Jump to content

Have the Feds lost their minds completely


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

 Guess you never heard of the Reformation when the UK, the Netherlands, part of Germany, and Scandinavia broke away from the yoke of Romanism and formed Protestant churches.  Have you never heard what it was all about?

And those protestant churches quickly set about torturing and murdering people just as much as the Catholics had.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And those protestant churches quickly set about torturing and murdering people just as much as the Catholics had.

I have my doubts about that.  There is far more to it than can be said in one sentence like you said.  The story covers centuries and centuries and requires a lot of detail.  I can tell you I have been reading some books, and watching videos on youtube, etc over the last 40 years and learning quite a bit although my memory is not very good.  

For one thing we need to understand how Rome ruled the western world for 1,500 years up to the present, but especially the 1,000 years up to the Reformation in the 1,500s.   They started the Holy Roman Inquisition somewhere around 1,200 A.D. and it lasted for at least 400 years and killed thousand upon thousands of heretics.  You can download the Kindle book off Amazon "The History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages" written by I believe a Catholic scholar, Henry C. Lea.   The Inquisition was a horror story.  

I am not saying what you claimed is untrue, but I don't know the details or extent of it.  I know the Reformation resulted in the Thirty Years war in Europe in the 1600s I believe.  I heard a million people mostly in Germany died in that war.  

The thing is the Romanist system denied freedom of religion and beliefs to everyone for a thousand years at least until the Reformation.  Everyone was forced to accept the teachings of Rome and gradually a lot of "heretics" according to Rome's definition evolved in Europe and they needed to be dealt with.  The answer was the Inquisition in the about the 12th century.  

The belief that led to the Reformation was that every person should have the right to believe in God according to the Bible, not by the Church lording it over everyone.  The Reformation followers believed the Romanist church was not a true church and that everyone can access God themselves without the Priest or Church acting as the mediator.   Actually, the Roman Church denied the common people the right to read the Bible until fairly recent times.  They forbade it to be translated in the common languages of the people.  When Bibles finally did start to come out around the time of the Reformation, they hunted them down and burned the Bibles they could find.  But they could not stamp them out completely.  The printing press was invented and Bible printing took off, which really helped change the world.

 So the Reformation broke the stranglehold that Rome had over the population for a thousand years.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The thing is the Romanist system denied freedom of religion and beliefs to everyone for a thousand years at least until the Reformation.  Everyone was forced to accept the teachings of Rome

Well, I'm no expert on the history of the world, but protestants didn't exactly show a lot of kindness and gentleness to 'heretics' themselves in the Netherlands, nor in colonies the dutch took over. And the English protestants weren't all that kindly to their own Catholics, never mind those in Ireland, where Catholic clergy were banned on pain of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The belief that led to the Reformation was that every person should has the right to believe in God according to the Bible, not by the Church lording it over everyone. 

So does that make you a catholic?

You are constantly insisting there's only one  way to possibly interpret the bible and that all others are wrong and many are bad people.  You insist there is no other valid faith than your own.

Sounds like you'd have fit right in during the inquisition days.

And this is what people here have been trying to tell you. Reflect on your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Well, I'm no expert on the history of the world, but protestants didn't exactly show a lot of kindness and gentleness to 'heretics' themselves in the Netherlands, nor in colonies the dutch took over. And the English protestants weren't all that kindly to their own Catholics, never mind those in Ireland, where Catholic clergy were banned on pain of death.

There is probably some truth in what you say.  Mankind has been brutal to each other.  That is a fact.  But the Romanist system was an autocratic, totalitarian system that people had to struggle to break free from.  In some countries like France and Ireland, Papists were in the overwhelming majority and the consequences of that for the Protestants were deadly.

"On August 22, 1572, the bloody St. Bartholomew's Day massacre began.  This was to be one fatal blow to destroy the Protestant movement in France.  In the first three days, over ten thousand Protestant Huegenots were killed.

A similar massacre occurred in Ireland in 1641.  The conspirators picked October 23, the feast of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order.  They planned a general uprising for the whole country.  All Protestants would be killed at once.  ..."   40,000 Protestants were massacred by the Papists.

-from the book Smokescreens by Chick Publications and verified in Foxes' Book of Martyrs.  You can get some booklets on these things from the website for Chick Publications.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Because in those times you worked or starved.

