so this is how you guys increase your post count?
so this is how you guys increase your post count?
^ By debating in a manner that insures that you have to invest at least some degree of thought and effort into what you write...yes, yes it is.
Post count? What the heck is that?
I like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends
[Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009
Did you even read my original post, or were you too busy being offended by it? I have continuously argued that the medieval catholic church was an even bigger scam than scientology. You have denied the obvious and acted all offended and huffy. How does that disprove anything that I claimed?Originally Posted by shautieh
Let me make this simple, is an Archbishop of higher rank than a Bishop? Yes he is. Is an Cardinal of higher rank than a Bishop? Again, yes. Is then the Pope higher in rank than all of them? Indeed he is. Now, do you understand what I'm getting at, or will you continue with your word games?Originally Posted by shautieh
You really have made denying the obvious into an art form. It was never just some who took advantage of the system, the system itself was organized so that it would naturally accumulate wealth and power.Originally Posted by shautieh
Or do you deny the fact that the renaissance popes hired entire bloody armies with their ill-gotten gains? Do you deny the fact that the middle age popes did all that they could to concentrate more power to the church? You already deny that tithes were collected, which is an utterly absurd attempt at historical revisionism, and I could go on and list even more examples of the church's excesses. It's almost as if an pattern emerges somewhere.
Every single one of those examples is about a modern nation you dolt.Originally Posted by shautieh
There is a fine line between mistakes caused by ignorance and deliberate deception. You're approaching that line fast.
Maybe you missed the second link that I posted. You know, this one. The one that has this to say.Originally Posted by shautieh
Originally Posted by Catholic EncyclopediaAs for the wiki reference, I already apologizeg that I used an unreliable source. That's why I dug up an accurate one later. The only reason why I posted a wiki link at all was because I wanted a fast way to enlighten a certain ignoramus who didn't even know about tithes.Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
So instead of even attempting to argue for your position, you try some snarky veiled insults. How predictable.Originally Posted by shautieh
Scientology seems to be more of a rich persons religion. Youve never seen a bum on the side of the street praising scientology, or a sign for the next scientology meeting in your local trailer park. So if you dont make more than say ..150k a year. Why worry about it? imo
\"If you stop to be kind, you must swerve often from your path\"-Mary Webb
Also, even if a part of the money collected was indeed misused (I never said the contrary, yet you say the same obvious things again and again), most of it was locally used for the local church and priest, along with the education of youngsters and the helping of the poor people.
All in all, you are saying the system was rotten simply because some of its key players were corrupted, as if every laws or public systems we have nowadays were wrong because some people take a great advantage of them. It is the people (and some parts of the system) who are to blame, not the whole system.
Now do I deny your 2 examples ? no. Then what ? you can search for any excesses you want for all I care.
"the "dîme" rarely reached this percentage and (on the whole) it was closer to 1/13th of the agricultural production." Note that there have not been a tithe for hundred of years in France, but maybe you think the 15 or 16 century is in modern days ?
Other things you could have read if your eyes were not full of shit (to be as polite as you are) :
- The tithe was abolished in Ireland in 1869
- The tithe was taken by the king in England in the 1530's
- The tithe was abolished in Spain in 1841.
=> That's some "modern" days we have here !!!!
Btw, you always (and I mean always) attack the other protagonists rather than what they say. Speak of a lame strategy.
Today is a lucky day for you as you will hopefully learn something (if you bother to read before enjoying the sound of your own voice again) :
- The tithe was received only from certain lands (you should know it already as you cited it yourself), and I found some FACTS (too bad they don't go the way you would have liked) :
* in the village of Oostkerke (France), the percentage of land subjected to the tithe was of 1.3%
* in Schorisse, 5%
And to be fair :
* in Zèle, 76%
* Ghoy, 70%
It's still far from your "everyone had to give X% from the fruit of their work" historical fallacy.
