How I see christian of today . (1 Viewer)

[Cephus]

WTF?

How the hell can anyone be "proud" of mass murder, torture, and oppression?

Look at who we're talking about. :doh

 

[justone]

WTF?

How the hell can anyone be "proud" of mass murder, torture, and oppression?

It is not exactly about F.
It is all about numbers, if you can understand numbers.


The most bloody and cruel Inqusition existed in Spain. So, Spain would be the first place to gather first numbers. According to wiki, which has a very definite atheistic agenda: ‘’The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478, … until 1834,… as an ecclesiastical tribunal, it had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians.
From 1476 to 1834 PROBABALY between 3,500 and 5,500 people were executed.’’

Let us calculate:
1834-1476=358
5,500/358=15.36

That is maximum 15.36 executed per a year according to the atheistic source which is certainly lying.

I certainly understand, that you would not accept these numbers as true, and you would like me to go to archives of the Spanish Catholic Church instead of wiki, but I am asking you to look at these numbers as at a very rough approximation. This approximation would tell me if I should go to Spain, or such a trip would have no chance to pay off.

‘’Number of persons executed in the United States
Year Executions

1930 155
1931 153
1932 140
1933 160
1934 168
1935 199
1936 195
1937 147
1938 190
1939 160 ‘’



‘’Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:
-- 1,802 were white
-- 1,352 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 11 were of unknown race.’’

‘’Between 1770 and 1830, 35,000 death sentences were handed down in England and Wales, but only 7,000 executions were carried out.’’

That is 116 executions per a year.

‘’Belgium: Between November 1944 and August 1950 around 242 people were executed by firing squad ‘’
That is 40 execution per a year in tiny Belgium.

‘’The French Revolution, The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval in the political history of France and Europe as a whole, during which the French governmental structure, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles. In one year between 18,500 to 40,000 people were executed (estimates vary widely, due to the difference between historical records and statistical estimates)’’

Looking at the numbers, I would not hesitate to approve execution of 15 in a year in order to prevent execution of 40,000 for your Enlightenment principles.

It is not anything like a final conclusion or a final reason, but it is merely the first step, the starting point. I do have more to say about history, but I do not have time.

So, I merely have repeated the methodology I always use. I do not use emotions and personal likes and dislkes, I use numbers, mathematics. Sometimes numbers works, sometimes they do not meet, but they are the most reliable way for me, in difference from you who preffers just to F around.

I am quite proud of Inqusition, and in the same way I am no less proud of history of the United States with all its executions, diffculties and ways of overcominmg difficulties and wrong turns, and learning from mistakes. Neither Inqusition nor the US of course can be compared with mass murder, torture, and oppression in history of Enlightenment and atheism. So you express your pride and I express my pride. The only difference is that I use numbers and learn from mistakes, when you just F around and never learn.

 

[rivrrat]

It is not exactly about F.
It is all about numbers, if you can understand numbers.


The most bloody and cruel Inqusition existed in Spain. So, Spain would be the first place to gather first numbers. According to wiki, which has a very definite atheistic agenda: ‘’The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478, … until 1834,… as an ecclesiastical tribunal, it had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians.
From 1476 to 1834 PROBABALY between 3,500 and 5,500 people were executed.’’

Let us calculate:
1834-1476=358
5,500/358=15.36

That is maximum 15.36 executed per a year according to the atheistic source which is certainly lying.

I certainly understand, that you would not accept these numbers as true, and you would like me to go to archives of the Spanish Catholic Church instead of wiki, but I am asking you to look at these numbers as at a very rough approximation. This approximation would tell me if I should go to Spain, or such a trip would have no chance to pay off.

‘’Number of persons executed in the United States
Year Executions

1930 155
1931 153
1932 140
1933 160
1934 168
1935 199
1936 195
1937 147
1938 190
1939 160 ‘’



‘’Of persons under sentence of death in 2006:
-- 1,802 were white
-- 1,352 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 11 were of unknown race.’’

‘’Between 1770 and 1830, 35,000 death sentences were handed down in England and Wales, but only 7,000 executions were carried out.’’

That is 116 executions per a year.

‘’Belgium: Between November 1944 and August 1950 around 242 people were executed by firing squad ‘’
That is 40 execution per a year in tiny Belgium.

