Pope sends direct message to Ben

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The claim that Elizabeth executed many Catholics, including priests and laypeople thus earning herself a bull of excommunication is well attested. It is opposed by anti-Catholics primarily because they believe that excommunication is a joke and that anyone who gets excommunicated obviously was standing up to papal oppression. It's also quite easy to find this interpretation in histories throughout the period - written by English protestants hostile to Rome. It still doesn't change the evidence that yes, she did execute these martyrs.

So yes, your interpretation is supported by considerable literature. It's also subject to the same bias.

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

A claim for which I supplied a citation.

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

Are you taught that Elizabeth was a monster?

No, because it would be a stupid claim that is not supported by the evidence.

Were you taught about Thomas Percy and the Pilgrimage of Grace as well as the 40 martyrs? Be honest please.

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.

This is false. She received the papal bull of excommunication for her actions in executing Catholic priests and laypeople which had achieved such notoriety in her time as to warrant one. Again, revisionism.

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.

Rather, it was you who claimed that every execution of Elizabeth was warranted because they were rebels and traitors. I simply exposed the ludicriousness of this argument via reflection.

Do I believe that Mary's executions were warranted? No. Do I believe that she was milder and more moderate than Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth? Absolutely. Seldom do their totals include the Pilgrimage of Grace and other massive battles which rack up their counts much higher than for Mary. Yes, even under Edward.

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.

This is pure revisionism. Did she execute Mary, Queen of Scots who was her cousin and Heir apparent at the time? Yes. Full stop. The list of monarchs who killed their heir apparent is rather short and doesn't include Henry VIII.

You pointing fingers at 'lower level' learning is therefore pretty hilarious.

The short list of monarchs who killed their heir apparent is rather short. It includes Richard III whom, last I checked, you regarded as a despicable bastard.

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

The idea that there has been massive historical revision on behalf of the Tudors is well attested in the historical record. This includes Elizabeth as well as Henry.

is exactly the kind of Di Vinci Code nonsense that has made Dan Brown a very rich man.

I was skeptical myself. However, when confronted with the claims of the Pilgrimage of Grace and what actually occurred, I realized that the claims were actually correct. And once you start pulling on this thread, other stuff comes out. Again - I am not the only one who believes these things.

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.

I am not sure the effort is worth it. Are you willing to follow said evidence or will you simply renew your hatred of Catholicism?

[C0ckney]

A claim for which I supplied a citation.

a book review on a catholic website is not a citation. you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support any of your ridiculous claims and assertions.

[molly bloom]

All of the three. Would you consider a Catholic priest to be a 'neutral source'?

If he were a qualified historian, I'd read the book. Then I'd be able to tell if he'd written a biased account. You haven't read the book, so this is your pathetic attempt at covering up your ignorance of the period in question and this book in particular.

And don't assume you can read my mind, because you can't- I have several books by Antonia Fraser and Thomas Pakenham, as well as Irish Roman Catholics. I don't automatically assume that a published writer's religion or politics makes them unreliable.

In your case the bias is too obvious to hide.

Again - you'd never accept a book written on this topic by a Catholic priest as reliable.

Fortune telling again, and incorrect.

You're making assumptions and statements without any evidence to back them up.

So why should I accept a book written by a reverend?

Because he's a historian ? Because he's an expert on the subject ? Because he's written and had published other books on the subject ? Because liek other published authors his works are subjected to reviews and critiques by other experts in the field ?

Because you haven't shown any evidenc eof bias on his part- you've just assumed it ?


Because you have huge and obvious deficits in the areas of Tudor history and European and English history ?

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

So avoiding the issue again. You haven't read the texts or others by the authors in question, so you lie about me.

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

You mean like the Catholic Encyclopaedia ? I've already shown it doesn't agree with the figure you made up for executions of heretics in Mary Tudor's reign.


LOSER.

So - no, you'd never accept evidence from the Catholic church. Checkmate.

Oh dear- have you had some kind of psychotic break ?

Traumatic amnesia ?

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

No wonder you're yawning. I haven't used Wikipedia once. More lies. Even when you Google you get things wrong. One might have thought it would be difficult to confuse the author of a book with the person who was reviewing the book- but not for you, it seems.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE=Ben Kenobi;6270002]

Right. Nobody associates pretentiousness with you.

[/QUOTE ]

You mean unlike you- pretending to some in depth historical knowledge of periods and people you're clearly utterly ignorant of, because, as you've told us repeatedly, you have a 'history' degree ?

Damn that's still funny every time I think of it.

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

There's that psychotic break again.

Or is it from tippling communion wine ? Or huffing incense ?

I do concede that you never once showed any knowledge of what the term 'heir apparent' actually meant each time you misused it, even though you were corrected, more than once, and had the meaning explained to you in plain English.

As I said, good luck with English for beginners course.

[molly bloom]

Proof positive that Molly doesn't read.

Not at all. What you wrote:

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.

LOSER.

I know now that you were and are a fraud.

I used to feel some pity for you.

Now I think as all your intellectual deceit and self-deception is revealed, you richly and fully deserve all you get.

[kentonio]

The claim that Elizabeth executed many Catholics, including priests and laypeople thus earning herself a bull of excommunication is well attested. It is opposed by anti-Catholics primarily because they believe that excommunication is a joke and that anyone who gets excommunicated obviously was standing up to papal oppression. It's also quite easy to find this interpretation in histories throughout the period - written by English protestants hostile to Rome. It still doesn't change the evidence that yes, she did execute these martyrs.

This is a lie you've repeated several times now, and which is easily disproved by a simple timeline.

