Pope sends direct message to Ben

[kentonio]

The problem is that my thesis contradicts what you've been taught, which is why you and him are both attacking me relentlessly.

We're attacking you relentlessly because your 'thesis' is not supported by the vast body of historical work on the subject. You're making wild claims which are not supported by fact, and claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-Catholic.

Why? Both you and Molly automatically assume bias because of Catholicism.

No, I only assume bias when a Catholic makes ridiculous unsupported claims such as 'Henry VIII executed 75,000 people'.

There has been historical revisionism going on since Henry's time. Again, like I said it's part of the national epic of what England is and how she sees herself - with the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth - why England is protestant, etc. The truth is rather different.

So we are taught that Henry was a monster and this shows revisionism against Catholics? Does this even make any sense to you?

Were you taught that Elizabeth was a callous bloodthirsty monster?

No, because it would be a stupid claim that is not supported by the evidence. Most of us are however adult enough to recognize that by the standards of today, every monarch in that period could be described as pretty unpleasant. By the standards of her time however she was extremely moderate, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.

You managed to completely undermine any credibility you might have had however when you tried to claim that Mary, a woman who carried out a reign of terror that claimed the lives of hundreds of people in just a few short and bloody years was somehow innocent of any wrongdoing. You made your extreme bias completely clear.

The fact that you're so quick to defend Elizabeth indicates that what she did including executing her own cousin is either not taught or taught in such a light and with such a spin as to cast Elizabeth as the hero. This, again, is not surprising. Most history classes, especially at the lower level will teach this. The reality is quite different.

Elizabeth was a reasonable women who despite being put under extreme pressure from her own government still could not bring herself to order the death of a close relative. Her quotes from the time make this absolutely clear. When she eventually did, it was because she felt she had no choice remaining. The fact it took 18 years shows exactly how eager she was to have the execution carried out.

You have shown exactly zero evidence to contradict any of this, all you've done is repeat 'But she killed her cousin, she was a kinslayer!!' endlessly. You pointing fingers at 'lower level' learning is therefore pretty hilarious.

That is what makes sense to me. I was not always a Christian - and far from understanding the issues believed that I was neutral and unbiased. It took a long time for me to uncover, that this was, in fact, a lie, and most certainly not true. I had been taught things a particular way not because it was unbiased, but because a particular bias was reinforced.

I see the same bias in you and molly as I had in myself, although you and molly are far more hostile and entrenched. The essential historical theses are the same though.

The idea that there is a huge conspiracy to distort the historical record and that you are one of the few who are clever enough to see through it is exactly the kind of Di Vinci Code nonsense that has made Dan Brown a very rich man. If you want to overturn the vast quantities of evidence we have about the period, then the onus is firmly on you to provide compelling evidence to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

I take the effort to listen when Molly talks about history, because he knows an awful lot and I learn some interesting facts that way. If something really catches my interest, I then go away and read up on it, to find out more, check sources etc. You should consider trying it for once, instead of assuming that a degree level education makes you the undisputed master of several millenia of human history.

The problem is that my thesis contradicts what you've been taught, which is why you and him are both attacking me relentlessly.

Incidentally, automatically assuming 'bias' because the author is protestant is pretty daft.

Why? Both you and Molly automatically assume bias because of Catholicism.

Most religious people are not still fighting the religious wars of the 16th century in their heads, that is mostly just you.

Yes, and quotes like these demonstrate your atheist bias.

The honest thing to do is read the material, compare it to other sources and only start questioning bias if there is a clear picture of revisionism building.

There has been historical revisionism going on since Henry's time. Again, like I said it's part of the national epic of what England is and how she sees herself - with the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth - why England is protestant, etc. The truth is rather different.

England was, and for most of it's history, considered one of the most Catholic places on earth. Much of the issues with the papacy stem from the captivity period in Avignon, not from Rome.

Contrary to what you seem to assume, there is no campaign over here to whitewash over the atrocities committed by the protestant Kings and Queens of the past. At school I was taught that Henry was a callous, bloodthirsty monster (which itself is a pretty one sided and bias portrait).

Were you taught that Elizabeth was a callous bloodthirsty monster?

That's why it sounds hilarious when you accuse us of some deep bias against Catholicism, as if anyone here really cares personally about which church did what five centuries ago.

The fact that you're so quick to defend Elizabeth indicates that what she did including executing her own cousin is either not taught or taught in such a light and with such a spin as to cast Elizabeth as the hero. This, again, is not surprising. Most history classes, especially at the lower level will teach this. The reality is quite different.

Well that and the fact that both myself and Molly are atheists not Anglicans.

Molly's thesis stands and falls on Reverends of the COE. Surely, you can see why this is problematic from a bias point of view. You yourself argue that the Catholic church has whitewashed things - so why should you treat the COE any different?

That is what makes sense to me. I was not always a Christian - and far from understanding the issues believed that I was neutral and unbiased. It took a long time for me to uncover, that this was, in fact, a lie, and most certainly not true. I had been taught things a particular way not because it was unbiased, but because a particular bias was reinforced.