‘’The French Revolution, The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval in the political history of France and Europe as a whole, during which the French governmental structure, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles. In one year between 18,500 to 40,000 people were executed (estimates vary widely, due to the difference between historical records and statistical estimates)’’

Looking at the numbers, I would not hesitate to approve execution of 15 in a year in order to prevent execution of 40,000 for your Enlightenment principles.

It is not anything like a final conclusion or a final reason, but it is merely the first step, the starting point. I do have more to say about history, but I do not have time.

So, I merely have repeated the methodology I always use. I do not use emotions and personal likes and dislkes, I use numbers, mathematics. Sometimes numbers works, sometimes they do not meet, but they are the most reliable way for me, in difference from you who preffers just to F around.

I am quite proud of Inqusition, and in the same way I am no less proud of history of the United States with all its executions, diffculties and ways of overcominmg difficulties and wrong turns, and learning from mistakes. Neither Inqusition nor the US of course can be compared with mass murder, torture, and oppression in history of Enlightenment and atheism. So you express your pride and I express my pride. The only difference is that I use numbers and learn from mistakes, when you just F around and never learn.

Sooo.... you're okay with the slaughter of jews en masse (i.e., the crusades) and the murder and torture of various peoples for no reason other than they refuse to convert to your religion? And you justify this with some numbers? LMAO Whatever man. If you feel you can justify mass murder with a few numbers and feel good about yourself, even proud about it... feel free I suppose. Seems pretty sad to me though, and remarkably extremist-like. Hell, you'd probably get along great with Muslim extremists/terrorists.

Not sure what "pride" you're talking about me expressing, nor what it is that I "never learn". Just seems like you threw some meaningless words together in a last ditch effort to try and insult me. Let me save you some time hon, you can't insult me. So just stick with the debate topic(s) and questions.

 

[tecoyah]

I am quite proud of Inqusition, and in the same way I am no less proud of history of the United States with all its executions, diffculties and ways of overcominmg difficulties and wrong turns, and learning from mistakes. Neither Inqusition nor the US of course can be compared with mass murder, torture, and oppression in history of Enlightenment and atheism. So you express your pride and I express my pride. The only difference is that I use numbers and learn from mistakes, when you just F around and never learn.

One would think, some portion of the Christian population here in DP would at least TRY to counteract the damage to reputation your religion gets from these types of posts. Just as a moderate Muslim should have called the OP to task for her bastardizing Islam.

 

[justone]

Sooo.... you're okay with the slaughter of jews en masse (i.e., the crusades) and the murder and torture of various peoples for no reason other than they refuse to convert to your religion? And you justify this with some numbers? LMAO Whatever man. If you feel you can justify mass murder with a few numbers and feel good about yourself, even proud about it... feel free I suppose. Seems pretty sad to me though, and remarkably extremist-like. Hell, you'd probably get along great with Muslim extremists/terrorists.

I didn’t mention crusades in my defense yet, did I? I don’t know what to say. 15 are not mass murder, but 40,000 are for me. For you it is certainly the opposite. Either you agree that cruelty of the Inquisition, (when it is put in the perspective (system of coordinates)) is greatly exaggerated by you on purpose, - either you agree that you have been exaggerating it in order to point finger at Christianity, and to musk your own crimes against humanity, starting from Enlightenment, - or you don’t agree and have something to say in defense of your crimes and exaggerations. Either you agree that cruelty of Enlightenment and atheism cannot be even compared with Inquisition, or you don’t; Either you see the truth or you want to keep on pointing that something is bad when it is bad, ingoring that it is still the the best good out of all available choices, as it is shown in numbers.

Not sure what "pride" you're talking about me expressing, nor what it is that I "never learn". Just seems like you threw some meaningless words together in a last ditch effort to try and insult me. Let me save you some time hon, you can't insult me. So just stick with the debate topic(s) and questions.

It is good for a change to meet someone who cannot get insulted. Why should I believe that I cannot insult you, when everyone feels insulted? What does make you so special?

Either you agree that the Inquisition found itself guilty of mistakes, it repented and it corrected itself, thus it can be praised, or you don’t. Either you agree that atheists did not learn from the crimes of Enlightenment and continued praising cruelty and kept on calling for repeating and performing new crimes, and you are still proud of the Enlightenment, or you have something to say in defense of the crimes of the Enlightenment and atheism. Can you point at any moment when atheists ever repented (accept for my Australian friend) and thus deserved a praise? So far my Australian friend has been the exclusion because he walks up side down on the globe.

