Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 240 of 240
  1. #231
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    so this is how you guys increase your post count?

  2. #232
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    ^ 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.

  3. #233
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,417

    Default

    Post count? What the heck is that?


    I'd 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

  4. #234
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    As shown, yours was incorrect. Changing the problematic later on just proved you recognized you were wrong, yet were too conceited to say it.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Archbishops and Cardinals are bishops, the firsts of certain towns, the seconds especially chosen by the Pope... then what ?
    The Pope is the bishop of Rome btw.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Let me rephrase my point with simple words so you can understand : Some took advantage of the system. Your point overgeneralizes the problem to a stupid point, and I am not supporting it.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    You are being quite cocky for someone who don't even read the text he uses. Read the rest for extensive examples about how much you are wrong.
    Every single one of those examples is about a modern nation you dolt.

    There is a fine line between mistakes caused by ignorance and deliberate deception. You're approaching that line fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Oversimplification ? It's what you have been doing for 3 posts without any proofs except a wiki page you don't even read because it contradicts your biaised view !
    I only used your "fact" source btw, so you will excuse me
    Maybe you missed the second link that I posted. You know, this one. The one that has this to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
    The payment of tithes was adopted from the Old Law, and early writers speak of it as a divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience. The earliest positive legislation on the subject seems to be contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the canons of the Council of Maçon in 585. In course of time, we find the payment of tithes made obligatory by ecclesiastical enactments in all the countries of christendom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
    As regards the civil power, the Christian Roman emperors granted the right to churches of retaining a portion of the produce of certain lands, but the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiasticaltithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne, at the end of the eighth century.
    As 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    We see what we are willing to see, but aren't you trying to impose your ideology on others too ? Think about it
    So instead of even attempting to argue for your position, you try some snarky veiled insults. How predictable.

  5. #235
    pimpinez4u2 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hanging out with Dwight in Old Town
    Posts
    19

    Default

    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

  6. #236
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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?
    And I disproved the fact that the tithe was perceived on all lands, and was equal to 10% of the land production. By definition a scam is made by assembling truths and wrongs, and trying to make it as if the whole is a fact, and thus what you argued can be considered to be a scam itself.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    I denied what ? I asked for proofs, nuance. And forgetting about a middle age tax has nothing in common with historical revisionism ! You on the contrary are trying to revise what happened as shown in my previous posts and again farther down.
    Now do I deny your 2 examples ? no. Then what ? you can search for any excesses you want for all I care.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Every single one of those examples is about a modern nation you dolt.
    You are back to insults I see... But, for the 3rd time, learn to read before saying bullshits.
    "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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Maybe you missed the second link that I posted. You know, this one. The one that has this to say.

    Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
    As regards the civil power, the Christian Roman emperors granted the right to churches of retaining a portion of the produce of certain lands, but the earliest instance of the enforcement of the payment of ecclesiasticaltithes by civil law is to be found in the capitularies of Charlemagne, at the end of the eighth century.
    a portion of certain land, right. This means that not all lands were subjected to this impost, and that the percentage wasn't necessarily constant (10 as you previously argued).

    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.

  7. #237
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh View Post
    And I disproved the fact that the tithe was perceived on all lands, and was equal to 10% of the land production. By definition a scam is made by assembling truths and wrongs, and trying to make it as if the whole is a fact, and thus what you argued can be considered to be a scam itself.
    A scam means that you swindle money from someone. Also, you haven't disproved jack, mainly because you don't seem to grasp the concept of time. More on this later.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    I denied what ? I asked for proofs, nuance. And forgetting about a middle age tax has nothing in common with historical revisionism ! You on the contrary are trying to revise what happened as shown in my previous posts and again farther down.
    Now do I deny your 2 examples ? no. Then what ? you can search for any excesses you want for all I care.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    You are back to insults I see... But, for the 3rd time, learn to read before saying bullshits.
    "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.
    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?

    And for the record I'm only calling you dense because your arguments are irrelevant and absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    a portion of certain land, right. This means that not all lands were subjected to this impost, and that the percentage wasn't necessarily constant (10 as you previously argued).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    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.
    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.

    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.

  8. #238
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    You were the one who reminded me about this impost, and you don't know its first purpose was to maintain Churches, build new ones, allow the priests and monks to survive, help the poor and build new schools ?
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    The system was not bad in itself, as the money that went up till the higher ups was supposed to be redistributed and to pay for the several NORMAL expenses of the church. What was wrong is that some corrupted people took the money for themselves.
    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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    So you have a low moral ground because you follow the rules of your country ? Should we all become anarchists just because some politicians are corrupted ? This is absolute bullshit !


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    Every documents show that it wasn't 10%, even the 2 sources you used. You are the one being blind here, and it is not because the word originally came from 10 that it was in practice 10 percents. Facts are, it wasn't, and calling every sources out there irrelevant is no more than an easy excuse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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?
    You wrongly said that every point on the wiki page was about modern nations, I proved it was not by saying most modern nations have abolished tithing centuries ago (I can post older dates if you want but there is no point). You are being really dense for not understanding that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.
    You don't understand "certain land" and "a portion of the produce" ? Come on, I know you are not retarded !
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    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.

    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.
    Calling me a liar because I broke your theory is lame, really.
    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...

  9. #239
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    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.

  10. #240
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    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).

    The end.

 

 
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79