I see the same bias in you and molly as I had in myself, although you and molly are far more hostile and entrenched. The essential historical theses are the same though.

[kentonio]

Perhaps you should read the tablet article if you think that Molly's sources are 'unbiased'. But then, I know you haven't because that would involve effort.

I take the effort to listen when Molly talks about history, because he knows an awful lot and I learn some interesting facts that way. If something really catches my interest, I then go away and read up on it, to find out more, check sources etc. You should consider trying it for once, instead of assuming that a degree level education makes you the undisputed master of several millenia of human history.

Incidentally, automatically assuming 'bias' because the author is protestant is pretty daft. Most religious people are not still fighting the religious wars of the 16th century in their heads, that is mostly just you. The honest thing to do is read the material, compare it to other sources and only start questioning bias if there is a clear picture of revisionism building.

Contrary to what you seem to assume, there is no campaign over here to whitewash over the atrocities committed by the protestant Kings and Queens of the past. At school I was taught that Henry was a callous, bloodthirsty monster (which itself is a pretty one sided and bias portrait). That's why it sounds hilarious when you accuse us of some deep bias against Catholicism, as if anyone here really cares personally about which church did what five centuries ago.

Well that and the fact that both myself and Molly are atheists not Anglicans.

[Ben Kenobi]

How many times does Molly need to hand your ass to you before you just burn your cereal packet 'history degree' and stop making yourself look like a tit Ben?

Perhaps you should read the tablet article if you think that Molly's sources are 'unbiased'. But then, I know you haven't because that would involve effort.

[kentonio]

How many times does Molly need to hand your ass to you before you just burn your cereal packet 'history degree' and stop making yourself look like a tit Ben?

[Ben Kenobi]

So instead of addressing his writing, his sources, or any of the facts listed, you think it MUST be biased because of his WIFE'S political views ?

Proof positive that Molly doesn't read.

What a sad pathetic loser you are.

I know now that you were and are a fraud.

[Ben Kenobi]

What issue ? Reviewing a book on a Catholic Pope, the Reformation, or the reign of Mary Tudor ? Be specific.

All of the three. Would you consider a Catholic priest to be a 'neutral source'? No. Find one.

Show, rather than assume, that he is unreliable.

Again - you'd never accept a book written on this topic by a Catholic priest as reliable. So why should I accept a book written by a reverend? Ain't gonna happen. Find a reliable source without massive bias.

don't assume, bias on the part of the writers I've quoted

Coming from you who can't type out the word Catholic church without inserting some reference to pedophilia, this is a laugh!

Your primary or secondary sources ?

Well, then I'm sure you can find someone who isn't a reverend to preach this screed!

Give proof you know the meaning of 'to cite'

AHAHAHAHA.

So - no, you'd never accept evidence from the Catholic church. Checkmate. I ain't accepting anything from a reverend, unless you're willing to accept documentation from the Catholic church.

It doesn't mean simply repeating the title of one of the Acts of Supremacy all the while being unaware of the existence of 2 separate Acts of Supremacy, one in Henry VIII's reign, one in Elizabeth I's reign.

Yawn. Why do you always presuppose that after you finally checked wikipedia that I'm unaware of my own arguments?

Gotta love your inadvertently self-harming attempts at put-downs.

Right. Nobody associates pretentiousness with you.

Oh and then there's the term 'heir apparent' which you consistently showed you did not understand.

Right. So you're conceding the point that Mary Queen of Scots was Heir apparent to the English throne?

[molly bloom]

What facts? Both were educated at Oxford - an Anglican institution, and both were reverends.

Dash it all but you're dim. Chadwick was educated at St. John's College CAMBRIDGE.

However, they are extremely hostile sources to Catholicism in general.

'They' who ?

History professors ?

Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge ?

People who know more about history than you do ?

Anglicans ?

Ex-Anglicans ?

I couldn't rely on them for any factual statements because of persistant and concrete bias.

Translated: I didn't find time to read them while driving the pizza van.

Are you willing to permit Catholic martyrologies as neutral sources?

Just as soon as show, and don't assume, bias on the part of the writers I've quoted. Since you couldn't distinguish one from the author of the book he was reviewing, I may be in for a long wait.

[molly bloom]

Seriously, wouldn't it be easier to just admit to a meaningless error than to practically invent a whole mythology attempting to justify it?

Oh please. He said William III Orange was 'king of the Dutch'. He wasn't- he was a Prince (of Orange, which is in France) until he was crowned King of England. The Dutch were still a Republic.

Poor Sister Bendy then blamed Dutch history, the Dutch, and a supposed unwillingness to be a 'real' republic for his repeated errors and lack of knowledge of Dutch history.

In the supposed 'facts' he listed to support his argument, he simply increased his quota of errors.

It was great fun.

[molly bloom]

He's a reverend of the COE.

And ?

That makes him a ridiculously hostile source on this issue.

What issue ? Reviewing a book on a Catholic Pope, the Reformation, or the reign of Mary Tudor ? Be specific.

Find a reliable secondary source.

