can be biased, of course, but if you have enough of them from enough different sources you stand a decent chance of getting at the truth.
Conspiracy theories have existed a long time.. and so did lies. The whole 'blood libel' claim against the Jews lasted for centuries, and there are people out there that still take the 'protocols of zion' seriously, even though it is bigoted fiction from front to back. Yeah, well the blood libel stuff was invented by the RCC, and the pogroms were a Catholic thing too, imagine that.
Paul Serup does interviews with groups that are very Anti-Roman Catholic. He seems to have an agenda. What doesn't seem to occur to you is that one can COME to have an "agenda" through learning the truth about something. If your research leads you to conclude that there is an evil conspiracy going on, then of course you develop an "agenda" against it.
That alone would make me examine his sources for that kind of bias from the very beginning. Fine, examine his sources, I intend to. But you are doing no such thing, you have patched together an indictment of the man based on just about nothing, as have the others here. Plus whatever source you got that big fat lie about Chiniquy from. Try reading something, try reading Chiniquy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: THAT is a bald-faced lie. Which Jesuit source did you pick that up from? Well, Faith, you're right up there with the Red Queen in being able to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Consider how much sense it makes that we who you consider atheists and apostates all are dupes of the Jesuit religious order. In reality we neither praise nor condemn nor even care in any particular way about the Jesuits, and unless the Jesuits control the Internet we're not using Jesuit sources. We're just looking to the facts, something in short supply where either Chiniquy or Serup are involved. The details appear to be lost to history, but this much we do know. Chiniquy was moved around quite a bit as a priest amidst rumors of sexual impropriety and was eventually excommunicated. Chiniquy's account of his court case where Lincoln served as his lawyer contains a good amount of fiction. Chiniquy had been charged with slander, not sexual impropriety, and there was no last minute witness. Chiniquy had been claiming from the pulpit that Spink had perjured himself, so Spink sued for slander and $10,000 damages. The slander case resulted in two mistrials. Lincoln then negotiated a compromise and the parties settled out of court. There were no religious or sexual issues involved. There are various accurate accounts of this court case on the Internet, here's one, search for Chiniquy: The Lawyer as Peacemaker: Law and Community in Abraham Lincoln's Slander Cases. Serup just blindly accepts Chiniquy's claims that are often at odds with known and well-established fact, as with this Lincoln court case where the Urbana court records and the piece of paper written in Lincoln's own hand and signed by Chiniquy and Spink still exist (this image was copied from Lincoln Legal Briefs: A Quarterly Newsletter of the Lincoln Legal Papers):
Now if Paul were a true scholar, as he keeps telling he is, then his research would have told him that Chiniquy's account of this court case was inaccurate. But Paul didn't do that. Because he's not a scholar.
And there is absolutely nothing in Chiniquy's book to suggest he was ever guilty of any wrongdoing, in fact what his superiors had against him was that he was always calling them on THEIR misdeeds. In other words, Chiniquy says Chiniquy was innocent and that Chiniquy was the victim rather than the perpetrator. Which is pretty much what you'd expect him to say. Except that it was 25 years after the fact when he began weaving his tale of deception. Historians of the period generally consider Chiniquy an unreliable source because of the way his self-serving claims conflate with known fact.
Which is what Serup's book purports to do, as he researched NEWSPAPER REPORTS and other HISTORICAL sources for pete's sake. Except that he obviously did no such thing. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Paul Serup is NOT a historian, is NOT writing history, has NO credibility and is nothing but another hate monger.
Look at what I posted way back in Message 28. Had Paul Serup said only "so and so said" then he might be able to claim he was at least reporting but he does not; he goes beyond that and editorializes and then suppresses evidence that puts his position in doubt. No where has any evidence that Paul Serup actually researched anything except the Biblical Christian Cult of Ignorance standby practice of taking quotes out of context. He will likely be very successful though marketing to the CCoI and as long as he reports his take to Uncle Sam should be totally legal. There's gold in them thar Biblical Christian pockets.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Where are you getting this stuff about sexual impropriety and why do you believe it? There is absolutely nothing in the man's character to suggest any such thing, but he did discover such misconduct in his superiors and that did bring down their wrath on him. He had the support of his large congregation who willingly left the RCC when he did. How would that have happened if the allegations against him were true?