Then, if I ever have time, we may move to Crusades, and you will come up with a particular document(s) written not by ‘’slaughtered’’ “’ for no reason”’ Jews and Muslims, but by unbiased observers describing the slaughter. We know about Holocaust not only from Jews, but also from the well preserved documents created by Nazis, as well as from other unbiased observers. Your accusations are very severe, and since we are not living in an atheistic state of your dream yet, you will prove to me that they are true. Certainly being an Inquisitor in my previous life I will be very cautious in order not to vote against an innocent until you prove to me the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You also will be cautious because if I find you making false accusations I will make sure you will not be only insulted but also burned…

if I have time to set up the fire.

So far I have made some time for you only because you are not insulted yet.

 

[jallman]

One would think, some portion of the Christian population here in DP would at least TRY to counteract the damage to reputation your religion gets from these types of posts. Just as a moderate Muslim should have called the OP to task for her bastardizing Islam.

I just look at him as being crazy...and when Christians start taking to the streets rioting over cartoons and blowing up stuff up with the regularity that Muslims do, then we can talk about the need to denounce idiots to save our religion.

 

[John1234]

I think it is silly that you would debate the number killed in the Crusades.

For one, History is written by the winner, not the loser.
The dead don't record history.

But your also forgetting about wiping out entire races of people in South America.
Committing genocide on the Native Americans.
Millions and millions have been killed in the name of Christianity.
Not 40,000.

Maybe its not part of the "Crusades" in some official log book.
But the reasoning behind the slaughter was that they are not Christian so they must be savages and so therefore their lives are on par with animals in value.

And even with the crusades that are recorded in some log book...
If that many people were officially executed, then the number executed in the field by groups of soldiers that would never be recorded, must be 1000 times greater.
Its sort of like asking the Nazi's how many they killed instead of asking the Jews.

 

[rivrrat]

I didn’t mention crusades in my defense yet, did I? I don’t know what to say. 15 are not mass murder, but 40,000 are for me. For you it is certainly the opposite.

eh? You're claiming that only 15 people died as a result of the various Inquisitions and Crusades?

Either you agree that cruelty of the Inquisition, (when it is put in the perspective (system of coordinates)) is greatly exaggerated by you on purpose, - either you agree that you have been exaggerating it in order to point finger at Christianity,

No, I agree that it was what it was... nothing to be proud of. It was cruelty, murder, torture, and oppression. There is not a thing there to be proud of. Not a single thing.

and to musk your own crimes against humanity, starting from Enlightenment, - or you don’t agree and have something to say in defense of your crimes and exaggerations

Okay, I know I'm getting older and all... but I am nowhere NEAR old enough to have had one iota of influence in the Enlightenment. So what crimes against humanity are you accusing me of, exactly?

Either you agree that cruelty of Enlightenment and atheism cannot be even compared with Inquisition, or you don’t; Either you see the truth or you want to keep on pointing that something is bad when it is bad, ingoring that it is still the the best good out of all available choices, as it is shown in numbers.

I don't believe I compared anything. I asked you why you were proud of cruelty, murder, torture and oppression - otherwise known as the Inquisitions and Crusades. I didn't say a single thing in defense of Enlightenment, nor shall I. It is quite irrelevant since I was referring specifically to YOUR claim that YOU were proud of the actions of some groups of people in the past. I made no such claim about any groups of people. I am not here to debate the Age of Enlightenment.

It is good for a change to meet someone who cannot get insulted. Why should I believe that I cannot insult you, when everyone feels insulted? What does make you so special?

I don't care if you believe it or not. Your belief is not required. I simply stated said fact so you could stop wasting your time posting attempted insults, and my time having to read over and dismiss them.

Either you agree that the Inquisition found itself guilty of mistakes, it repented and it corrected itself, thus it can be praised, or you don’t. Either you agree that atheists did not learn from the crimes of Enlightenment and continued praising cruelty and kept on calling for repeating and performing new crimes, and you are still proud of the Enlightenment, or you have something to say in defense of the crimes of the Enlightenment and atheism. Can you point at any moment when atheists ever repented (accept for my Australian friend) and thus deserved a praise? So far my Australian friend has been the exclusion because he walks up side down on the globe.

Why should I care if any individual atheists have "repented" for anything? Or if anyone involved in the Enlightenment did? I was not questioning what happened during the Enlightenment, nor did I say that I was "proud" of anything that happened. YOU DID. Stop trying to divert the discussion to something other than what I asked, which was how one could be "proud" of murder, oppression, torture, and general cruelty inflicted by any group of people ON any group of people.

