Then we agree? -- Catholic Friends Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:08:02 02/16/08 Sat
Author: Joan
Author Host/IP: ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net / 68.0.253.131
Subject: Then we agree?
In reply to: Phil from AZ 's message, "Re: Revise History?" on 09:27:59 02/15/08 Fri

"Revised history takes new facts, based on scholarship, into acct. Of cse, I spt revising history if you have a new set of facts, based on docs, testimony and archeology."

We agree on revising history. Unfortunately, in your knee-jerk reaction to new (to you) facts on the inquisitions, you called that scholarship revisionist.

When people don't like what they're hearing, when it upsets their world view, they get a little cranky and defensive.

Historians are supposed to try, to the best of their ability, to be impartial. And you say you have a history degree. But you have such a bias against the Catholic Church, and your reaction to a statement that the inquisitions aren't what you thought they were was so strong, that you called it a revisionist idea!

You were calling the more unbiased historians' valid work revisionist, while you choose to hold on to an invalid set of "facts" that are known only from propaganist literature. (And there's been a lot of it!)

Remember, you're not the only one who hates the Catholic Church. You don't have a unique view because you used to be Catholic. Some of the most notorious anti-Catholics (and atheists for that matter) were former Catholics, disgruntled as you are. You're not the first to insist on calling lies about the CC truth, not by a long shot. They've been working at their literature for centuries.

I have some of the more recent pamphlets right here!

We all know that you can't beleive everything you read. But print a lie about the CC, and everyone is willing to believe. That actually says more about the reader than it does the writer.

Joan

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> For sale on eBay now. -- Joan, 04:24:26 02/16/08 Sat [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

http://www.novemberfire.com/shirtspopup/NFTpop231.gif

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]