Curious as to the Catholic perspective?
Jamey
-- JBC (JRA@JRA-ARCHITECTS.COM), February 11, 1999
Answers
Very tough problem. Seems to me He doesn't create it, but He creates
beings with freedom who have the capacity to do evil.
I have a question for you: God created the universe out of nothing.
How did that happen? Such creation violates the most fundamental law
of nature, as any chemist or physicist will tell you: the Law of
Conservation of Matter and Energy. So how did God do this without
going beyond His own laws?
In the love of Christ, Chris
-- chris B -- February 11, 1999.
Chris,
I'll get to the "second" question later.
But for the first, this is a question that was posed to me. How would
you reconcile verse ISA 45:7?
Jamey
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), February 12, 1999.
In regular language there are 2 senses of "evil." One is wilfully
doing wrong, the other is merely bad stuff that happens to you (this
latter sense is used less often these days). God is responsible for
"evils" in the latter sense, of bad stuff happening to sinful people,
when He brings retribution on people.
-- chris B -- February 12, 1999.
I like your answer! I've noticed (if I'm remebering right) that only
the NAB and NWT translates the word "evil" into "calamity." This I
believe fits more with what your saying - and I what I think,
couldn't really put into words. Makes more sense though, than God
creating evil and "testing" us - which I believe only the devil does.
The guy that posed the question, took it out of context and had me
confused - I hadn't had enough time to thouroughly research the
question.
Thanks,
Jamey
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), February 12, 1999.
Glad you found it helpful! These are tough subjects. When you're
ready for this question:
God created the universe out of nothing. How did that happen? Such
creation goes beyond the most fundamental law of nature, as any
chemist or physicist will tell you: the Law of Conservation of Matter
and Energy. So how did God create from nothing without going beyond
His own laws?
In Christ the King, Chris
-- chris B -- February 12, 1999.
I m not sure where your trying to lead with this? If it s to
confuse the issue of the trinity , then, as I ve stated before, no,
I (nor anybody else) do not fully understand the laws of Nature.
However, the ones we do, the trinity goes against. The trinity also
ignores the realism of the term begotten. For us (humans) the word
means to be born of a father. Yet, in the trinity, the meaning has
to be changed to support a concept trinity. The Son is still
begotten , from The Father, just as John 1:18 says he was unless
we buy into the trinity and the trinity based bibles that have
replaced the word God with Son. Yes, the Son is a , but He is
not The God. He is the Son ,not The Father. He is Mighty, not
ALMIGHTY.
500 (+/-) years ago the world believed that the earth was flat, yet
the correct information was already in the Bible (2000 years old -
the earth was hanged from nothing ). Why didn t the church correct
everyone? A mystery we didn t understand? It s a law of Nature
we now understand. The point being, The God didn t create from
nothing against His own Laws. He created using the Laws He began we
still don t understand. However, I still believe that the trinity is
just an overlay of confusion or a mystery of the True relationship
between a Father and His Son. And if your beliefs are similar to the
Baptist who think that everyone that doesn t believe this will be
tortured forever or burn in hell , then I question, as theirs,
your understanding of THE love relationship of The Father? And
don t say we do it to ourselves. I don t buy that. Some things we
can t control we re all imperfect, we inherited that. That will, I
believe, be considered in our judgement.
Jamey
P.S. This is my way of explaining away verses your trinity (grin)
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), February 13, 1999.
Those not explicit members of the Catholic Church (including non-
Christians, and so, including non-Trinitarians), can be saved, in a
number known only to God, who will be perfectly fair. I agree with
you very strongly that God will not hold us accountable for things
that aren't our fault.
You wrote: ***Then, as I ve stated before, no, I (nor anybody else)
do not fully understand the laws of Nature. However, the ones we do,
the trinity goes against.***
We know the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and creation
from nothing is beyond it.
The Church is infallible in definitions of faith and morals, not
science (though people knew the earth was round long before 500 years
ago). This is a different subject, my friend.
