Does Islam promote violence?

[SassyIrishLass]

The Nazis were huge on slogans. You may as well give up, I've studied WWII and the Nazi party for years. The party was paramount and they used any means necessary to promote the party

very true---------so? I did not suggest that adolf was THE POPE -----or a saint or even "an anointed ruler" but he was certainly not a buddhist

He was insane....but crazy like a fox

the very best of the psychiatrists------(Austrian, german and even French) got together in a "GRAND ROUNDS" exercise to diagnose him "NOT INSANE"---
severe "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

I don't know about that, I do know he's better off dead

Magda adored him, even while in church ----all dressed up in her white
lace veil thing on her head-----looking like an ANGEL

Millions adored him...towards the end that number dropped off significantly

 

[irosie91]

very true---------so? I did not suggest that adolf was THE POPE -----or a saint or even "an anointed ruler" but he was certainly not a buddhist

He was insane....but crazy like a fox

the very best of the psychiatrists------(Austrian, german and even French) got together in a "GRAND ROUNDS" exercise to diagnose him "NOT INSANE"---
severe "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

I don't know about that, I do know he's better off dead

Magda adored him, even while in church ----all dressed up in her white
lace veil thing on her head-----looking like an ANGEL

Millions adored him...towards the end that number dropped off significantly

well------the biggest factor was "liking adolf" became ---kinda----out of fashion

 

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 54975
A typical "Modern Day" Christian. How soon they forget.

You'd be wise to study history, Hitler left the Church and the Nazis considered the party their religion. Party first over all things

Many of the institutional Christian churches operating in Germany supported the Nazi Party and Hitler, lgs.

Well duh, oppose them and you died. Stop bothering me with your elementary BS

Now you are backtracking. They supported Hitler and the Nazi Party.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

He was insane....but crazy like a fox

the very best of the psychiatrists------(Austrian, german and even French) got together in a "GRAND ROUNDS" exercise to diagnose him "NOT INSANE"---
severe "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

I don't know about that, I do know he's better off dead

Magda adored him, even while in church ----all dressed up in her white
lace veil thing on her head-----looking like an ANGEL

Millions adored him...towards the end that number dropped off significantly

well------the biggest factor was "liking adolf" became ---kinda----out of fashion

That happens when your entire country has been bombed to oblivion, starvation is rampant, The Rooskies are killing and raping everything in sight and the Allies are steam rolling across the countryside. In hindsight they probably thought electing him wasn't such a grand idea. Then when the concentration camp horrors came to light they knew it wasn't such a grand idea

 

[irosie91]

Learn some history------Torquemada was a product of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE-------Mother Teresa was a product of a very reformed version of the catholic church.

The Holy Roman Empire was largely a German and Austrian creature. By the age of Torquemada's inquisition, it was often called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Holy Roman Empire had actually lost many of its Italian holdings in this same era with the Vatican fighting and largely winning practical autonomy from the Empire before the inquisition.

While Spain would eventually come into the orbit of the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't until Torquemada was long dead (Isabella's grandson was actually Holy Roman Emperor). And Spain never became territorial part of the Empire.

The inquisition was the product of the Spanish response to reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors. It was used to purge the Moorish influence, shore up the authority of the 'Catholic Monarchs' of Isabella and Ferdinand, and to ensure orthodoxy among converted Jews and Muslims. It has next to nothing to do with the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Not only are you wrong, your entire point is moot. As the same Bible was used to justify both the Spanish Inquisition and the soup kitchens of Mother Terasa. The difference.....was the interpretation and motive. With the religion interpreted to match the agendas and beliefs of the individuals interpreting it.

Which is my entire point.

Islamic violence is-----in accordance with Islamic ideology----no doubt a
kind of syncresis of theological thought BROUGHT to arabia by persons interested in the SILK ROAD and the indigenous population and culture of arabia. That syncretic ideology follows wherever islam "went" Throat slitting of "non-believers" was introduced to south east asia thru Islamic ideology

The natives of Peru, the Caribbean, Mexico and central America weren't met with snuggles and unicorn kisses from Christianity either. With Christian doctrine adapted to justify the actions taken there.

Which again, demonstrates my point.

