S
Shadowcry
Guest
No because if something is propoganda you can change it, and its more neutral.
If I wanted to only look at one side of the arguement then it wouldn’t prove anything at all.
- Status
If I wanted to only look at one side of the arguement then it wouldn’t prove anything at all.
S
Shadowcry
Guest
First they call followers of Islam “Mohammedeans”.Shadowcry, what in particular in the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on Islam do you regard as propaganda?
For someone who trumpets that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses propaganda and therefore should not be trusted don’t you think it is an example of a double standard when told that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore should not be quoted as ‘fact’ you don’t seem to mind?
Did you catch that while reading it?
Wikipedia at leats has more than one viewpoint rather than New Advent so it’s still mush more reliable than it.
R
ReformedCatholic
Guest
That’s it? That’s your whole view on the Inquisitions?
The Shadow-guy’s got an opinion. He doesn’t have to prove it and neither do you have to prove yours. The beauty of the free world and the lack of present-day Inquisitions.
Y
yinekka
Guest
First they call followers of Islam “Mohammedeans”.
Maybe back in 1910 that was what non followers of Islam called followers of Islam.
Do you have anything else from the articles to support your claim of ‘propaganda’ in the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia or does your claim rest on this one sentence?
You say that Wikipedia, an online site on which anyone of any qualification or none can write on anything which takes their fancy whether they have any first hand knowledge of what they are writing about or not is more reliable than the old Catholic Encyclopedia, the articles in which were written by theologians who had qualifications in their discipline?
Given that the articles in the online Catholic Encyclopedia were written before 1910 (published around 1910) and Wikipedia is a couple of years old can you tell how you judge that Wikipedia is more reliable than the Online Catholic Encyclopedia?
Maybe back in 1910 that was what non followers of Islam called followers of Islam.
Do you have anything else from the articles to support your claim of ‘propaganda’ in the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia or does your claim rest on this one sentence?
You say that Wikipedia, an online site on which anyone of any qualification or none can write on anything which takes their fancy whether they have any first hand knowledge of what they are writing about or not is more reliable than the old Catholic Encyclopedia, the articles in which were written by theologians who had qualifications in their discipline?
Given that the articles in the online Catholic Encyclopedia were written before 1910 (published around 1910) and Wikipedia is a couple of years old can you tell how you judge that Wikipedia is more reliable than the Online Catholic Encyclopedia?
Y
yinekka
Guest
Reformed Catholic
The Inqusitions were legal trials.
No that’s not my whole view on the Inquisitions. If you had read the thread I replied to Shadowcry who made some global statements stated as if they were facts and I asked him/her to provide supporting detail and so far he/she hasn’t. I am not prepared to give what would be a talk. I wish to dialogue but it takes two to do that.
The Shadow-guy’s got an opinion. He doesn’t have to prove it and neither do you have to prove yours.
Who says he/she doesn’t have to back up his/her statements? If I went to an Islamic site and made global negative comments ,phrased as if they were facts, about, for example, Islamic conversion by the sword I would expect to be asked to back them up.
We don’t just pluck opinions out of thin air. Opinions are formed from the people with whom we interact, what we read, what see on TV etc Sure we are entitled to our opinion but when one comes to a discussion board and expresses one’s opinions it is not surprising that one is asked to support one’s opinions with some facts.
The Inqusitions were legal trials.
No that’s not my whole view on the Inquisitions. If you had read the thread I replied to Shadowcry who made some global statements stated as if they were facts and I asked him/her to provide supporting detail and so far he/she hasn’t. I am not prepared to give what would be a talk. I wish to dialogue but it takes two to do that.
The Shadow-guy’s got an opinion. He doesn’t have to prove it and neither do you have to prove yours.
Who says he/she doesn’t have to back up his/her statements? If I went to an Islamic site and made global negative comments ,phrased as if they were facts, about, for example, Islamic conversion by the sword I would expect to be asked to back them up.
We don’t just pluck opinions out of thin air. Opinions are formed from the people with whom we interact, what we read, what see on TV etc Sure we are entitled to our opinion but when one comes to a discussion board and expresses one’s opinions it is not surprising that one is asked to support one’s opinions with some facts.
E
Eden
Guest
That’s a glib statement. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please give us your own understanding of the Inquisitions.
Regarding the euphemism for Protestant, “Reformed Catholic”, where in the Bible does Jesus tell us His Church will need to be reformed in 1500 years and then all believers can throw out the “deposit of faith” and create new theologies?
A Protestant calling themself a “Reformed Catholic” is to be taken as seriously as a short person saying he is “vertically challenged”.
S
Shadowcry
Guest
yinekka said:
Back in the day people were called a lot have things that are offensive now. Have you even read the article on Islam?
Yes those theologians maybe good at writing for things from a catholic perspective but when it comes to issues outside Catholiscism I would rather trust secular sources. Read the article, if you still cannot find any propanganda I will point it out for you.
Y
yinekka
Guest
Point away Shadowcry. 
- Status