Then, if I ever have time, we may move to Crusades, and you will come up with a particular document(s) written not by ‘’slaughtered’’ “’ for no reason”’ Jews and Muslims, but by unbiased observers describing the slaughter. We know about Holocaust not only from Jews, but also from the well preserved documents created by Nazis, as well as from other unbiased observers.

You claimed you were proud of the Crusades, yet you don't wish to defend that comment?

Your accusations are very severe, and since we are not living in an atheistic state of your dream yet, you will prove to me that they are true.

WTF? Atheistic state of my dream? What are you talking about?

Certainly being an Inquisitor in my previous life I will be very cautious in order not to vote against an innocent until you prove to me the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You also will be cautious because if I find you making false accusations I will make sure you will not be only insulted but also burned…

if I have time to set up the fire.

So far I have made some time for you only because you are not insulted yet.

Ooo... I feel so special. I just can't wait to receive more of your time, massah. I do so hope you will grant me such a kindness again in the future. :mrgreen:

 

[1069]

I didn’t mention crusades in my defense yet, did I? I don’t know what to say. 15 are not mass murder, but 40,000 are for me. For you it is certainly the opposite. Either you agree that cruelty of the Inquisition, (when it is put in the perspective (system of coordinates)) is greatly exaggerated by you on purpose, - either you agree that you have been exaggerating it in order to point finger at Christianity, and to musk your own crimes against humanity, starting from Enlightenment, - or you don’t agree and have something to say in defense of your crimes and exaggerations. Either you agree that cruelty of Enlightenment and atheism cannot be even compared with Inquisition, or you don’t; Either you see the truth or you want to keep on pointing that something is bad when it is bad, ingoring that it is still the the best good out of all available choices, as it is shown in numbers.



It is good for a change to meet someone who cannot get insulted. Why should I believe that I cannot insult you, when everyone feels insulted? What does make you so special?

Either you agree that the Inquisition found itself guilty of mistakes, it repented and it corrected itself, thus it can be praised, or you don’t. Either you agree that atheists did not learn from the crimes of Enlightenment and continued praising cruelty and kept on calling for repeating and performing new crimes, and you are still proud of the Enlightenment, or you have something to say in defense of the crimes of the Enlightenment and atheism. Can you point at any moment when atheists ever repented (accept for my Australian friend) and thus deserved a praise? So far my Australian friend has been the exclusion because he walks up side down on the globe.

Then, if I ever have time, we may move to Crusades, and you will come up with a particular document(s) written not by ‘’slaughtered’’ “’ for no reason”’ Jews and Muslims, but by unbiased observers describing the slaughter. We know about Holocaust not only from Jews, but also from the well preserved documents created by Nazis, as well as from other unbiased observers. Your accusations are very severe, and since we are not living in an atheistic state of your dream yet, you will prove to me that they are true. Certainly being an Inquisitor in my previous life I will be very cautious in order not to vote against an innocent until you prove to me the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You also will be cautious because if I find you making false accusations I will make sure you will not be only insulted but also burned…

if I have time to set up the fire.

So far I have made some time for you only because you are not insulted yet.

I don't really understand what you're talking about; the Inquisition killed thousands upon thousands, mostly female. Untold numbers of midwives and village "cunning women" were tortured and died at their hands throughout Europe, at a time when men were attempting to take over the occupation of healing, of medicine, which had been the province of women since time out of mind.
And that's only part of it.

And the Church has not entirely "found itself guilty of mistakes, it repented and it corrected itself"; there are several saints who were canonized due to their participation in the Inquisition. Their "holy work" as inquisitors.
They have not been demoted from sainthood in light of modern feelings about the Inquisition.

We must also keep in mind that at the time, the Church was also the government.
So take the evil of our current government, and the evil (if any) of our current Church, and put them together, and that's how evil the church was at the time of the Inquisition.
All countries in Europe at the time were under papal rule, subject to the whims of those danged Hapsburgs (who had been declared "Holy Roman Emperors" and whatnot).
This state of affairs continued until Henry the VIII fell in love with a commoner whom he wanted to divorce his wife for... his wife who happened to be the daughter of "The Catholic Kings" Ferdinand and Isabella of Aragon, and the aunt of Charles Hapsburg of Austria.
Henry was the first crowned head of Europe to break free of the Church, although of course he did so for his own selfish reasons. After him, the rest of the British Isles and Western Europe followed, and the Church slowly lost a great deal of its political clout in the region.

