Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

why excluding foxe's book of martyrs?

For the same reason I'm excluding the source with 300 Catholic martyrs under Elizabeth.

mary i had around 280 protestants killed, for being protestants. that figure is accepted by everyone. most were burnt at the stake

And most accept that Elizabeth had 300+ Catholics executed, and many, many more in the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Rising in the North.

I see no reason to accept Foxe's book and to reject Catholic martyrologies.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't know if anyone else here has played rook, you probably shouldn't be using it as an example.

I thought the principle easy enough to follow - trump always wins over anything not trump.

[rah]

If you don't know if anyone else here has played rook, you probably shouldn't be using it as an example.

[C0ckney]

Only 31 that we know the names of (not counting Foxe's book) were executed under Mary. That's it. Elizabeth killed more Catholics in just the Rising of the North, and Edward killed more in the prayer book rebellion. In terms of bloodthirstiness, she was the least among the Tudors.

why excluding foxe's book of martyrs? is it not a proper source? unlike say, a book review on a catholic website.

mary i had around 280 protestants killed, for being protestants. that figure is accepted by everyone. most were burnt at the stake.

[Ben Kenobi]

even mean?

Last time I played bridge a 7 no trump contract means there is no trump ace. But I guess since I don't have a bridge degree, my knowledge about the game is insufficient. Have you ever even played bridge?

I've played Rook. I don't know if anyone else here has played that. In rook, 7 NT is a 7 of whatever suit that is not trump. They don't use a standard deck or standard suits -they have a special deck for Rook.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're arguing in his favour for the same reason you always argue this stuff, because he was a Catholic.

How does this change the legitimacy of James Francis Edward Stuart, as the king's son? It is in fact just the opposite. He was excluded under the Act of Settlement, barring catholics from the throne. Soon this will be repealed.

It's exactly the same reason you defend Mary I who was a bloodthirsty psychopath

Only 31 that we know the names of (not counting Foxe's book) were executed under Mary. That's it. Elizabeth killed more Catholics in just the Rising of the North, and Edward killed more in the prayer book rebellion. In terms of bloodthirstiness, she was the least among the Tudors.

Elizabeth, a far gentler woman who avoided using violence whenever she could help it.

Elizabeth killed 42 named Catholic nobles, more than Mary, fwiw.

You preach about morality right up until the point where it's inconvenient to you, and then it doesn't matter any more as long as the person in question happens to have been on your religious side. It's pretty pathetic.

My argument has never been, "Mary I was a ruler others should emulate". My argument has been that Elizabeth's reputation has been whitewashed. She did nothing different from Mary.

[rah]

and ben, what the heck does

7 No trump loses to the trump ace everytime.

even mean?

Last time I played bridge a 7 no trump contract means there is no trump ace. But I guess since I don't have a bridge degree, my knowledge about the game is insufficient. Have you ever even played bridge?

[kentonio]

You're arguing in his favour for the same reason you always argue this stuff, because he was a Catholic. It's exactly the same reason you defend Mary I who was a bloodthirsty psychopath who had hundreds of people burned to death, while attacking Elizabeth, a far gentler woman who avoided using violence whenever she could help it.

You preach about morality right up until the point where it's inconvenient to you, and then it doesn't matter any more as long as the person in question happens to have been on your religious side. It's pretty pathetic.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not his argument.

So his argument is the equally, but differently stupid one that Catholicism bases it's moral tenets on people and not principles? Yeah, James VII/II was a sinner. Don't see how that makes him less a legitimate King.

Here's a hint. I'm not arguing that James VII/II was a saint. I'm arguing he was the legitimate king. This is no different from arguing that a is not b.

[MikeH]

I'm not quite sure what more there is to say.

"James VII/II was a fornicator"
"Henry VIII had 6 wives"

I mean, it's just literally a dumb argument. There's no argument you can make from Roman Catholicism that affirms Henry and declaims James VII/II. Logicallly, someone could argue that James VII/II, while bad was better, or that neither one was fit.

That is a dumb argument.

That's not his argument.

[giblets]

The arguments no one makes outside of your imagination are usually pretty dumb, yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

You literally don't understand anything anyone writes do you.

I'm not quite sure what more there is to say.

"James VII/II was a fornicator"
"Henry VIII had 6 wives"

I mean, it's just literally a dumb argument. There's no argument you can make from Roman Catholicism that affirms Henry and declaims James VII/II. Logicallly, someone could argue that James VII/II, while bad was better, or that neither one was fit.

[kentonio]

Just found a really interesting quote attributed to James..

suppose... there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, it would be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarrel with other men for being of different opinions as for being of different complexions."

What a strange quote for a man who led the Royal African Company before becoming King, and whose initials were branded on the chests of many of the slaves shipped to the new world.

[kentonio]

He's going off the rails recently, he used to just be dishonest but now he seems to be unable to hold a train of thought for longer than a sentence or two.

[MikeH]

You literally don't understand anything anyone writes do you.