First I said where he worked.

Now if you decide that because you think you know how things were "in those times" is a more reasonable  then a trusted persons first hand account. Power too you. 

Sounds kinda silly to me though 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You insist there is no other valid faith than your own.

Well, I believe what the Bible says.  I plead guilty.

 

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds like you'd have fit right in during the inquisition days.

If I had been a Bible believer in the Inquisition days, I would have been tortured, burned at the stake, or thrown into prison.  That's what happened to Bible believers as they were condemned as heretics by the Papist system.   There were thousands upon thousands of victims over at least 400 years.

So what side would you have been on in those days?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They are written first hand accounts.

First hand accounts?

Quick question, are you a bible believing Christian or just haven't done any research on how we got the Bible?

Other than Paul (and not even all of his letters are considered authentic) there are zero eyewitness accounts in the new testament, and that is according to scholarly consensus both Christian and secular 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

First hand accounts?

Yes. Sorry - which word specifically was too big for you to understand.

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

Quick question, are you a bible believing Christian or just haven't done any research on how we got the Bible?

Neither. Oh look you're wrong again. Shocking.

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

Other than Paul (and not even all of his letters are considered authentic) there are zero eyewitness accounts in the new testament, and that is according to scholarly consensus both Christian and secular 

Sorry but that's not true. The authors themselves may not have seen it but they are specifically writing down the observations or experiences of the people who did.  Or so they claim.

It's not complicated.

So to put that in pespective, they're writing something down where teh other person involved says "here's what I saw".

Compare that to your first nations oral tradiiton, which is "here's what someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says they said they saw.

And that's the newer stuff.

Seriously. It's not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Well, I believe what the Bible says.  I plead guilty.

Well then you lose the right to complain about the catholics don't you :)

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

If I had been a Bible believer in the Inquisition days, I would have been tortured, burned at the stake, or thrown into prison. 

Nope - i'm sure you would have been right there insisting that your view was the only view and burning yourself a few heretics :) And of course the odd devil worshipper just to be safe.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes. Sorry - which word specifically was too big for you to understand.

Neither. Oh look you're wrong again. Shocking.

Sorry but that's not true. The authors themselves may not have seen it but they are specifically writing down the observations or experiences of the people who did.  Or so they claim.

It's not complicated.

So to put that in pespective, they're writing something down where teh other person involved says "here's what I saw".

Compare that to your first nations oral tradiiton, which is "here's what someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says that someone says they said they saw.

And that's the newer stuff.

Seriously. It's not even close.

Well if you want to share the view only supported by the most fundamental Christians go ahead, but since we don't even know the actual authors of the gospels, hard to say who they "spoke with" particularly when some were written dozens of years after Jesus was crucified, go ahead.

As one example the mikmaq used a symbolique language pre contact with Europeans

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They were written wrong? Honestly i don't know what you mean here. I thought most had no written component at all. If i was mistaken then my apologies.

Yes. It may be an incorrect accounting of history but it's a historical document for the most part.

Some of it but most of it not so much. They are written first hand accounts. (supposedly.)

This was already covered - please read before you reply.

Based on letters and first hand accounts.  Now - it could be false. It could be forged and made up. But it is a written, not oral history. Very few historians ever actually saw the events they recorded, they refer to documents and testimony and search for physical confirmations.  Then they write their findings down. And thus preserve them in their original form for future historical reveiw.

Written. History.

Well that's just a blatant lie.  Do better.

It's possible some of the stories are fictional, and indeed some have very little corroborating evidence. BUT - i don't recall any of them being out and out disproved.  And the first nations oral traditions tend to reflect what they want them to say today. So its not so much proof as confirmation bias. The 'stories' will of course match the facts.  Have you noticed there's no much effort being made to write down all the stories in a 'definitive official' way? They want them to remain 'fluid'.

Which means very little when it comes to assessing the veracity of the stories, other than you sound a little bias.

There is nothing to study. that's the problem with an oral tradition. It's so easily changed to reflect what the people of today want it to say. You can confirm very very little of it because you can't confirm if the story remained as it was originally told over time.

And sorry - but you really did take a severe blow to your credibility when you suggested the bible is just an oral tradition handed down the same way the first nations stories are. And that politics isn't affecting first nations stories.