But anyway... the way our government is responsible for Abu Ghraib, that's the same way the Church was responsible for the inquisition. They were more than a Church back then. They were also the law. They were the government. They were the police. They were all the authority there was.

 

[Jerry]

But the christian of Today ... become the religion of the antichrist
Any law been forbiden by God .. is applied and blessed by the christian community ... Such as abortion . adoption .. homosexuality ...Anal sex ...Sex with woman in her courses time ...

All that is acceptable by the christian religion.

Soooo....I guess there is no christian oposition to abortion or gay marriage. Wow was I fooled.

 

[Cephus]

Soooo....I guess there is no christian oposition to abortion or gay marriage. Wow was I fooled.

I don't know why you're still talking to Shery since Shery buggered off almost a month ago...

 

[Jerry]

I don't know why you're still talking to Shery since Shery buggered off almost a month ago...

If you ask kindly, I'll tell you.

 

[Felicity]

I don't really understand what you're talking about; the Inquisition killed thousands upon thousands, mostly female. Untold numbers of midwives and village "cunning women" were tortured and died at their hands throughout Europe, at a time when men were attempting to take over the occupation of healing, of medicine, which had been the province of women since time out of mind.
And that's only part of it.

Cite a source for this claim, please. Until you back it, it is mearly one woman's fantasy. The Inquisition occured--just not how you describe it.

 

[justone]

I just look at him as being crazy...and when Christians start taking to the streets rioting over cartoons and blowing up stuff up with the regularity that Muslims do, then we can talk about the need to denounce idiots to save our religion.

What is new, jallman? If justone says something that is out of the scoop of you little mind, you call him a crazy idiot; and your best argument is you joining a crowd to point a finger at a crazy idiot, - no reasoning is needed when you join a crowd. It feels nice and warm in the crowd, isn’t it?

I am breaking of the ripest banana from the bundle for you personally, if any personality could be distinguished in a crowd.


‘’ the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” – Galileo.

 

[jallman]

What is new, jallman? If justone says something that is out of the scoop of you little mind, you call him a crazy idiot; and your best argument is you joining a crowd to point a finger at a crazy idiot, - no reasoning is needed when you join a crowd. It feels nice and warm in the crowd, isn’t it?

I am breaking of the ripest banana from the bundle for you personally, if any personality could be distinguished in a crowd.


‘’ the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” – Galileo.

I think we agree on a few things. I just don't understand you and how you can be proud of the Inquisition. That's crazy.

 

[justone]

eh? You're claiming that only 15 people died as a result of the various Inquisitions and Crusades?

Before we proceed I would like to make an introduction.
1. You start from treating me like I am crazy and I am an idiot.
2. Certainly you understand that if I am crazy and I am an idiot, you cannot prove such facts to me.
3. But you proceed explaining why I am crazy and why, in your view, I am an idiot.
4. I have to conclude that if you think that you are right, you also think that you have to explain your thinking.
Your way of thinking makes me say that if I was not an Inquisitor, and if I was not married man, I would immediately put my heart of a crazy man at your feet.
Now, after the introduction, the game starts.

eh? You're claiming that only 15 people died as a result of the various Inquisitions and Crusades?

It is called a straw man fallacy. As soon as you start defending something that cannot be defended you use a straw man and other fallacies. According to rules of logic, I should not reply to a fallacy, but just point to it. If you don’t understand the basic math, why do you reply to my posts?

No, I agree that it was what it was... nothing to be proud of. It was cruelty, murder, torture, and oppression. There is not a thing there to be proud of. Not a single thing.

Pointing to your Appeal to Emotion and Hasty Generalizations fallacies is meaningless, because you would not understand what they mean; so I have to use the same mathematics, with no hope that you would understand what I mean:
This is the main difference between you, my lovely witch, and me, the crazy Inquisitor.
Your claim is:
Murder= Inquisition
Torture = Inquisition.
Oppression= Inquisition.
You need to be sent to English and law dictionaries.

I, as well as many Christians, claim:
Inquisition= used (I will spare you from using a mathematical symbol I do need to use instead of ‘’used’’) Torture, it was Oppressive, and, from our POV, it executed some of us fellow Christians, without reasonable, - from our POV, - justification at certain points of its function (sorry for using mathematics again.) I feel like you put me in chains when you do not allow express the above in math symbols, but I sympathize to your appeal to the ignorant masses)
The only difference between many other Christians and me is that instead of “ =‘’ I use the usual expression of a professional Inquisitor -“most likely”.