In fact, most land subjected to the tithe was owned by the Church or by nobles, NOT by poor peasants.
cf : http://www.flwi.ugent.be/btng-rbhc/p...%20049-065.pdf
As I already said, the percentage of the benefits was not constant either, and it was of only a fiftieth in Flanders, Dauphiné and Provence to name but a few, and up to a eighth in some lands in the South West of France.
I know it will be hard for you to understand that things are not that simple in the real life, but it's for your own good to finally understand that you shouldn't make stupid generalizations.
You will naturally provide evidence that this happened. I doubt you will find much of it considering that almost nobody gave a shit about the education of peasants during the middle ages.Originally Posted by shautieh
You really have a problem with reading comprehension. Or it might be that you're trying to distort my argument. Anyway, what I've argued is that the medieval catholic church was corrupt because its entire structure was set up so it accumulated enormous wealth to a small group of individuals who hadn't done anything to earn that money. It took money from the poor by exploiting their superstitions and religious beliefs, and didn't give anything in return, except for vague promises of paradise. It's the goddamn textbook definition of a scam, and it's the exact same thing that Scientology is doing today.Originally Posted by shautieh
And as for the "few rotten apples" argument, are all the other people who don't use the system for personal gain, but support those who do are without blame? The lower clergy supported the higher-ups and willingly let them profit from what they extorted from the poor. That makes them guilty of supporting a corrupt system. They don't have much higher moral ground just because they didn't benefit as much. The still fooled the people to pay up.
Bullshit. You crossed the line into attempted historical revisionism when you tried to argue that the tithe wasn't 1/10:th of income by using irrelevant documents.Originally Posted by shautieh
Jesus, you really are dense. I'm speaking of medieval times and you bring up that the tithe was abolished in place X in the 19th century. How is this even remotey relevant to the point?Originally Posted by shautieh
And for the record I'm only calling you dense because your arguments are irrelevant and absurd.
Again you attempt to nitpick my argument without understanding what it means. Also, you seem to have ignored the other excerpt that I posted, you know the one that clearly stated that tithes were in fact mandatory by ecclesiastical enactments.Originally Posted by shautieh
Maybe you should try posting your articles in a language I can read next time. However, from my limited knowledge of french, it seems as if your article as talking about the situation in the 18th century. In fact, all the numbered years I can see are in the 18th century.Originally Posted by shautieh
That settles it shautieh, you're a bald-faced liar. You may argue against my point, and I won't take insult, but when you try to pass off the situation in the 18th century as a rebuttal against my argument that deals with the middle ages, you've crossed the line.
If you want to continue the discussion I demand that you'll debate honestly from now on. Otherwise I won't waste my time trying to debate a liar.
As a matter of fact, most of the money collected was used locally and only a little part went to the higher ups (it is the multiplication of these little parts which made the Vatican rich).
Almost nobody gave a shit about the education of peasant during the middle ages, I concur. But what you seem to forget is that the remaining people were priests and monks, and they educated people. It is common knowledge that most of the education during the middle ages were provided by clergymen (Universities were created and rules by clergymen too).
Helping the poor people has always been one of the main purposes of the church too, now as well as in the Middle Ages.
Btw, if you revise a little your history about renaissance, you will see there were a lot of clergymen who tried to change things (and fact is, things changed soon enough).
And this is not a nitpick, words have their importance and if you continue changing the meaning of whole sentences so they comply with your preconceived views then there is no need to continue. . .
The other extract doesn't speak of how much lands were concerned, just that all Christian countries implemented a tithe related impost, so it doesn't have any interest.
This article demonstrate tithes were not generalized in the 18th century, and so there is more chance that it was also the case in the middle ages rather than the contrary. If you can prove otherwise, go ahead !
PS : there are translators on the net, in case you don't understand a language...
Since you don't seem willing to debate honestly, I won't waste my time any further. After all, it is fruitless to argue with the ignorant and dishonest. You are both.
Whatever rocks your boat !
I consider that I have put enough time searching for documents to not be considered dishonest, and I overcame my so called ignorance of the tithe, while you stayed true to your bullshit against all logical evidence (both yours and my sources proved you wrong).