 

So you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

Well if you want to share the view only supported by the most fundamental Christians go ahead, but since we don't even know the actual authors of the gospels, hard to say who they "spoke with" particularly when some were written dozens of years after Jesus was crucified, go ahead.

Well now that you've basically admitted you were wrong, lets also examine it from your own 'worst case' scenario,

Lets imagine the authors didn't actually speak to anyone who was involved in any way with the events of the bible, and in fact just wrote down the stories that had been 'Passed down" regarding it and pretended they had spoken to  people directly connected.

And lets say this happened 'doznes' of years later. Lets say 30 just for fun.

That would still be a written record of the stories within one generation of them happening, and they would have been documented VERY close in history to the events. The  amount of time for the stories to be distorted would be very small. Then they were written down and stories that weren't considered to be likely true were discarded. Groups of religious people could look it over and agree that yep - that's how i heard it too.

So even in your clearly bias view, you're still getting an historical accounting very close to the actual events historically. And you're getting some corroboration on the stories and there are literally still people alive who were there for those events and lived in teh areas when those events happened.

Compare that to the first nations accounts which as i noted are 10*10*10 generations removed from the origin.

Not even remotely comparable. The bible is a written historical document, the first nations 'stories' are just someone's take on someone's take on someeone's take, etc.   That doesn't make the bible true but it does make it much more reliable than anything the first nations could offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

So you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

I believe someone said they saw it and someone else wrote that down.

I don't believe that a story can be passed verbally forward through hundreds of people and still remain accurate or even the same.

And of course - right or wrong the written account remains static so believers can't just change their story later as suits very easily.  Where as the first nations can make up any crap they want and claim it's 10000 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well now that you've basically admitted you were wrong, lets also examine it from your own 'worst case' scenario,

Lets imagine the authors didn't actually speak to anyone who was involved in any way with the events of the bible, and in fact just wrote down the stories that had been 'Passed down" regarding it and pretended they had spoken to  people directly connected.

And lets say this happened 'doznes' of years later. Lets say 30 just for fun.

That would still be a written record of the stories within one generation of them happening, and they would have been documented VERY close in history to the events. The  amount of time for the stories to be distorted would be very small. Then they were written down and stories that weren't considered to be likely true were discarded. Groups of religious people could look it over and agree that yep - that's how i heard it too.

So even in your clearly bias view, you're still getting an historical accounting very close to the actual events historically. And you're getting some corroboration on the stories and there are literally still people alive who were there for those events and lived in teh areas when those events happened.

Compare that to the first nations accounts which as i noted are 10*10*10 generations removed from the origin.

Not even remotely comparable. The bible is a written historical document, the first nations 'stories' are just someone's take on someone's take on someeone's take, etc.   That doesn't make the bible true but it does make it much more reliable than anything the first nations could offer.

Hmmm so there's your opinion and my opinion, mine is supported by virtually all of credited biblical scholars 

Who said one was better? I was making a direct comparison between the two

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I believe someone said they saw it and someone else wrote that down.

I don't believe that a story can be passed verbally forward through hundreds of people and still remain accurate or even the same.

And of course - right or wrong the written account remains static so believers can't just change their story later as suits very easily.  Where as the first nations can make up any crap they want and claim it's 10000 years old.

You can believe anything you want do you have any scholarly support to these claims

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I believe someone said they saw it and someone else wrote that down.

I don't believe that a story can be passed verbally forward through hundreds of people and still remain accurate or even the same.

And of course - right or wrong the written account remains static so believers can't just change their story later as suits very easily.  Where as the first nations can make up any crap they want and claim it's 10000 years old.

Like I said I spent some time up north (you chose to ignore this) and spent some time with the Dene they had oral traditions going back hundreds of years about migration , they told these stories to archeologists who went to the places they mentioned and found proof. Now that alone offers more scientific evidence then the entire bible 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Hmmm so there's your opinion and my opinion, mine is supported by virtually all of credited biblical scholars 

Nope. It isn't. Lying to yourself about it doesn't make it true.

And it wouldn't matter anyway as i pointed out.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Who said one was better? I was making a direct comparison between the two

And as we've learned that's pretty dumb for all the reasons mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. It isn't. Lying to yourself about it doesn't make it true.

And it wouldn't matter anyway as i pointed out.

And as we've learned that's pretty dumb for all the reasons mentioned.