There was more than one legal battle and Lincoln wasn't part of all of them and I may have mixed up some of the particulars, but there WAS a witness who showed up in one that Lincoln was defending, came to Lincoln's hotel door, was not used as a witness but her presence apparently was enough for the accusers to quit the case. AND he was charged with immorality but at another time and place and perhaps Lincoln wasn't involved in that. The particulars aren't all that crucial although I'll try to get it all straight eventually. The point is that his superiors were out to get him on whatever they could trump up, and Lincoln defended him in at least two trials, one of them hung because a single Catholic juror refused to acquit, the other one ending in Chiniquy's favor because of this witness who came forward. I know you don't care, you're into a few documents you found on some small aspect of his legal troubles that lead you to whatever they lead you to which you think shows your interest in the facts and truth. Ha. I can't read that handwritten sheet, sorry. But I don't want to answer you more now anyway. I'm going to read Serup's book and gather what further evidence I can and then maybe I'll come back and answer you. God willing. Maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just blog on it, using my energy where it's better spent. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
There wouldn't be, would there? If you want the truth about wroingdoing, you don't ask the accused, do you?
And there is absolutely nothing in Chiniquy's book to suggest he was ever guilty of any wrongdoing....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And there is absolutely nothing in Chiniquy's book to suggest he was ever guilty of any wrongdoing....
There wouldn't be, would there? If you want the truth about wroingdoing, you don't ask the accused, do you? Funny you guys simply will not recognize your odd bias on this subject. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" For some reason you have no problem declaring Chiniquy guilty simply because he was accused of things, as if there is no such thing as false accusations, false accusers and so on. Indeed there are times when you will ONLY get the truth from the accused. Chiniquy wrote a lengthy autobiography covering his entire life and in the later part of his life he has all these problems with church superiors that he also writes about. There is absolutely NO rational reason for you to conclude that he's wrong on the basis of his accusers' testimony. Many here arbitrarily CHOOSE to side with them, there is no rational basis for doing so. On the other hand I find HIS testimony credible, and I'm hoping Serup's book will provide external evidence from the time to verify a great deal of it, as some who have read it claim it does. But what I meant by nothing in the book to suggest his guilt is that his character alone, but also the many details he recounts, are very credible testimony to his truthfulness -- to an HONEST reader who does not have some kind of bias. And by the way I never said you had a pro-Catholic bias, you didn't go from an anti to a pro Catholic bias and I did not say that. I said there is a bias here against the idea that the RCC is quilty of conspiracies of the sort that tried to frame Chiniquy and put together a plot to assassinate Lincoln. There is a BIAS against this idea, not evidence against it, just bias. And like all the others here you seem to be more ready to believe the accusers of Chiniquy than Chiniquy himself, for no good reason.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Chiniquy WAS charged with sexual impropriety in a DIFFERENT court case. The abstract to his Chapter LIII has... "I am tried in Urbana for immorality..." The book is online in various places for anyone who cares what he had to say about that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Chiniquy recounts in his book, in chapter LII how three drunken priests nailed a "sham act of excommunication" to the door of the chapel, that was not signed by the bishop and therefore not valid.
Is this the supposed excommunication you were referring to?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
I'm not declaring him guilty. I'm taking issue with you declaring him innocent on his own say-so.
For some reason you have no problem declaring Chiniquy guilty simply because he was accused of things.... Faith writes:
How would you know it was the truth?
Indeed there are times when you will ONLY get the truth from the accused. Faith writes:
But that's exactly how our justice systems work. If we went by the testimony of the accused, we'd save a lot of money on prisons.
There is absolutely NO rational reason for you to conclude that he's wrong on the basis of his accusers' testimony. Faith writes:
That's where you're wrong. The only bias here is aganst accepting accusations without evidence. We have seen no evidence to back up the accusations against the Catholic church.
There is a BIAS against this idea, not evidence against it, just bias.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Evidence often comes down to the character of the witness and the consistency of the testimony. This is the basis on which I judge Chiniquy to be innocent. He's a credible witness. And I at least have read the book. Many here on the other hand are judging him guilty without ANY evidence whatever, or they choose to side with his accusers without bothering with anything Chiniquy himself has to say. That is NOT how our justice system works. That's unjust.
Now if you in particular have not jumped to this conclusion, great. I'd suggest reading Chiniquy's book then instead of giving any opinion at all on the subject. And beyond that I am looking forward to the external evidence Serup's book promises to supply. And yes there IS a bias here, you all flatter yourselves that you are only concerned with facts and evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024