Show, rather than assume, that he is unreliable. His primary sources include Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Tudor State papers, the sessions of the Council Of Trent and secondary sources include a study of the Capuchins by Father Cuthbert, of the Jesuits by H. Boehmer, the history of the early Jesuits by J Brodrick et cetera.

Your primary or secondary sources ?


Your arse.

He wins.

Are you going to permit citations of Catholic priest martyrologies as neutral?

Give proof you know the meaning of 'to cite' . It doesn't mean simply repeating the title of one of the Acts of Supremacy all the while being unaware of the existence of 2 separate Acts of Supremacy, one in Henry VIII's reign, one in Elizabeth I's reign.

English books? I'm surprised you weren't reading Old Latin.

Gotta love your inadvertently self-harming attempts at put-downs.

You're the one after all who confuses 'rulers' with its singular form 'ruler' and then confuses that with 'royal'. A royal may be a ruler, but is unlikely to be rulers, even with a multiple personality. A ruler does not have to be royal.

Oh and then there's the term 'heir apparent' which you consistently showed you did not understand. Two words, so perhaps that was added difficulty.

Good luck with that English for Beginners course. Get someone like Colon or Oncle Boris to help you.

[molly bloom]

From your pal here, CSL. Odd that, he's arguing the same thing I am. Henry stressed continuity.

Oh gosh, Wiki doesn't say anything about him - but it has his wife.

Socialist, Trotskyite. Was too red for Labor!

Yet another widely unbiased source on Catholicism, indeed.

So instead of addressing his writing, his sources, or any of the facts listed, you think it MUST be biased because of his WIFE'S political views ?

What a sad pathetic loser you are.

[molly bloom]

Which explains the Act of Supremacy outlawing the Olde Mass - his execution of priests, the dissolution of the monasteries and the fact that England went without a Catholic bishop for nearly 300 years?
'.

You said, and I quote

Perhaps if Henry hadn't tried to execute all the Catholics -

Exactly how does all the guff you listed 'prove' that Henry VIII tried to 'execute all Catholics' ?

Oh that's right, it doesn't. Which Babylonish dialect are you using, 'cos it sure ain't Standard Modern English ?

Are you suggesting you were taught just as much about Edward as Henry?

No.

You've boasted about your tolerant open-mindedness.

Where was that ? I've simply listed places of worship of different faiths that I've visited- thankfully I had an ecumenically minded Roman Catholic infant-junior school- we attended a mosque, a gurdwara, a synagogue and a Hindu temple, and a Methodist church, now that I come to think of it.

Have you taken your turn in a parish of Our Lady of Walsingham?

Is there some pressing reason for me to do so ? I've been to the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and Westminster Cathedral. They're both buildings associated with the Roman Catholic faith in case you weren't aware.

Have you dropped something in the collection bin?

What's it to you ? My donations to charity and my labour for charities are usually my own affair and not something I feel the need to air in public. I thought that was the whole point of real charity- you give what you can, when you can.

41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living

That's from Mark, by the way.

I noticed a conspicuous absence in your most enlightened universality.

Absence of what ? Since I was brought up a Roman Catholic and have made no secret of this, I hardly need to mention visiting Roman Catholic churches or cathedrals. That's a given.

It has become the collective fantasy of this age that one can hate Catholicism, but not any other religion and call themselves 'diverse'.

Blah blah blah. More pompous sh!tstains on your degree.

[molly bloom]

I'm sorry Molly. They were all revolutionaries.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Should I remind you, sorry, tell you, of the difference between the punishment for rebellion and the punishment for heresy in England, since you clearly don't know ?

In London, the dreadful consequences of the rebellion were soon all too evident.

On 14 February, 45 rebels were hanged; more suffered at Southwark the next day. Soon afterwards 30 more were marched to Kent to be dispatched there as an example to the people, although some were pardoned before they arrived. In all, more than 100 people were executed.

The Queen gave orders that their bodies were to be displayed on gibbets at every street corner, and before long the Londoners were averting their eyes from the ghastly spectacles and holding their breath to avoid the stench of rotting corpses. Above the city gates severed heads and dismembered limbs hung gruesomely.

from 'Much Suspected Of Me' in Alison Weir's 'The Children Of England'.

The Queen and rebellion in question ? Roman Catholic Mary Tudor and Wyatt's Rebellion.


The punishment for rebellion, which was seen as treason and a sin against god as well as an offence against the state and monarch, was meant to be deliberately humiliating- the humiliation being mostly aimed at those who were not nobles of course. Hanging, drawing and quartering, with the genitals also being cut off in some cases. There was a certain delicacy displayed in the cases of women found to be rebels or traitors- public decency would not permit their breasts or 'privy parts' to be shown, so they were usually burned.

[giblets]

Ben has a reputation to uphold...

[-Jrabbit]

I understood your initial "trump" post perfectly -- a little fractured context, but your point was obvious enough.

It was when you started claiming it was a Rook reference that I knew you were back to being a lying b1tch.

Seriously, wouldn't it be easier to just admit to a meaningless error than to practically invent a whole mythology attempting to justify it?