So you think your opinion trump's that of those who have spent their entire lives studying?

You're not worth conversing with 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Like I said I spent some time up north (you chose to ignore this)

I actually responded to that point directly but clearly you rely on dishonesty to try to make your points so continue.

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

and spent some time with the Dene they had oral traditions going back hundreds of years about migration , they told these stories to archeologists who went to the places they mentioned and found proof. Now that alone offers more scientific evidence then the entire bible 

well you're wrong on both counts. Archeologists found evidence that first nations people had inhabited or been in that area at one point - but no proof who it was. And there's hardly any ground in bc that doesn't have signs of first nations living on it. The timelines were so vague that it's hard to say if it's accurate.

From that point of view archeologists have discovered there was a  jesus with a ministry about the time there was supposed to be, so that must mean the bible is correct right?

The claim that oral records passed down for generations is more accurate than written records is just dumb. if you want to compare a few hundred years ago compare Hearne's documents to first nations stories - hearne's docs tell us exactly where  he was standing on a given day BECAUSE HE WROTE IT  DOWN.  Compare that to 'well i believe we mirgrated throught this route more or less at some point".

Written accounts are always going to survive time better. Period. You're insane to try to argue that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

So you think your opinion trump's that of those who have spent their entire lives studying?

I think it trumps your low brow failure to understand what you read.

5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

You're not worth conversing with 

Sure - having been proved a fool running away or sticking your head in the sand was your only option.

Kid - you lost this one the moment you tried to claim an oral tradition is more accurate than  a written one. Sorry facts bother you.  See you around, assuming you ever pull your head out of the ground again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I know of no major Christian church that takes the bible literally, including the Roman Catholic Church.

Most major denominations are apostate, gone far from the Bible, or not real churches.  That is proven by the fact they are into a social gospel (Socialist leaning), accepting same-sex marriage, abortion, and MAID or at least not opposing those things.   Bible-believing churches have always been the small evangelical, independent, or fundamental type of churches.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Most major denominations are apostate, gone far from the Bible, or not real churches.  That is proven by the fact they are into a social gospel (Socialist leaning), accepting same-sex marriage, abortion, and MAID or at least not opposing those things.   Bible-believing churches have always been the small evangelical, independent, or fundamental type of churches.  

Perhaps. Perhaps they also don't feel someone should be executed for working on the sabbath or wearing a shirt with two different types of thread in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Perhaps. Perhaps they also don't feel someone should be executed for working on the sabbath or wearing a shirt with two different types of thread in it.

Bible-believing churches don't believe that either.  I am not sure where you got that idea, but evangelical churches do not believe that kind of thing.  It looks like you have been lied to in the extreme.  Churches in genera are quite laid back about what people wear.  Many dress very casually these days.  Even many ministers wear casual clothes when the preach.  Some churches are more formal. The idea of the Sabbath is not part of evangelical church's beliefs.  The Sabbath was mainly a Jewish religious day and still is.  The Seventh Day Adventists, which some say are a bit of a cult, follow the Sabbath, which is Saturday.  They hold their services on Saturday.  Reformed churches sometimes call Sunday a Sabbath and generally discourage their members from working on Sundays, which they usually refer to as the Lord's Day.  But the Bible does not impose any particular day as a holy day on Christians and it actually speaks against it.

Here is a little information on the Inquisition.

"The Inquisition was a powerful office set up within the Catholic Church to root out and punish heresy throughout Europe and the Americas. Beginning in the 12th century and continuing for hundreds of years, the Inquisition is infamous for the severity of its tortures and its persecution of Jews and Muslims. Its worst manifestation was in Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition was a dominant force for more than 200 years, resulting in some 32,000 executions."

"

The Job of Inquisitors

Inquisitors would arrive in a town and announce their presence, giving citizens a chance to admit to heresy. Those who confessed received a punishment ranging from a pilgrimage to a whipping.

Those accused of heresy were forced to testify. If the heretic did not confess, torture and execution were inescapable. Heretics weren’t allowed to face accusers, received no counsel and were often victims of false accusations."

There is a lot more to it on the history website:

Inquisition - HISTORY

Other sources say the Inquisition lasted 400 years or more.  There are horror stories that occurred in the 20th century revealed in the book Smokescreens by Chick Publications.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...