C. S. Lewis in *Mere Christianity* has a great discussion of
eternally begotten, though I only remember it partly. It is a
mystery. An approach: there are different ways we might "cause" a
thing. Ordinarily the cause precedes the effect, but not in the case
of "eternally begotten." Think of a room where one book is lying on
another book. The lower book is "causing" the upper book to be
elevated. Now imagine that both books have been there throughout
eternity. It's miraculous, but imaginable. That's a way of
approaching "eternally begotten."
Let's both try to focus the discussion again (I'm not placing
blame).
In His warm love, brother, Chris
-- chris B -- February 13, 1999.
***That's a way of approaching "eternally begotten." ***
That's all great and and good. But, the Bible does not say "eternally
begotten." It says "only begotten God."
***I'm not placing blame***
That's good, because you added, what I consider, another toic to the
orginal question of this thread(grin).
And to the question of the Churches infallibility on matters of faith
does any of the Catholic Bibles before the NAB have the line in 1
John 5:7 - "these three are one" ?
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), February 15, 1999.
You asked:
And to the question of the Churches infallibility on matters of faith
does any of the Catholic Bibles before the NAB have the line in 1
John 5:7 - "these three are one" ?
I don't know if the Vulgate had it. It might just be in the Textus
Receptus the KJV translators used. Wouldn't make any difference,
though. The Church doesn't claim infallibility on every last bit of
scholarship in the Bible. If you look at the writings of popes and
councils they almost never go into these detailed scholarly
questions.
In his love, Chris
-- chris B -- February 16, 1999.
***The Church is infallible in definitions of faith and morals, not
science (though people knew the earth was round long before 500 years
ago).
The Church doesn't claim infallibility on every last bit of
scholarship in the Bible.***
So, you claim the definitions of faith and morals, catechism or the
pope from the chair is infallible, but not your Bible? That s
does make good sense. Seems to me that an organization as old and
large as the Catholics would have concentrated on making the Bible
itself infallible. Especially after the Reformation. 2000 years is
a long time if the church is really beng led by The God not to have
one already done.
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), February 17, 1999.
The Bible has the best manuscript attestation, in terms of number of
manuscripts and their matching one another, of any book of the
ancient world. Indeed, this is one of the many signs of God's
guiding Christian history. There is, however, a little half of a
percent of the Bible that scholarship has made progress concerning.
None of that progress has damaged a single Christian doctrine. Such
progress is just as much an interesting philosophical problem for you
as it is for me, my brother in Christ. If you're evangelizing a non-
believer, and he asks why God didn't make sure His inerrant word
didn't even have that half-percent of correction, what do *you*
answer?
In His love, Chris
-- Chris B -- February 17, 1999.
Dear JBC
Evil is described in the Caticisiem as the lack of God.
-- E.H.Weiss (weisse@urgent.com), March 07, 1999.
God never created evil. He created a being (satan+man)who has the
ability to choose to obey or not. To not obey is evil......whoever
doesn't obey therefore creates evil.
-- Michael (mdroe@erinet.com), March 07, 1999.
To E.H.Weiss , Michael
Shalom
I do not know if you know my position as to the church and it s
catechisms so I ll just explain briefly.
Chris here at this board and I have had some great discussions about
different issues that have been very helpful and informative. There
are a lot of points I disagree with but I respect these positions.
The catechism hold no value to me as far as explaining most issues
that have been brought up so far, therefore I do not follow them.
***Evil is described in the Caticisiem as the lack of God.***
Just because this is what is said does not make it true. That said
please understand my position. In the KJV and those versions base on
it, in the verse I gave ISA 45:7, it is said that The God DID create
"evil." And I believe He did. Let me explain, evil has TWO meanings.
Please find a good dictionary and you can see where I m, coming
from. The one most referred to today is the associated with the EVIL
of sin. And, the other, with agrees with the NAB translations, is
that of woe or calamity (of the NWT). In the sense of evil, I
agree with Chris understanding that The God create the second evil
and for the reasons of correction or punishment of those people in
the context of the Old Covenant.