You are very confused-------you seem to be focusing on the fact that what had been
the HOLY ROMAN empire including the Iberian Penninsula------eventually became
focused MORE on the AUSTRIAN HUNGARIAN EMPIRE-----but actually STILL included---not only the Iberian Peninsula but even the British Isles and France.

No, it didn't. This was the Holy Roman Empire:

It was also called the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' for a reason. As it was overwhelmingly Germanic and Czech. It didn't include Spain. And I defy you to show us a single credible source that indicates as much.

Worse, you're wrong twice. Those closest that Spain ever came to being part of the Holy Roman empire was under Emperor Charles V.....the grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand. He was king of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor. But Spain still wasn't part of the HRE. They simply had the same sovereign during his reign. And Charles V wasn't even born until years after Torquemada was already dead.

Meaning that your time line doesn't work, even by the most wildly accommodating interpretations of the HRE . And your history is off.

Torquemada's actions had virtually nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Empire'. And everything to do with enforcing orthodox Catholicism in the recently reconquered Iberian peninsula.

And again, its moot. As even your inaccurate scenario proves my point: Religion being interpreted to commit violence by those who want to commit violence.

SPAIN did not invent the INQUISITION. It was a machination of rome----and
the POPE. Isabella was simply a big ENTHUSIAST, Pious lady that she was
she facilitated its increasingly barbaric manifestations -----that's all--------sorta like
in manner of an HYSTERICALLY RELIGIOUS slut.

A devoutly religious woman who interpreted her religion to justify violence.

Again, proving my point perfectly.

You have demonstrated the fact that you are slightly befuddled--South America
was HARD HIT by the SPANISH interpretation of the beauty of the INQUISITION-
but the inquisition itself was OF ROME although ROME itself never did it so GOOD as did Spain

The Spanish Catholic interpretation of the Catholic Inquisition, authorized by the Catholic Church?

You do realize you just proved my point a third time, right?

you made no point at all--------you presented false information.

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

YOUR interpretation----CONSTANTINE was not the emperor of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" Your jumped centuries. I cannot interpret your map---

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?
CANON LAW remained largely unchanged from the crap that Constantine invented and later was compiled by his grandson JUSTIN------the legal code
that was the BASIS FOR THE INQUISITION.

 

[irosie91]

the very best of the psychiatrists------(Austrian, german and even French) got together in a "GRAND ROUNDS" exercise to diagnose him "NOT INSANE"---
severe "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

I don't know about that, I do know he's better off dead

Magda adored him, even while in church ----all dressed up in her white
lace veil thing on her head-----looking like an ANGEL

Millions adored him...towards the end that number dropped off significantly

well------the biggest factor was "liking adolf" became ---kinda----out of fashion

That happens when your entire country has been bombed to oblivion, starvation is rampant, The Rooskies are killing and raping everything in sight and the Allies are steam rolling across the countryside. In hindsight they probably thought electing him wasn't such a grand idea. Then when the concentration camp horrors came to light they knew it wasn't such a grand idea

true------the love affair was over

 

[Skylar]

The Holy Roman Empire was largely a German and Austrian creature. By the age of Torquemada's inquisition, it was often called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Holy Roman Empire had actually lost many of its Italian holdings in this same era with the Vatican fighting and largely winning practical autonomy from the Empire before the inquisition.

While Spain would eventually come into the orbit of the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't until Torquemada was long dead (Isabella's grandson was actually Holy Roman Emperor). And Spain never became territorial part of the Empire.

The inquisition was the product of the Spanish response to reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors. It was used to purge the Moorish influence, shore up the authority of the 'Catholic Monarchs' of Isabella and Ferdinand, and to ensure orthodoxy among converted Jews and Muslims. It has next to nothing to do with the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Not only are you wrong, your entire point is moot. As the same Bible was used to justify both the Spanish Inquisition and the soup kitchens of Mother Terasa. The difference.....was the interpretation and motive. With the religion interpreted to match the agendas and beliefs of the individuals interpreting it.

Which is my entire point.


The natives of Peru, the Caribbean, Mexico and central America weren't met with snuggles and unicorn kisses from Christianity either. With Christian doctrine adapted to justify the actions taken there.

Which again, demonstrates my point.

You are very confused-------you seem to be focusing on the fact that what had been
the HOLY ROMAN empire including the Iberian Penninsula------eventually became
focused MORE on the AUSTRIAN HUNGARIAN EMPIRE-----but actually STILL included---not only the Iberian Peninsula but even the British Isles and France.