Okay, I know I'm getting older and all... but I am nowhere NEAR old enough to have had one iota of influence in the Enlightenment. So what crimes against humanity are you accusing me of, exactly?

Since you have rejected ideas of Enlightenment publicly, you can go free of these particular accusations. Only sickos like jfuh, tecoyah, jullman, Cephus and others from the same isle of the zoo can close their eyes at the crimes of the Enlightenment, which started from injecting Terror and Terrorism as an acceptable way of suppression of a free human thought and spirit. Humanity has already paid extremely high price for spreading their ideas, and I am glad to see that you position yourself away from the zoo.

Also you idea that you’re getting older AND ALL does not have any basis; it is a female thing. Don’t feed it to me, - you certainly are getting more attractive with age.

I don't believe I compared anything.

I did express that you did NOT compare anything. That was one of the main lines of my post. You did not compare anything, thus you cannot know anything, because we can know and understand things only by comparing.
You have to try to develop your mind, or otherwise you may find your self in a company of the inhabitants of the pig farm.
A primitive mind sees:
rivrat is bad. So it calls you bad.
A development mind sees:
rivrat is bad. You are very bad. But in comparison to the inhabitants of the pig farm you are a heavenly angel. I do know that you are very bad and it is true, but, - in the only reality I have to deal with, - you are a heavenly angel and this is even more true. So I call you my heavenly angel and I am proud of you.

I asked you why you were proud of cruelty, murder, torture and oppression - otherwise known as the Inquisitions and Crusades. I didn't say a single thing in defense of Enlightenment, nor shall I. It is quite irrelevant since I was referring specifically to YOUR claim that YOU were proud of the actions of some groups of people in the past. I made no such claim about any groups of people. I am not here to debate the Age of Enlightenment.

And I answered to you that I was proud to be human, but not a chimp in the zoo. I’ve answered, that as well as all other humans I have to bear cruelty, murder, torture and oppression as a part of my human nature. I am proud to be a human and recognize and overcome the evil in myself, and to proceed to the good. I am proud that the Inquisition was and still is humane. I am not a Catholic, but I defend the Institution of the Catholic Church, I show that your attacks on the Catholic Church no relation to anything in reality, no system of coordinates, that they are inhumane, that they are no more than the demonstration of your animal instincts and emotions you are venting on me.
I am repeating again that from the POV of a human intellect you are devilish and inhumane, but AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME SPACE, you are the only one who, in difference from the rest of the zoo, can walk as a human and talk as a human, thus within THE ONLY GIVEN CHOICE OF THE ONLY GIVEN REALITY I choose you to offer my heart. There is no way you can convince me that my choice is wrong, - whether it is you or the Inquisition.

I don't care if you believe it or not. Your belief is not required. I simply stated said fact so you could stop wasting your time posting attempted insults, and my time having to read over and dismiss them.

This is exactly what I am asking you, how do you do, how do you dismiss insults? For instance, as one of my ways, I often carry a bundle of bananas with me to feed to those who come to insult me. Generally the majority of my posts are devoted answering to insults. It is like if I dismiss them, I would have nothing to reply to. How do you do it?

Why should I care if any individual atheists have "repented" for anything? Or if anyone involved in the Enlightenment did? I was not questioning what happened during the Enlightenment, nor did I say that I was "proud" of anything that happened. YOU DID. Stop trying to divert the discussion to something other than what I asked, which was how one could be "proud" of murder, oppression, torture, and general cruelty inflicted by any group of people ON any group of people.

I am asking again: why do you direct this question to me? Why do you close your eyes on the fact that on this thread ALL my posts are devoted to damning murder, oppression, torture, and general cruelty inflicted by any group of people ON any group of people? I have typed pages upon pages here expressing my disgust at THE REAL AND THE PRESENT murder, oppression, torture, and general cruelty inflicted by any group of people ON any group of people, but you come and divert the attention THE REAL AND THE PRESENT horrors to some mistakes I made in the past. Yes, in my past I was an atheist and I was cruel to a whole number of women, but it does not mean that I did not do good things as well; it does not mean that my atheism and cruelty were not appropriate or they were disapproved by the society. The fact that I had atheism in my life does not necessary mean that I was all stupid and bad, and, of course, it does not mean that I am still stupid and bad. Even caring the approved evil around, I had some good achievements I was proud of and I am still proud of. In the same way I am proud of achievements of the Inquisition.