And, Michael in addition to satan + man please add angels. They
also have free will.
Jamey
-- Jamey (jra@jra-architects.com), March 08, 1999.
-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), November 30, 2003
Answers
Let me clarify one point. The passage in the King James Bible that
said God created Evil in Isaiah uses an archain definition of the
word. If a Thunderstorm rolled in, that was Evil. Evil was any bad
thing that happened, as well as dileberate malicious action.
400 years later, this is no longer the case. The NAB, and most new
translations, translate it Calamity, Woe, sorrow, ect. This us
because htey are using Modern, updated language, rather than the
enflish employed by 1611 Englishmen.
Neither translation is wrong, or, in this instance, better than
the other. ( Thus, the word Calamity doesnt convey the meanign
betterhtan th world Evil, rather the word evil is used in a very old
way.)
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 16, 2004.
The new translation is vastly better than the KJV. We don't need
words used in obsolete ways, confusing readers. People who
nostalgically cling to the KJV are like people who don't have enough
sense to give up their dilapidated, filthy, pollution-belching, old
jalopies.
-- (KingJimmy@Murdered.CatholicsToo), February 19, 2004.
The King Jasmes Version is NOT ajalopi, and it dosnt spew polution.
Likewise, clinging to an accurate translation, whose only probem you
cite is outdated language, is hardly sinful, or even wrinf, least of
all to soemone who studies languages as I do.
Its an accurate trasnlation, which can still be easily read.
The analiogy you make is diotic as most of my King James Bibels
are newer than an old car and still readable, and functional for htat
end.
Now please stop makign useless attacks on the KJV
also, King James didnt murder Catholics, the only Catholics killed
by him where Guy Gawkes and his conspirators, but hat had nohtign to
do with religion, they wanted to blow up Parlement and take over.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2004.
We say tht God works through people to help other believe, or to
help another person because we all believe that God is there to help
all of us, but God is also the bringer of death. Is it possible that
Goda way of justifying people to death is through the death penalty?
-- Scott Dunn (vekler@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.
The King Jasmes Version is NOT ajalopi, and it dosnt spew
polution.
Who said that it IS a jalopy and that it spews pollution? If you
don't understand the use of analogies, you should stop trying to make
conversation with adults. But if you do understand analogies, your
objection makes no sense. The two analogical points are --- (1) that
the KJV is like a jalopy in being so old and so full of
obsolete words and misunderstandable words that it is a bad choice for
almost everyone --- and (2) that the KJV's translation errors
are like a jalopy's pollution, in that they befoul a person's study of
God's word. Moreover, the
KJV, being an incomplete version (or complete, but mislabeling the
deuterocanonicals as "not divinely inspired"), it is of use to
almost 0% of Catholics.
Its an accurate trasnlation, which can still be easily read.
Baloney -- or, if you prefer, Bologna. It is not accurate in
thousands of verses, and in thousands of others it is extremely
difficult to understand, even for a very intelligent person. That's
why English-speaking Protestants (both in American
and in Great Britain) have taken the trouble to produce newer, more
accurate, easier-to-understand translations (RSV, ASB, EB, etc.).
The analiogy you make is diotic as most of my King James Bibels
are newer than an old car and still readable, and functional for htat
end.
(Sir, don't use the word "idiotic" unless you want your messages
deleted.) What is wrong with you? I am not talking about the age of
the packaging, but of what is packaged. The leather, paper, etc., may
be only one day old, but the antique lingo and the errors are almost
400 years old -- making for a veritable literary "jalopy."
King James didnt murder Catholics, the only Catholics killed by him
where Guy Gawkes and his conspirators, but hat had nohtign to do with
religion, they wanted to blow up Parlement and take over.
You have been fed, and swallowed, a lie. James I (whose own mother
was Catholic, though he didn't have the courage to be like her), had
OTHER Catholics murdered besides the Guy Fawkes people, who may have
been framed anyway. Consider this list of Catholic martyrs from the
Encyclopedia -- men killed before and long after the Fawkes affair,
men killed for being Catholic priests or being unwilling to recognize
Jimmy as head of the church in England:
1604: John Sugar ... Robert Grissold ... Lawrence Bailey ...