No, it didn't. This was the Holy Roman Empire:

It was also called the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' for a reason. As it was overwhelmingly Germanic and Czech. It didn't include Spain. And I defy you to show us a single credible source that indicates as much.

Worse, you're wrong twice. Those closest that Spain ever came to being part of the Holy Roman empire was under Emperor Charles V.....the grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand. He was king of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor. But Spain still wasn't part of the HRE. They simply had the same sovereign during his reign. And Charles V wasn't even born until years after Torquemada was already dead.

Meaning that your time line doesn't work, even by the most wildly accommodating interpretations of the HRE . And your history is off.

Torquemada's actions had virtually nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Empire'. And everything to do with enforcing orthodox Catholicism in the recently reconquered Iberian peninsula.

And again, its moot. As even your inaccurate scenario proves my point: Religion being interpreted to commit violence by those who want to commit violence.

SPAIN did not invent the INQUISITION. It was a machination of rome----and
the POPE. Isabella was simply a big ENTHUSIAST, Pious lady that she was
she facilitated its increasingly barbaric manifestations -----that's all--------sorta like
in manner of an HYSTERICALLY RELIGIOUS slut.

A devoutly religious woman who interpreted her religion to justify violence.

Again, proving my point perfectly.

You have demonstrated the fact that you are slightly befuddled--South America
was HARD HIT by the SPANISH interpretation of the beauty of the INQUISITION-
but the inquisition itself was OF ROME although ROME itself never did it so GOOD as did Spain

The Spanish Catholic interpretation of the Catholic Inquisition, authorized by the Catholic Church?

You do realize you just proved my point a third time, right?

you made no point at all--------you presented false information.

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

YOUR interpretation----CONSTANTINE was not the emperor of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" Your jumped centuries. I cannot interpret your map---

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[irosie91]

You are very confused-------you seem to be focusing on the fact that what had been
the HOLY ROMAN empire including the Iberian Penninsula------eventually became
focused MORE on the AUSTRIAN HUNGARIAN EMPIRE-----but actually STILL included---not only the Iberian Peninsula but even the British Isles and France.

No, it didn't. This was the Holy Roman Empire:

It was also called the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' for a reason. As it was overwhelmingly Germanic and Czech. It didn't include Spain. And I defy you to show us a single credible source that indicates as much.

Worse, you're wrong twice. Those closest that Spain ever came to being part of the Holy Roman empire was under Emperor Charles V.....the grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand. He was king of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor. But Spain still wasn't part of the HRE. They simply had the same sovereign during his reign. And Charles V wasn't even born until years after Torquemada was already dead.

Meaning that your time line doesn't work, even by the most wildly accommodating interpretations of the HRE . And your history is off.

Torquemada's actions had virtually nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Empire'. And everything to do with enforcing orthodox Catholicism in the recently reconquered Iberian peninsula.

And again, its moot. As even your inaccurate scenario proves my point: Religion being interpreted to commit violence by those who want to commit violence.

SPAIN did not invent the INQUISITION. It was a machination of rome----and
the POPE. Isabella was simply a big ENTHUSIAST, Pious lady that she was
she facilitated its increasingly barbaric manifestations -----that's all--------sorta like
in manner of an HYSTERICALLY RELIGIOUS slut.

A devoutly religious woman who interpreted her religion to justify violence.

Again, proving my point perfectly.

You have demonstrated the fact that you are slightly befuddled--South America
was HARD HIT by the SPANISH interpretation of the beauty of the INQUISITION-
but the inquisition itself was OF ROME although ROME itself never did it so GOOD as did Spain

The Spanish Catholic interpretation of the Catholic Inquisition, authorized by the Catholic Church?

You do realize you just proved my point a third time, right?

you made no point at all--------you presented false information.

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

YOUR interpretation----CONSTANTINE was not the emperor of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" Your jumped centuries. I cannot interpret your map---

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"
You played semantics------that which had been the ROMAN EMPIRE----
catholic-------got enlarged and became called ---because of CHARLEMAGNE---
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. All of the CATHOLIC COUNTRIES-------
became were headed and suffered a kind of control by THE POPE ----- was
a defacto EMPIRE. All of the countries which were "catholic countries"
were afflicted by the INQUISITION ----as determined to be by just by CANON LAW -----with some local modification and variable application----but generally the
same crap----Spain did the inquisition in the classical style-----as Constantine
would have liked

 

[Skylar]

No, it didn't. This was the Holy Roman Empire:

It was also called the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' for a reason. As it was overwhelmingly Germanic and Czech. It didn't include Spain. And I defy you to show us a single credible source that indicates as much.