You claimed you were proud of the Crusades, yet you don't wish to defend that comment?

1. Because I do one thing at a time, and then, after I am done, I move to another thing. 2. Because I do not see a need to defend a single comment taken out of the context and the topic of my posts on this thread. 3. What do I have to defend it from, - from anything you wish to say? Then nothing can be defended from you.

WTF? Atheistic state of my dream? What are you talking about?

I explained, and I can explain again – it is the state where you can make accusations of any kind, like that Crusades are bad, and you do not have to prove your accusation, but I have to prove that I am not guilty and Crusades are not bad. As an example of the contrary, my Inquisition always has to prove that one is guilty, but it does not require a proof from somebody that he is not guilty.
And would you please stop coursing?

Ooo... I feel so special. I just can't wait to receive more of your time, massah. I do so hope you will grant me such a kindness again in the future.

Since you are so kind to explain why I am a crazy idiot instead of just name calling and direct insults, you should always count on the same kindness in return. I don’t know why you are surprised.

And I am repeating again, you certainly deserve my time here on DP, but I do not have so much time for DP. On other hand I don’t deny – it is possible that if you don’t start insulting me very soon, I can get bored, - I a kind of used to have fun feeding bananas.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

I, as well as many Christians, claim:
Inquisition= used (I will spare you from using a mathematical symbol I do need to use instead of ‘’used’’) Torture, it was Oppressive, and, from our POV, it executed some of us fellow Christians, without reasonable, - from our POV, - justification at certain points of its function (sorry for using mathematics again.) I feel like you put me in chains when you do not allow express the above in math symbols, but I sympathize to your appeal to the ignorant masses)

Where's the bit you're proud of, now? My monkey mind fails to comprehend.

I am proud that the Inquisition was and still is humane. I am not a Catholic, but I defend the Institution of the Catholic Church.

What particular feature of the Inquisition made it humane? The Church took people's right to life and freedom, which it didn't own, and destroyed them for the crime of thinking against their dogma. The Church harmed others to act in it's own interest- when human beings (as you call yourself) take it upon themselves to punish the monkey minority, how can the homo-sapien primate race survive in peace? Is that not what you desire?

For instance, as one of my ways, I often carry a bundle of bananas with me to feed to those who come to insult me.

Free bananas? They should have given them out at the Inquisition- would that have made it even more humane?

Even caring the approved evil around, I had some good achievements I was proud of and I am still proud of. In the same way I am proud of achievements of the Inquisition.

Which achievement of the Inquisition are you proud of? Please answer this, rather than responding to an imaginary insult- I want to see what makes you proud of torture and child-kidnapping. Are you satisfied that Jewish 'monkeys' were driven from Europe? Did you like seeing Protestants squirm on burning stakes? Were you proud that Jewish babies were baptized to ensure a future in Paradise?

I explained, and I can explain again – it is the state where you can make accusations of any kind, like that Crusades are bad, and you do not have to prove your accusation, but I have to prove that I am not guilty and Crusades are not bad

From dictionary.com; bad:having a wicked or evil character, morally reprehensible. I view all offensive wars as morally reprehensible. The Crusades were a series of offensive wars that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths and nearly limitless pain and the suffering of Muslims and Catholics alike. You're not guilty, as you had nothing to do with the crusades, but I believe, as I see mass murder through warfare as a morally reprehensible crime against humanity, that the Crusades were a bad thing.

I just had to explain what made the Crusades bad. I feel like a monkey, futiley struggling to express myself. Justone, your debating tactics are so overwhelming that you devolve those who denounce you. If that was a goal you meant to accomplish, congratulations.

 

[tecoyah]

Since you are so kind to explain why I am a crazy idiot instead of just name calling and direct insults, you should always count on the same kindness in return. I don’t know why you are surprised.

And I am repeating again, you certainly deserve my time here on DP, but I do not have so much time for DP. On other hand I don’t deny – it is possible that if you don’t start insulting me very soon, I can get bored, - I a kind of used to have fun feeding bananas.

Me thinks he likes you....poor, poor rivrrat

 

[Hatuey]

Cite a source for this claim, please. Until you back it, it is mearly one woman's fantasy. The Inquisition occured--just not how you describe it.

