Religious groups skew history

[bones_IV]

This is just disgusting!

Link

 

[BryPGuy89]

What? This is a true thing, no denying it. I don’t see anything about it that is wrong or what ever. I actually agree with it for the main part.

 

[Benedictus]

Well, that was the start of a good article. What would have made it a good article would be the inclusion of concrete examples, just like everyone’s high school English teacher used to say. Obviously, the author is incapable of writing at a high school level.

More proof that journalists are idiots.

 

[RyanL]

Your Link:

Then there were the various Catholic inquisitions against non-Christians. And the church has never really fully come clean about its action or inaction during the Holocaust.

1. Only baptized persons could be subject to the inquisition - that is the legal nature of it. Saying that it was aimed at non-Christians is fallacious.
2. The Church has fully disclosed her laudable conduct during the Holocaust. Recommended reading: The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, which was written by a Rabbi.

And the article is critical of people skewing history?!?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BryPGuy89]

Benedictus:

Well, that was the start of a good article. What would have made it a good article would be the inclusion of concrete examples, just like everyone’s high school English teacher used to say. Obviously, the author is incapable of writing at a high school level.

More proof that journalists are idiots.

There were several concrete examples. It made a point not a research paper. You know the difference between research and persuasive papers right? Plus if it is something seen and experienced everyday by students, parents, and faculty, then what would there be any need for excessive proof?

 

[dhgray]

History is determined by the writer. I’m sure the History of America would be completely different if written by ancersors of slaves.

 

[bones_IV]

Benedictus:

Well, that was the start of a good article. What would have made it a good article would be the inclusion of concrete examples, just like everyone’s high school English teacher used to say. Obviously, the author is incapable of writing at a high school level.

More proof that journalists are idiots.

Exactly, he told me that he himself is a Catholic and doesn’t intend “to be an apologist for the Church” was his excuse. Another example of a CINO Catholics in name only.

 

[edward_george]

Additionally, it was Hinduism and Confucianism, with government encouragement, that spawned caste systems in India and Japan, respectively.

Here’s another fallacy. While Japan’s culture was indeed heavily influenced by Confucianism, that philosophy does not teach a caste system. From Confucius himself:

“In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes.”
(Analects XV, 39)

Furthermore, A number of Japan’s warlords in feudal times converted to Christianity when the Dutch came to Japan. This article is yet another fine example of the lack of scholarship and abundance of bias found in our media today.

-ACEGC

 

[Benedictus]

BryPGuy89:

There were several concrete examples. It made a point not a research paper.

He mentioned different religious groups that had objected to one book or another, but he failed to provide any specifics about why they objected to the books.

He should have included an example like, “Jewish groups objected to (some book) because the book said that Jews eat Christian babies.”

 

[BryPGuy89]

Benedictus:

He mentioned different religious groups that had objected to one book or another, but he failed to provide any specifics about why they objected to the books.

He should have included an example like, “Jewish groups objected to (some book) because the book said that Jews eat Christian babies.”

Well may are aware that often some group or another has differing view on a issue or subject. The specific content of the specific incedents are unimportant. This is just like “under God” in the pledge of eligence, some groups (few of those groups), have a differing view on the pledge and its purpose, they have different reasons for not wanting that in the pledge.
Maybe I see the article differently than others, as I don’t feel any offense or need any proof, as I’m fully aware of this happening in several incedents.

 

[bones_IV]

Benedictus:

He mentioned different religious groups that had objected to one book or another, but he failed to provide any specifics about why they objected to the books.

He should have included an example like, “Jewish groups objected to (some book) because the book said that Jews eat Christian babies.”

And you know Benedictus, he told me in an email that he was a…get this…a history major! He says all these fallacious arguments and calls himself an historian.

 

[BryPGuy89]

bones_IV:

And you know Benedictus, he told me in an email that he was a…get this…a history major! He says all these fallacious arguments and calls himself an historian.

I still don’t see or comprehend what you have against this paper! Please explain to me what makes it so hillarious, I’m desparately confused now as people keep going on and critzising this article, yet I see nothing wrong or funny about it.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I read the article. It generalizes too much.
And what it says about the inquisition targeting non-Christians is just plain wrong.