Worse, you're wrong twice. Those closest that Spain ever came to being part of the Holy Roman empire was under Emperor Charles V.....the grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand. He was king of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor. But Spain still wasn't part of the HRE. They simply had the same sovereign during his reign. And Charles V wasn't even born until years after Torquemada was already dead.

Meaning that your time line doesn't work, even by the most wildly accommodating interpretations of the HRE . And your history is off.

Torquemada's actions had virtually nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Empire'. And everything to do with enforcing orthodox Catholicism in the recently reconquered Iberian peninsula.

And again, its moot. As even your inaccurate scenario proves my point: Religion being interpreted to commit violence by those who want to commit violence.

A devoutly religious woman who interpreted her religion to justify violence.

Again, proving my point perfectly.

The Spanish Catholic interpretation of the Catholic Inquisition, authorized by the Catholic Church?

You do realize you just proved my point a third time, right?

you made no point at all--------you presented false information.

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

YOUR interpretation----CONSTANTINE was not the emperor of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" Your jumped centuries. I cannot interpret your map---

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

 

[irosie91]

you made no point at all--------you presented false information.

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

YOUR interpretation----CONSTANTINE was not the emperor of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE" Your jumped centuries. I cannot interpret your map---

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

you said nothing all over again ------you are relying on SEMANTICS--------
My issue is the control by the CATHOLIC CHURCH HEADED BY ROME----
and the POPE-----the person who defined the INQUISITION wherever it was
imposed. That COMBO-----the catholic countries and rome-----was an EMPIRE.
You want to confine the EMPIRE to that which Charlemagne wanted to
control?

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing yourself. You've presented nothing but you typing to back anything you've said. You can't even logically establish a connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire. As both Spain and the Vatican were autonomous of the HRE during the inquisition.

And the only plausible argument you can make for the inclusion of Spain into the HRE didn't occur until about half a century AFTER Torquemada was already dead. And even then you'd be wrong. Spain was not part of the HRE.

You'd need a Delorean or a blue police box to make your argument work be even the most generous interpretations of the Holy Roman Empire.

And of course, your entire argument is moot. Is you're arguing what I'm arguing: Religion being intepreted to meet the beliefs and motives of the people interpreting it.

Of course he wasn't. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until the 700s. By Charlemagne. Constantine was a Roman emperor....about 400 years earlier. You're literally off by centuries. But hey, both of their names started with a C.

I can't stress this point enough, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

you said nothing all over again ------you are relying on SEMANTICS--------

I'm relying on history. You're simply wrong.

Your claims of the territory of the Holy Roman Empire are meaningless gibberish. Spain was never part of it. Your claims on Constantine being an emperor in the Holy Roman Empire are gibberish. The HRE didn't form until almost 500 years after his death. Your claims that the HRE had a thing to do with Torquemada or the Spanish Inquisition are gibberish.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As your source clearly sucks.

 

[irosie91]

you are doing playing with SEMANTICS they "renamed" the CATHOLIC EMPIRE headed by the POPE IN ROME------here and there. Is that better?

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

you said nothing all over again ------you are relying on SEMANTICS--------

I'm relying on history. You're simply wrong.

Your claims of the territory of the Holy Roman Empire are meaningless gibberish. Spain was never part of it. Your claims on Constantine being an emperor in the Holy Roman Empire are gibberish. The HRE didn't form until almost 500 years after his death. Your claims that the HRE had a thing to do with Torquemada or the Spanish Inquisition are gibberish.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As your source clearly sucks.

ok------do your thing-----insist that ROME had nothing to do with the Inquisition----
based on defintions of ROMAN EMPIRE ----vs HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ---
vs QUEEN OF SPAIN -----vs ----KING OF FRANCE ----you are---actually arguing based entirely on the FORMAL DESIGNATIONS of this or that
pre reformation, pre-schism medieval monarch

 

[Skylar]

And by 'semantics', you mean you mixing up Constantine and Charlemagne?

Sorry, Rosie....but you've never been able to back up any of your claims for a reason: you don't know what you're talking about.

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

you said nothing all over again ------you are relying on SEMANTICS--------

I'm relying on history. You're simply wrong.

Your claims of the territory of the Holy Roman Empire are meaningless gibberish. Spain was never part of it. Your claims on Constantine being an emperor in the Holy Roman Empire are gibberish. The HRE didn't form until almost 500 years after his death. Your claims that the HRE had a thing to do with Torquemada or the Spanish Inquisition are gibberish.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As your source clearly sucks.

ok------do your thing-----insist that ROME had nothing to do with the Inquisition----
based on defintions of ROMAN EMPIRE ----vs HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ---
vs QUEEN OF SPAIN -----vs ----KING OF FRANCE ----you are---actually arguing based entirely on the FORMAL DESIGNATIONS of this or that
pre reformation, pre-schism medieval monarch

I never said that Rome had nothing to do with the inquisition. I said the Holy Roman Empire didn't. The HRE was overwhelmingly Germanic. It was called the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" by the time of the inquisition for a reason. And in the last 1400s, the Holy Roman Empire and the Vatican weren't the same thing. The latter was autonomous of the former. Both officially and practically.

Again, Rosie....you're clueless. You don't know what the Holy Roman Empire was. You don't know when it started. You don't know who its emperors were. You don't know what it did. You don't know its territory. Your entire argument is just you making shit up.

And being laughably, comically wrong.

Spain wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire started about 500 years AFTER Constantine. And the HRE had next to nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition.

Try again. As you citing you has proven to be worse than useless.

 

[irosie91]

no I am not "mixing up Charlemagne and Constantine" I am describing
the empire which was the CATHOLIC EMPIRE as determined to be so by
the EMPEROR OF ROME_-------Constantine---- and which included all countries
in which CATHOLICISM was the state religion. Charlemagne just confirmed the idea by INSISTING that his rulership
over an ENLARGED "roman empire" be confirmed and recognized by THE POPE-------so that it got kinda RENAMED "THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't founded until about 780. Its first emperor was Charlemagne. Not Constantine.

This isn't 'semantics'. This is history. You are literally making your nonsense up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even demonstrate that Spain was even part of the Holy Roman Empire. Let alone that Torquemada and the inquisition were caused by it.

Worse, you're only proving my point with your entire nonsense narrative, describing in detail exactly what I've argued from the beginning: people interpreting religions to justify the violence they already want to commit.

you said nothing all over again ------you are relying on SEMANTICS--------

I'm relying on history. You're simply wrong.

Your claims of the territory of the Holy Roman Empire are meaningless gibberish. Spain was never part of it. Your claims on Constantine being an emperor in the Holy Roman Empire are gibberish. The HRE didn't form until almost 500 years after his death. Your claims that the HRE had a thing to do with Torquemada or the Spanish Inquisition are gibberish.

You don't know what you're talking about. Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As your source clearly sucks.

ok------do your thing-----insist that ROME had nothing to do with the Inquisition----
based on defintions of ROMAN EMPIRE ----vs HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ---
vs QUEEN OF SPAIN -----vs ----KING OF FRANCE ----you are---actually arguing based entirely on the FORMAL DESIGNATIONS of this or that
pre reformation, pre-schism medieval monarch

I never said that Rome had nothing to do with the inquisition. I said the Holy Roman Empire didn't. The HRE was overwhelmingly Germanic. It was called the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" by the time of the inquisition for a reason. And in the last 1400s, the Holy Roman Empire and the Vatican weren't the same thing. The latter was autonomous of the former. Both officially and practically.

Again, Rosie....you're clueless. You don't know what the Holy Roman Empire was. You don't know when it started. You don't know who its emperors were. You don't know what it did. You don't know its territory. Your entire argument is just you making shit up.

And being laughably, comically wrong.

Spain wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire started about 500 years AFTER Constantine. And the HRE had next to nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition.

Try again. As you citing you has proven to be worse than useless.

you are still playing semantics--------would you prefer IT WAS A ROMAN CATHOLIC THING? the canon law was the same ----canon law included the
details necessary to legalize the INQUISITION and it included the details
that later constituted the NUREMBURG CODE. It included that ethos brought
to south America and legalized the genocide of native americans there. Emperor Franz Josef was----------your HAPSBURG EMPEROR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE same crap it all started with CONSTANTINE ----his name was
EMPEROR OF ROME----before it got "holy" but still proceded in accordance
with CANON LAW

 

[Igrok_]

Yes it does. Since middle ages muslim fanatics attack christian countries..

 

[frigidweirdo]

A guy who knows what he's talking about. If you want to make sense of what's going on, watch this video.

Does Islam promote violence? No, Islam is a religion, it's the people who promote violence. Some parts of Islam are violent, he explains that Buddhists in Nepal are going around slaughtering people, does Buddhism promote violence then?

I'd add that there are more Muslims now who are committing acts of violence in response to what the US has been doing, especially over the last 12 years.

The terrorist have twisted the Koran and their religion to say whatever they want it to say and be whatever they want it to be.

Religion per se don't promote violence but if you have ever read the bible its full of violence as is the Koran.

I agree its a matter of interpertation. If you want to hurt people, you'll find justification for it in your religion. Mother Teresa and Tomas de Torquemada used the same Bible. So we might be looking in the wrong place. Is this a product of Islam? Or a product of Arab culture. Or a product of what's happening n the regions that generate such extremists?

Or a none of the above.

It's a product of all of the above. Libtards want to debate degrees of nuance. I want to kill our enemies. Allez!

You make enemies, then you have an excuse for killing enemies.

You aren't much different from ISIS then?

 

[NoNukes]

A guy who knows what he's talking about. If you want to make sense of what's going on, watch this video.

Does Islam promote violence? No, Islam is a religion, it's the people who promote violence. Some parts of Islam are violent, he explains that Buddhists in Nepal are going around slaughtering people, does Buddhism promote violence then?

I'd add that there are more Muslims now who are committing acts of violence in response to what the US has been doing, especially over the last 12 years.

Revisionist bullshit
It has been violent since its inception. It was BUILT on violence.
Muslims have been doing this shit since it started. Especially to themselves.
BTW, concerning Buddhists : "kings of righteousness".

So has Christianity. So what?

Violence is a HUMAN trait. Just because there has been violence among people who are Muslims since their first day, doesn't mean Islam is inherently violent.

Christians invaded Iraq and fucked up the post war period. Did Christians go and condemn this en masse?

You are a goddamn fool if you try and compare any religion to Islam, present day. Christianity "grew up". The barbaric ME'ers haven't.
Islam is violent, period. You are also a goddamn fool if you deny the OBVIOUS. Violence is ALL OVER their "holy" book. Those people that are violent are just following their book. Maybe one day they will start cherry picking like Christianity did.

Look at the Christian President who invaded Iraq.

Iraq was a holy war you fuckin moron?

Anyone who sees it as anything other than the huge mistake that it was is the fuckin moron. HOLY WAR???? Holy shit, it was Bush trying to prove something to his daddy. And his daddy thought that he was an idiot to do it, so it was a total failure.

 

[ninja007]

A guy who knows what he's talking about. If you want to make sense of what's going on, watch this video.

Does Islam promote violence? No, Islam is a religion, it's the people who promote violence. Some parts of Islam are violent, he explains that Buddhists in Nepal are going around slaughtering people, does Buddhism promote violence then?

I'd add that there are more Muslims now who are committing acts of violence in response to what the US has been doing, especially over the last 12 years.

The Quran's Verses of Violence

 

[TNHarley]

Revisionist bullshit
It has been violent since its inception. It was BUILT on violence.
Muslims have been doing this shit since it started. Especially to themselves.
BTW, concerning Buddhists : "kings of righteousness".

So has Christianity. So what?

Violence is a HUMAN trait. Just because there has been violence among people who are Muslims since their first day, doesn't mean Islam is inherently violent.

Christians invaded Iraq and fucked up the post war period. Did Christians go and condemn this en masse?

You are a goddamn fool if you try and compare any religion to Islam, present day. Christianity "grew up". The barbaric ME'ers haven't.
Islam is violent, period. You are also a goddamn fool if you deny the OBVIOUS. Violence is ALL OVER their "holy" book. Those people that are violent are just following their book. Maybe one day they will start cherry picking like Christianity did.

Look at the Christian President who invaded Iraq.

Iraq was a holy war you fuckin moron?

Anyone who sees it as anything other than the huge mistake that it was is the fuckin moron. HOLY WAR???? Holy shit, it was Bush trying to prove something to his daddy. And his daddy thought that he was an idiot to do it, so it was a total failure.

It was a QUESTION. You compare a "holy war" to something that had nothing to do with religion. It was a pathetic analogy

 

[frigidweirdo]

A guy who knows what he's talking about. If you want to make sense of what's going on, watch this video.

Does Islam promote violence? No, Islam is a religion, it's the people who promote violence. Some parts of Islam are violent, he explains that Buddhists in Nepal are going around slaughtering people, does Buddhism promote violence then?

I'd add that there are more Muslims now who are committing acts of violence in response to what the US has been doing, especially over the last 12 years.

The Quran's Verses of Violence

The French national anthem. Do you not think that this promotes violence?



La Marseillaise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French lyrics English translation
Allons enfants de la Patrie, Arise, children of the Fatherland,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! The day of glory has arrived!
Contre nous de la tyrannie, Against us tyranny's
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis) Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes Do you hear, in the countryside,
Mugir ces féroces soldats ? The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras They're coming right into your arms
Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes ! To cut the throats of your sons, your women!

Aux armes, citoyens, To arms, citizens,
Formez vos bataillons, Form your battalions,
Marchons, marchons ! Let's march, let's march!
Qu'un sang impur Let an impure blood
Abreuve nos sillons ! (bis) Water our furrows! (Repeat)

Que veut cette horde d'esclaves, What does this horde of slaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés ? Of traitors and conspiratorial kings want?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves, For whom are these vile chains,
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ? (bis) These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Français, pour nous, ah ! quel outrage Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter ! What fury it must arouse!
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer It is us they dare plan
De rendre à l'antique esclavage ! To return to the old slavery!

Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...

Quoi ! des cohortes étrangères What! Foreign cohorts
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers ! Would make the law in our homes!
Quoi ! Ces phalanges mercenaires What! These mercenary phalanxes
Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers ! (bis) Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Grand Dieu! Par des mains enchaînées Great God! By chained hands
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient Our brows would yield under the yoke
De vils despotes deviendraient Vile despots would have themselves
Les maîtres de nos destinées ! The masters of our destinies!

Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...

Tremblez, tyrans et vous perfides Tremble, tyrants and you traitors
L'opprobre de tous les partis, The shame of all parties,
Tremblez ! vos projets parricides Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
Vont enfin recevoir leurs prix ! (bis) Will finally receive their reward! (repeat)
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre, Everyone is a soldier to combat you
S'ils tombent, nos jeunes héros, If they fall, our young heroes,
La terre en produit de nouveaux, The earth will produce new ones,
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre ! Ready to fight against you!

Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...

Français, en guerriers magnanimes, Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Portez ou retenez vos coups ! Bear or hold back your blows!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes, Spare those sorry victims,
À regret s'armant contre nous. (bis) Who arm against us with regret. (repeat)
Mais ces despotes sanguinaires, But not these bloodthirsty despots,
Mais ces complices de Bouillé, These accomplices of Bouillé,
Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié, All these tigers who, mercilessly,
Déchirent le sein de leur mère ! Rip their mother's breast!

Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...

Amour sacré de la Patrie, Sacred love of the Fatherland,
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs Lead, support our avenging arms
Liberté, Liberté chérie, Liberty, cherished Liberty,
Combats avec tes défenseurs ! (bis) Fight with thy defenders! (repeat)
Sous nos drapeaux que la victoire Under our flags, may victory
Accoure à tes mâles accents, Hurry to thy manly accents,
Que tes ennemis expirants May thy expiring enemies,
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire ! See thy triumph and our glory!

Aux armes, citoyens... 'To arms, citizens...

(Couplet des enfants) (Children's Verse)
Nous entrerons dans la carrière[12] We shall enter the (military) career
Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus, When our elders are no longer there,
Nous y trouverons leur poussière There we shall find their dust
Et la trace de leurs vertus (bis) And the trace of their virtues (repeat)
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre Much less keen to survive them
Que de partager leur cercueil, Than to share their coffins,
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil We shall have the sublime pride
De les venger ou de les suivre Of avenging or following them

Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...