Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Savageduck on 7 Apr 2010 14:40 On 2010-04-07 11:23:18 -0700, Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> said: > On Apr 6, 9:08�pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-06 20:08:15 -0700, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> said: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 4/6/2010 4:16 PM, tony cooper wrote: >>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:30:46 GMT, Winniethep...(a)100acrewoods.org >>>> (GMAN) wrote: >> >>>>>> Hello, in my country Easter is almost a national holiday, because >>>>>> Catholicism is part of the culture of my country. �When I can, I t > ry to take >>>>>> photos in old temple in the historic center of Lima, but now I had t > hought >>>>>> of moving to another matter. >> >>>>> Its a part of the culture of your country due to the fact that centur > ies ago, >>>>> your beloved catholic church threatened and did burn or kill thousand > s upon >>>>> thousands of people who refused to be forced to convert. >> >>>> Much like, say, the Roundheads? �The Crusaders? �The Nazis? �The >>>> followers of Cotton Mather? >> >>>> What is your culture, and is it free of historical actions of a >>>> similar nature? >> >>> I want to know who these "thousands upon thousands of people who >>> refused to be forced to convert". >> >> Time for a little history. >> >> I would start with the Eighty Years War with the Dutch vs. The Spanish >> & The Habsburgs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War >> >> Moving on to the European Wars of Religion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E > uropean_wars_of_religion >> >> Then try the Huguenots and their little dispute with the Catholic French. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot >> >> ...and what was that other thing? Oh yes! The Inquisition.http://en.wikip > edia.org/wiki/Inquisition >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Actually, there seems to be a referential slip here. The conversion > under consideration originally is from something other than Christian > to Christian. What you cited is intra Christian conversion and had as > much to do with the politics of the rising nation state concept as > religion. For examples of forced conversion you can go back further > to at least 9th Century and the beginning of the Crusades in Christian > history. However, much of that conversion focus was due to a > millenial perspective of the lay people making up the first Crusade. > This was a different perspective than the Churche's non-official, but > more to the point view that it was a chance to heal the Great Scnism > between the Orthodox Church of the Bysantine Empire and the Catholic > Church that held the Western region of the Roman Empire. Military aid > had been requested by the Bysantine Emporor to help against the > Turkomans with the very clear implication that this would ease a > repair of the Schism. However, it was literally sold to the populace > as a Holy Mission to reclaim Jeruselam. Through the period of the > various Crusades, you can strip away much of the trappings and look to > the economics of Empire and personal power for the dynamics. > > For a purer example of forced conversion, maybe even a pure example, > you can look to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492 by Ferdinand and > Isabella and the following expulsion of the Muslims in 1498. > > In the New World, after the devestation of the native population by > disease, estimated to be as high as 90%, there was a focused effort at > conversion of the indidenous people by the Spanish because of > Ferdinand's undoubted relisiousity, but the main and driving focus of > subjugating the population was to provide a work force. Forced > conversion under pain of death wasn't policy per se because: > > 1. The economics of replacing the workforce with imported slaves > mitigated against killing as a policy - you don't kill who you need. > > 2. The existing religion didn't present any threat to Christianity > per se and, as pagans never previously exposed to the 'truth' of the > Christian message they were to be converted because they were not at > fault and had not rejected the Church's message. This was the role of > the Jesuits. > > Like a lot of history, the wrappings, whether it is a flag, a religion > or something else, isn't really the package it contains. > > As far as the Inquisition goes, it was never their job to force > conversion. Their role was to root out 'heresy', which is why > professed Jews and Muslims never came under their jurisdiction. > Heresy can only be a crime within the context of and by a member of a > church. Jews and Muslims couldn't commit heresy. Where they did come > into play re conversions was, in the case of the Spanish Inquisition, > was with the Conversos, which were the Jews (and similarly, though not > nearly with the same zeal, the Muslim converts). Having converted to > Christianity rather than be killed or leave the country, they were now > subject to the Inquisition, > > There were also two Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition which was > truly an arm of King Ferdinand's policies and who specifically request > from Rome the permission to create it and which was not even close to > Papal control and the separate Papal Inquisition. Neither nice > organizations, but under the rubric 'the Inquisition' the most common > association is with the practices of the Spanish Inquisition. > > The story is more complex than a Wikipedia cite. > > Vance All you have added is true. I would point out that regardless of the Calvinist/Lutheran vs. Catholic conflicts being Christian vs. Christian issues, there were fundamental economic and geo-political issues driving all of those conflicts. Also one can never take Wikipedia as the final word on any issue, however in their broad discussion of the "Inquisition" they do outline the role of the Spanish Inquisition in dealing with the Sephardic Jews. Many of them fled to Portugal and were subject to persecution there under the Portuguese Inquisition. They also have a more detailed outline of Torquemada's roll with the Spanish Inquisition on his Wikipedia page. For the most part you are correct in that the Inquisition was mostly there to deal with heretics. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: mmyvusenet on 7 Apr 2010 14:52 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> escribi� en el mensaje de noticias:Qryy8ZUgXMvLFA$h(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <fodpr55fbd76cisisqsj8sch1cuoqho185(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>It's almost impossible, though, to accurately estimate the number of >>people involved in abuse. In the parish we* have belonged to for >>almost 30 years, there has been one known case of a priest involved in >>pedophilia. He was transferred in from another parish, and >>transferred back out in less than a year. > > That is ONE to many.. Notice that he was " He was transferred in from > another parish, and transferred back out in less than a year." > > Notice he was NOT Defrocked and handed over to the authorities. The > Catholic Church protecting Pedophiles again. > > Tony did you assist the Police in bringing a prosecution or help the > Pedophile go somewhere else to abuse other children? As you say:- > >>In my book, if you have knowledge - or even well-founded suspicion - >>of illicit acts and don't take action, you are just as involved as the >>person who commits the acts. > > I agree. This is where the 25% comes from. The actual number of abusers > (prior to the revelations of the last two years) was around 10% or three > times the general population. > >>*I was a lapsed Catholic when we moved to Florida, but my wife isn't >>lapsed. If it was my choice, we wouldn't have joined any parish. > > So why did you join? Faith is individual That may sound very nice, but that is not according to the Bible: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." (Hebrews 10:25, King James Version) And finally a true Christian must follow the Word of God. -- MMYV http://www.mmyv.com
From: tony cooper on 7 Apr 2010 15:58 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:50:24 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <fodpr55fbd76cisisqsj8sch1cuoqho185(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>It's almost impossible, though, to accurately estimate the number of >>people involved in abuse. In the parish we* have belonged to for >>almost 30 years, there has been one known case of a priest involved in >>pedophilia. He was transferred in from another parish, and >>transferred back out in less than a year. > >That is ONE to many.. Notice that he was " He was transferred in from >another parish, and transferred back out in less than a year." > >Notice he was NOT Defrocked and handed over to the authorities. The >Catholic Church protecting Pedophiles again. What did you think my point was? Are you so dense that you didn't understand that this was exactly my point in determining who might be "involved"? >Tony did you assist the Police in bringing a prosecution or help the >Pedophile go somewhere else to abuse other children? As you say:- > >>In my book, if you have knowledge - or even well-founded suspicion - >>of illicit acts and don't take action, you are just as involved as the >>person who commits the acts. I had no knowledge whatsoever. I don't attend church. My children attended the parish grade school, but the priest was not connected with the school. No priests were on the school's staff. My son was not an altar boy, and - knowing my son's interest in religion - he probably didn't even know the names of any of the priests. I learned about the priest's behavior years after he left the parish. From the newspaper. During the investigation of charges brought against him in another parish it was brought out that he was attached to this parish at one time. I don't even know if any members of this parish were abused. > >I agree. This is where the 25% comes from. The actual number of abusers >(prior to the revelations of the last two years) was around 10% or three >times the general population. The 25% figure was pulled from thin air. > >>*I was a lapsed Catholic when we moved to Florida, but my wife isn't >>lapsed. If it was my choice, we wouldn't have joined any parish. > >So why did you join? Faith is individual You and your wife do not have >ot be the same religion. Your ignorance is stunning. Joining the parish isn't like the mumbo-jumbo secret rites of becoming a Mason. There's no secret handshake, lapel pins, gaudy rings, or funny hats to wear. You don't make vows or promises. You simply fill out a form with name, address, and telephone number. That's it. That puts you on the church rolls and they send you a batch of envelopes each month so you can put money in them and drop them in the collection plate. You can be on the parish roll without ever attending mass. If you want to be married in the church, you must be a member of the parish. At the time we moved here, my daughter was 8 years-old. With some thought that she might want to get married a few years down the road, we joined the parish. Also, we wanted the children to attend the Catholic grade school. Again, you have to be a member of the parish to send children to the school. (Actually, you don't *have* to, but openings go first to parishioners.) All of the teachers in the grade school except one nun from Malta who taught math were lay persons. The principal was a nun, but the current principal is a lay person. The school's academic program was, at the time, superior to the local public school. ("Public" in the US sense: government). >Most of the Catholics I know are lapsed or semi lapsed or sort of >practising... It seems a religion of hypocrites. I'd have to research this further, but aren't all British subjects automatically members of the Anglican Church? The official religion of England is the Church of England (Anglican). There is no official religion of the US. The British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The American president has no automatic position in any denomination. "Lapsed" simply means "non-practicing but baptized in the faith". There's no hypocrisy involved. You just don't practice a faith in which you were baptized before you were old enough to make your own decisions. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 7 Apr 2010 16:25 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:34:19 GMT, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote: >>BTW, the word "Catholic", in this context is capitalized as a proper >>noun. To write "catholic" is a sign of ignorance of the language and >>not an indication of approval or disapproval of the religion. >> >Because you say so? Maybe some of us don't feel they deserve any respect. > If you are so inarticulate that you can't convey your lack of respect any other way, then continue to parade your lack of literacy. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: GMAN on 7 Apr 2010 16:34
In article <s9qpr5hjtvt43i463o3iladv2aj31hmoh6(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:34:19 GMT, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org >(GMAN) wrote: > >>>BTW, the word "Catholic", in this context is capitalized as a proper >>>noun. To write "catholic" is a sign of ignorance of the language and >>>not an indication of approval or disapproval of the religion. >>> >>Because you say so? Maybe some of us don't feel they deserve any respect. >> >If you are so inarticulate that you can't convey your lack of respect >any other way, then continue to parade your lack of literacy. > So you are telling me that I must respect the Catholic church because otherwise it makes me less of a person than you? |