1569 - Revolt of the Northern Earls
1570 - Regnans in Excelsis excommunicating Elizabeth and ordering Catholics to oppose her rule as a matter of faith
1571 - Elizabeth's government issues anti-Catholic decrees
1571+ - Bulk of executions carried out against Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...4.E2.80.931547)

So yes, your interpretation is supported by considerable literature. It's also subject to the same bias.

Yeah sure, it's all just a conspiracy.

A claim for which I supplied a citation.

A citation to a work which was quickly demolished as utterly ridiculous. Proving quite clearly that citing works that are wildly unreliable is no sign of good study.

Are you taught that Elizabeth was a monster?

Stop repeating questions I've already answered please, we were not taught she was a monster, because that would have been patently untrue.

Were you taught about Thomas Percy and the Pilgrimage of Grace as well as the 40 martyrs? Be honest please.

At my school? No, because we didn't delve particularly deeply into the Elizabethan period. We also didn't learn about the Revolt of the Northern Earls either, or about Mary's mass burnings. Modern comprehensive schools spend a remarkably small amount of time focusing on past monarchs. That is usually left to people who choose to follow up their interests in history at a higher level or on their own time.

Which makes your idea of a mass revisionist program even more ridiculous.

This is false. She received the papal bull of excommunication for her actions in executing Catholic priests and laypeople which had achieved such notoriety in her time as to warrant one. Again, revisionism.

Stop telling lies. I've posted the timeline above. If you want to disprove it then supply a list of executions that occurred before 1569.

Rather, it was you who claimed that every execution of Elizabeth was warranted because they were rebels and traitors. I simply exposed the ludicriousness of this argument via reflection.

Do I believe that Mary's executions were warranted? No. Do I believe that she was milder and more moderate than Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth? Absolutely. Seldom do their totals include the Pilgrimage of Grace and other massive battles which rack up their counts much higher than for Mary. Yes, even under Edward.

The Pilgrimage of grace was a rebellion you idiot. Your dishonesty is astonishing.

This is pure revisionism. Did she execute Mary, Queen of Scots who was her cousin and Heir apparent at the time? Yes. Full stop. The list of monarchs who killed their heir apparent is rather short and doesn't include Henry VIII.

I think you need to learn what revisionism actually means. When the evidence is clearly against you (as it is here) that's just you being wrong, it's not revisionism.

The short list of monarchs who killed their heir apparent is rather short. It includes Richard III whom, last I checked, you regarded as a despicable bastard.

That's interesting, considering I don't recall ever expressing an opinion about Richard here of any kind. Please link to where this happened.

The idea that there has been massive historical revision on behalf of the Tudors is well attested in the historical record. This includes Elizabeth as well as Henry.

You and a few other crackpots making wild claims does not equal 'well attested'.

I was skeptical myself. However, when confronted with the claims of the Pilgrimage of Grace and what actually occurred, I realized that the claims were actually correct. And once you start pulling on this thread, other stuff comes out. Again - I am not the only one who believes these things.

No, there are indeed many crackpots in the world.

I am not sure the effort is worth it. Are you willing to follow said evidence or will you simply renew your hatred of Catholicism?

If you have evidence that can overcome the huge bodies of work that oppose you then produce it. Oh and stop with the contemptible 'You just hate Catholics' victim card crap, it's pathetic.

[molly bloom]

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.

As I've now pointed out more than once, and you're too STUPID clearly to comprehend, the book review in the Tablet was critical of a book about a Roman Catholic Pope.


The reviewer was Owen Chadwick, the author of the book which was highly critical of Pacelli, was John Cornwell.

But then, I know you haven't because that would involve effort.

Ah yes, your effort involved a Google search of Chadwick's name, getting the university where he was educated wrong, confusing him with the author of a book he was reviewing, and accusing him of bias merely because of his religion.


Your 'effort' did not involve reading the book in question and did not involve disputing the figures shown with well-supported figures of your own.


Hypocrite.


You really are unspeakably dim.

[Elok]

Ken, the next time you feel inclined to argue with BK, go yell at your dog for digging in the trash instead. The dog won't stop misbehaving any more than BK will, but it will at least pretend to be sorry, and generally act more personable. Also, the rest of us won't have to deal with it.

EDIT: Molly, you too.

[kentonio]

Ken, the next time you feel inclined to argue with BK, go yell at your dog for digging in the trash instead. The dog won't stop misbehaving any more than BK will, but it will at least pretend to be sorry, and generally act more personable. Also, the rest of us won't have to deal with it.

When it's history based it's useful to me, because it usually results in me digging into the research again which refreshes a lot of stuff for me.

Also, you can't really complain about Ben posts in a thread with Ben in the title.

[Ben Kenobi]

a book review on a catholic website is not a citation. you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support any of your ridiculous claims and assertions.

Again, I supplied a citation. That the citation is being dismissed off hand for being 'catholic', is simply evidence of bias. Why - if you are unable to accept Catholic evidence, should I accept evidence presented from COE reverends?

[molly bloom]

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

.

Your 'THESIS ' ?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh ahahahahah


Oh thanks for that. I laughed last night watching 'Kentucky Fried Movie', but that was even better.

Nobody associates pretentiousness with you.

And to think you had the gall to write that.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

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

No. I assume you are biased, because you provide clear indisputable evidence for this repeatedly.

You inflate and concoct figures for deaths attributed to Protestant Tudor rulers with long reigns yet repeatedly play down deaths attributable to the religious policy of Mary Tudor in her happily brief reign.

You deliberately confuse the figures for executions for treason (because of rebellion) and not heresy in Henry VIII's reign and Elizabeth I's reign with those meted out solely for heresy.

That's not history or lack of bias- it's propaganda. If you're not a Plantagenet claimant to the throne of England then we are forced to conclude the reason for this imbalance and bias is your repeatedly announced conversion to Roman Catholicism, and nothing else.