1605: Thomas Welborne ... John Fulthering ... William Brown ...
1606: Martyrs at the time of the [Fawkes] Powder Plot: Nicholas Owen,
S.J., ... Edward Oldcorne, S.J., ... Robert Ashley, S.J. ...
From this time to the end of the reign the martyrs might have saved
their lives had they taken the condemned oath of allegiance.
1607: Robert Drury ...
1608: Matthew Flathers ... George Gervase ... Thomas Garnet ...
1610: Roger Cadwallador ... George Napper ... Thomas Somers ...
John Roberts, O.S.B. ...
1612: William Scot, O.S.B., ... Richard Newport ... John Almond
...
1616: Thomas Atkinson ... John Thouless ... Roger Wrenno ... Thomas
Maxfield ... Thomas Tunstall ...
1618: William Southerne ...
You seem every day more and more frustrated and angry here, Zarove.
Maybe it's time for you to leave, because it seems to be hard for you
to deal with the fact that we Catholics will not accept factual
errors, unpersuasive opinions, and faulty theology.
-- (KingJimmy@Murdered.CatholicsToo), February 20, 2004.
"King Jimmy" is absolutely right of course. Catholics have been
persecuted in the UK for hundreds of years. To this day we cannot
have a Catholic Prime Minister. Tony Blair attended Mass with his
wife and children and it made front-page news!!
Here's a tiny glimpse of UK's treatment of Catholics Zarove...
Catholic Emancipation Act [1829]
Abolished earlier legislation and enabled Catholics in Britain to
participate in public and political life, allowing them to serve as
members of lay corporations, to sit in Parliament, to worship
freely, to vote at elections and to hold property unconditionally
Catholic Relief Acts
The Catholic Relief Act [1776] legalised the celebration of the mass
and ended the persecution of Catholics.
The Catholic Relief Act [1791] allowed Catholic chapels and schools
to be registered with the Clerk of the Peace. Catholics who swore a
prescribed oath were allowed to exercise their faith
Sara
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 20, 2004.
whoa, hold up, sara,
you mean, catholics were actually persecuted in recent times by
protestants?!?!?! wow. from now on whenever a protestant tells
me about how the church didnt do anything about WWII I'm going to
tell them the little story of more than a hundred years of
discrimination against and persecution of Catholics
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 20, 2004.
little paul,
not one hundred years little paul. Four hundred.
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 20, 2004.
Thanks for the corroboration, Sara. Since you are English, can you
please tell me if what I wrote earlier is legitimate or not. (It came
from an old memory that may be faulty.) I wrote about the "Guy Fawkes
people, who may have been framed anyway." Is it true (as I vaguely
seem to recall) that some modern historians think that the
Catholic "conspirators" were actually innocent, but were "framed"? Or
were they definitely guilty?
-- (KingJimmy@Murdered.CatholicsToo), February 20, 2004.
Who said that it IS a jalopy and that it spews pollution? If you
don't understand the use of analogies, you should stop trying to make
conversation with adults.
{SO... arrogant, pedantuic insults are the way in whihc we represent
catholisism? I shoudl hope not, and others have been far more polite.
Incedentally, I was using the same analogy, I wasnt confused
about it. }-Zarove
But if you do understand analogies, your objection makes no sense.
{Actually it does, yours dont, and I have addressed before these
concenrs.}-Zarove
The two analogical points are --- (1) that the KJV is like a jalopy
in being so old and so full of obsolete words and misunderstandable
words that it is a bad choice for almost everyone --- and
{This is a lie. Namely because most peopel really dont have that hrd
a time withhte old langiuage of the Kign James.Indeed, its often
easier to read than modern Bible translations.
Furthermore, I understand the language, both form beign brought up on
this edition of the Bible, and from studies. Its not really that hard
t understand.}
(2) that the KJV's translation errors are like a jalopy's pollution,
in that they befoul a person's study of God's word.