Jaypeeto3

 

[Liberian]

BryPGuy89:

What? This is a true thing, no denying it. I don’t see anything about it that is wrong or what ever. I actually agree with it for the main part.

BryPGuy,

The author was doing well until he got to the line about “And the (Catholic) church has never really fully come clean about its action or inaction during the Holocaust.” I don’t know how much cleaner the Church can come. Any evidence the Church gives is ignored, and the slightest allegation of inaction is hailed as gospel truth. Sorry, he just lost his credibility with me right there.

• Liberian

 

[Lazerlike42]

BryPGuy89:

I still don’t see or comprehend what you have against this paper! Please explain to me what makes it so hillarious, I’m desparately confused now as people keep going on and critzising this article, yet I see nothing wrong or funny about it.

They think it is funny because there are historical inaccuracies in it that are frankly pretty obvious.

 

[Ghosty]

Jaypeeto3:

I read the article. It generalizes too much.
And what it says about the inquisition targeting non-Christians is just plain wrong.

Jaypeeto3

The Inquisition targeting non-Christians? Talk about total ignorance of history. The FIRST thing one should learn is that the Inquisition was an internal ecclesial/judicial exercise. He definately needs to do some work if he wants to be a historian, as I knew this fact when I was an atheist who hated the Church. I used it as an example of the Catholic persecution of fellow Christians; there’s nothing remotely remarkable about religious persecution of those not of your own Faith, after all. It’s kinda the human norm.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BryPGuy89]

Jaypeeto3:

I read the article. It generalizes too much.
And what it says about the inquisition targeting non-Christians is just plain wrong.

Jaypeeto3

Everyone knows it did target non-christians as well as christians. That is historical fact.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Liberian:

BryPGuy,

The author was doing well until he got to the line about “And the (Catholic) church has never really fully come clean about its action or inaction during the Holocaust.” I don’t know how much cleaner the Church can come. Any evidence the Church gives is ignored, and the slightest allegation of inaction is hailed as gospel truth. Sorry, he just lost his credibility with me right there.

• Liberian

There are certain instances that the Church has no comment on that is true, so I still fail to see the inaccuracies of this article.

 

[bones_IV]

BryPGuy89:

Everyone knows it did target non-christians as well as christians. That is historical fact.

proof please.

 

[EtienneGilson]

The Spanish Inquisition, however, properly begins with the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella. The Catholic faith was then endangered by pseudo converts from Judaism (Marranos) and Mohammedanism (Moriscos). On 1 November, 1478, Sixtus IV empowered the Catholic sovereigns to set up the Inquisition. The judges were to be at least forty years old, of unimpeachable reputation, distinguished for virtue and wisdom, masters of theology, or doctors or licentiates of canon law, and they must follow the usual ecclesiastical rules and regulations. On 17 September, 1480, Their Catholic Majesties appointed, at first for Seville, the two Dominicans Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin as inquisitors, with two of the secular clergy assistants. Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with, the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them. Fray Tomás Torquemada (b. at Valladolid In 1420, d. at Avila, 16 September, 1498) was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties (Paramo, II, tit. ii, c, iii, n. 9) Sixtus IV bestowed on Torquemada the office of grand inquisitor, the institution of which indicates a decided advance in the development of the Spanish Inquisition. Innocent VIII approved the act of his predecessor, and under date of 11 February, 1486, and 6 February, 1487, Torquemada was given dignity of grand inquisitor for the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc. The institution speedily ramified from Seville to Cordova, Jaen, Villareal, and Toledo, About 1538 there were nineteen courts, to which three were afterwards added in Spanish America (Mexico, Lima, and Cartagena). Attempts at introducing it into Italy failed, and the efforts to establish it in the Netherlands entailed disastrous consequences for the mother country. In Spain, however, it remained operative into the nineteenth century.** Originally called into being against secret Judaism and secret Islam, it served to repel Protestantism in the sixteenth century, but was unable to expel French Rationalism and immorality of the eighteenth.** King Joseph Bonaparte abrogated it in 1808, but it was reintroduced by Ferdinand VII in 1814 and approved by Pius VII on certain conditions, among others the abolition of torture. It was definitely abolished by the Revolution of 1820.

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm