It takes a particular arrogance and foolishness to somehow impute blame on someone in the 16th century for the actions of someone 400 years earlier. I might just as easily attach blame to you for Spanish atrocities in the New World.
Geoff Flight General Manager Sustainable Resources Industry Training Pty Ltd -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Araoz Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 9:25 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] On christian mythology On 08/11/10 18:39, geoff wrote: > Your history needs some reworking... crusades???? > > Really? All right, let's help dumb but profound Geoff with a little bit of history. Crusades took place in the 11th., 12th and 13th centuries. Whereas protestantism was born in the 16th century (Luther (or is it Lex Luthor?), Calvin (Klein?), Zwingli, Cranmer, Knox, etc.), so it follows that the blood spilling due to the crusades is attachable to both Roman Catholics and Protestants as they had not chosen separate paths yet. BTW, considering arguments exposed here by Minimus and Geoff we might say both are protestants considering they seem to follow sola fide and sola scriptura, whilst Eurico OTOH is probably Roman Catholic. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Ricardo Aráoz > Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2010 3:47 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] On christian mythology > > On 08/11/2010 08:40 a.m., geoff wrote: > >> I'll take one word of the Bible over 1000 theologians. And the so-called >> 'mother church' has so much blood on it that its message has zero >> credibility unless it is backed up by Scripture. I choose once more to >> > take > >> the actual WORDS of the bible over centuries of opinions of theologians >> > who > >> read the words and totally missed the message. The underlying message is >> > so > >> rich and so simple that even the dumbest can understand it, yet so >> > profound > >> that many well-educated totally miss it. >> > So you must be a protestant. Now I see. Of course, protestantism has no > blood on it's hands... well, they were part of the church when the > crusades, so they have *that* blood on them.... oh and they have killed > in the name of their beliefs, so they have *that* blood on them.... And > they have burned witches, so they have *that* blood on them... and.... > well, can't see the difference. > > BTW, are you actually saying you are dumb but profound? LOL > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