Cite a source for this claim, please. Until you back it, it is mearly one woman's fantasy. The Inquisition occured--just not how you describe it.

Who Burned the Witches?

Nor were witches secret pagans serving an ancient Triple Goddess and Horned God, as the neopagans claim. In fact, no witch was ever executed for worshiping a pagan deity. Matilda Gage's estimate of nine million women burned is more than 200 times the best current estimate of 30,000 to 50,000 killed during the 400 years from 1400 to 1800-a large number but no Holocaust. And it wasn't all a burning time. Witches were hanged, strangled, and beheaded as well. Witch-hunting was not woman-hunting: At least 20 percent of all suspected witches were male. Midwives were not especially targeted; nor were witches liquidated as obstacles to professionalized medicine and mechanistic science.

Gendercide Watch: European Witch-Hunts

"The most dramatic [recent] changes in our vision of the Great Hunt [have] centered on the death toll," notes Jenny Gibbons. She points out that estimates made prior to the mid-1970s, when detailed research into trial records began, "were almost 100% pure speculation." (Gibbons, Recent Developments.) "On the wilder shores of the feminist and witch-cult movements," writes Robin Briggs, "a potent myth has become established, to the effect that 9 million women were burned as witches in Europe; gendercide rather than genocide. [See, e.g., the witch-hunt documentary "The Burning Times".] This is an overestimate by a factor of up to 200, for the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 per cent were men." Briggs adds that "these figures are chilling enough, but they have to be set in the context of what was probably the harshest period of capital punishments in European history." (Briggs, Witches & Neighbours, p. 8.)

She was wrong on the reason that it happened but the fact still remains that thousands upon thousands of women were executed.

 

[1069]

Who Burned the Witches?



Gendercide Watch: European Witch-Hunts



She was wrong on the reason that it happened but the fact still remains that thousands upon thousands of women were executed.

Thanks, but its common knowledge.
Hundreds if not thousands were burned in a single "auto de fe", and these were common occurrences during the 14-1600s.
I wasn't intending to justify her "prove it, prove it!" with a response.
Anyone who can read knows it happened.
Catholics, in particular, know that it happened.
And she does know.
She's just being ornery, and now she's going to deny that your sources are reputable or legitimate and claim they prove nothing.

And, no; I was not "wrong on the reason".

 

[Felicity]

Thanks, but its common knowledge.
Hundreds if not thousands were burned in a single "auto de fe", and these were common occurrences during the 14-1600s.
I wasn't intending to justify her "prove it, prove it!" with a response.
Anyone who can read knows it happened.
Catholics, in particular, know that it happened.
And she does know.
She's just being ornery, and now she's going to deny that your sources are reputable or legitimate and claim they prove nothing.

And, no; I was not "wrong on the reason".

Crisis Magazine is great! (BTW--it's a Catholic publication)

Here...look at this line:

(All three of these Inquisitions burned fewer than a dozen witches in total.) --second to last paragraph in section called "Witches Everywhere"

Catholics and others did burn witches--but it was not the Inquisition burning 30,000 nor was it the Inquisition burning "Hundreds if not thousands were burned in a single 'auto de fe.' " You originally said, "the Inquisition killed thousands upon thousands, mostly female"--and that's simply not true (whether I'm ornery or not )

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I always thought that only ~300 were killed in the Inquisition, no where near the thousands...

 

[jallman]

Crisis Magazine is great! (BTW--it's a Catholic publication)

Here...look at this line:

(All three of these Inquisitions burned fewer than a dozen witches in total.) --second to last paragraph in section called "Witches Everywhere"

Catholics and others did burn witches--but it was not the Inquisition burning 30,000 nor was it the Inquisition burning "Hundreds if not thousands were burned in a single 'auto de fe.' " You originally said, "the Inquisition killed thousands upon thousands, mostly female"--and that's simply not true (whether I'm ornery or not )

Sorry. I am not about to accept anything that a Catholic publication writes mitigating the Inquisition. History tells a different story from Crisis Magazine.

 

[Felicity]

Sorry. I am not about to accept anything that a Catholic publication writes mitigating the Inquisition. History tells a different story from Crisis Magazine.

I know yous guys get flaky about such stuff--but Hatuey's the one that offered the source, not I-- and if you actually read it, you may change your tune. It isn't exactly pandering to Catholic sensibilities.

 

[Felicity]

History tells a different story from Crisis Magazine.

How 'bout that "non-biased" source then--as I originally requested.