{Thi is clealry flawed reasoning. I have addressed before on a few
other threads this point, and wish to be clear here. The Kign James
Bible doesnt have as many errors as its attackers ( Liek you) claim.
Those "Thousands of errors" simpley do not exist. This isnt to say
that its flawwless, but it hardly has thre level of flaws ytou, and
others, have claimed it has. And I know for a fact as I investe din
studying the origional languages then comparing.}-Zarove
Moreover, the KJV, being an incomplete version (or complete, but
mislabeling the deuterocanonicals as "not divinely inspired"), it is
of use to almost 0% of Catholics.
{This is also wrong, in that the King James Bible contains these
books in several editions.}-Zarove
Its an accurate trasnlation, which can still be easily read. -Me
earlier.
Baloney -- or, if you prefer, Bologna. It is not accurate in
thousands of verses, and in thousands of others it is extremely
difficult to understand, even for a very intelligent person.
{No, you are wrong, spacifically, the King Jmaes Bible is not as
flaed as MOST modern Bibles, and likewise, the errors you know of ar
emor htan likely not errors. I have personally studid the languages,
I know for a fac tthat this common allogation is a fraud.
Further, as sttaed before, the language is not that hard to follow,
thats bunk.
I can prove it.
http://www.hsnp.com/gok/bible18.html
}-Zarove
That's why English-speaking Protestants (both in American and in
Great Britain) have taken the trouble to produce newer, more
accurate, easier-to-understand translations (RSV, ASB, EB, etc.).
{This means that its flawed? Sorry, it spoeaks to the old language
routine you keep splashign about, but hardly speaks to the errors you
proprt. Indeed, these other trslations xist largley to update the
language, not correct errors.}-Zarove
The analiogy you make is diotic as most of my King James Bibels are
newer than an old car and still readable, and functional for htat
end.
(Sir, don't use the word "idiotic" unless you want your messages
deleted.)
{So allow you to insult me, but dont call an argument idiotic? I
didnt atack you personally withhte line, I merley expressed my
misgivings over your erroneous statements.
I am beign far less rude than you.}-Zarove
What is wrong with you? I am not talking about the age of the
packaging, but of what is packaged. The leather, paper, etc., may be
only one day old, but the antique lingo and the errors are almost 400
years old -- making for a veritable literary "jalopy."
{I was also referign to the content. The language isnt hard to
follow, and the flaws you speak of largley dont exist.}-Zarove
King James didnt murder Catholics, the only Catholics killed by him
where Guy Gawkes and his conspirators, but hat had nohtign to do with
religion, they wanted to blow up Parlement and take over.
You have been fed, and swallowed, a lie. James I (whose own mother
was Catholic, though he didn't have the courage to be like her), had
OTHER Catholics murdered besides the Guy Fawkes people, who may have
been framed anyway.
{Yes, no Cahtolic woudl ever comit A crime, they had to be
innocent.This dispite their confessions, and beign caught int he
act... afain, dont defend them just because they where Catholic. They
where attempting a Coup.Their arrest had nohtign to do wiht
religion.}-Zarove
Consider this list of Catholic martyrs from the Encyclopedia --
{Yes lets...}-Zarove
men killed before and long after the Fawkes affair, men killed for
being Catholic priests or being unwilling to recognize Jimmy as head
of the church in England:
{Ling before? The Fawkes afair happened shortly after the Kings
Appoitnment.}-Zarove
1604: John Sugar ...
Venerable John Sugar
(Suker).
Born at Wombourn, Staffordshire, 1558; suffered at Warwick, 16 July,
1604. He matriculated at Oxford from St. Mary Hall, 30 October, 1584,
and is described as clerici filius. He left without taking a degree,
it is said because he disliked the Oath of Supremacy; but it appears
that he acted as a Protestant
minister at Cannock,
Staffordshire, for some time. He was ordained priest from the English
College, Douai (1601), and sent on the mission the same year. He was
arrested 8 July, 1603, at Rowington, Warwickshire, with Venerable
Robert Greswold (Grissold [or Griswold]), a native of Rowington (in
the service of Mr. Sheldon of Broadway, Worcestershire), who was in
attendance on him. After a year's imprisonment at Warwick they were
condemned there 14 July, Sugar for being a priest, and Greswold for
assisting him. Sugar was cut down before he was fully dead. Greswold
was offered his life if he would promise to conform.
No mention of his death beign directly related to King James, indeed
his arest happened before the King's accensiton.
Robert Grissold ...
No data on this one at all yet, but I will look.
Lawrence Bailey ...
Nada, but I will look.
1605: Thomas Welborne ...
Nothign on this one either... not even reason for arrest. We have to
take the word of a man removed.
Ven. Thomas Welbourne
Martyred at York, 1 August, 1605. Nothing is known about about this
martyr except the scanty details collected by Bishop Challoner from
the early catalogues of the sufferers for the Faith: "Thomas
Welbourne was a school-master, a native of Kitenbushel in Yorkshire;
and John Fulthering was a layman of the same county, who being
zealous Catholics, and industrious in exhorting some of their
neighbours to embrace the Catholic faith, were upon that account
arraigned and condemned to suffer as in cases of high treason" (II,
12). Neither of their names occur in Peacock's "Yorkshire Catholics
in 1604".
John Fulthering ...
Nothing
William Brown ...
died after King James himself, and indeed was born after Jame's
death......
William Brown
A naval officer of the Republic of Argentina, b. 1777, in the County
Mayo, Ireland; d. 3 May, 1857, in Buenos Aires. His family emigrating
to America in 1786, Brown shipped as a cabin boy on a vessel sailing
from Philadelphia. During the war between France and England his
ship, an English merchantman, was captured by a French privateer and
he was made prisoner of war. He escaped to England, where, in 1809,
he married a lady of good family and education. He re-entered the
ocean trade with a ship of his own, which was wrecked on the coast of
South America. Here he established the first regular packet service
between Buenos Aires and Montevideo. In the revolt of Buenos Aires
against Spain the insurgents appointed Brown, February, 1814, to the
command of a squadron of seven ships. With these he achieved wonders.
On St. Patrick's Day he captured the fort of Martin Garcia,
called "The Gibraltar of the La Plata", compelling nine Spanish men-
of-war under Admiral Romerate to retire. Later, at Montevideo, which
capitulated 20 June, he captured several Spanish men-of-war. These he
took to Buenos Aires, and received the rank of admiral. In 1816
Admiral Brown sailed round the Horn to succor the new republics on
the western coast, but his expedition was only partly successful. Ten
years later, when war ensued between the new republic and Brazil,
Admiral Brown greatly distinguished himself against tremendous odds
in the blockade of Buenos Aires, which he succeeded in breaking.
Taking the offensive he scoured the coast as far as Rio de Janeiro.
His most brilliant victory was the battle of Juncal, 24 February,
1827, when, with seven ships and eight one-gun launches, he destroyed
a fleet of seventeen war-vessels under Admiral Pereira. He acted as
Argentine Commissioner when, at the close of the war, the liberty of
Buenos Aires was guaranteed by the treaty of Montevideo 4 October,
1827.
After a visit to his native land, Admiral Brown spent his last years
in the republic in the founding of which he had been such a powerful
factor. He died in Buenos Aires 3 May, 1867, and in the Recolta
cemetery a lofty column marks his resting-place.
1606: Martyrs at the time of the [Fawkes] Powder Plot: Nicholas Owen,
S.J., ... Edward Oldcorne, S.J., ... Robert Ashley, S.J. ...
{These peopel admited to and where caught in the act of a
govenrmental coupe. And no, they wherent framed.}-Zarove
From this time to the end of the reign the martyrs might have saved
their lives had they taken the condemned oath of allegiance.
{Agreeing or not of thr oaths mderit, the reaosn for the execution wa
snott hat thes emen whre Catholic, and inded, other than new advent,
I havent even found a trace of this as even a claim.
This is how govenrments worked back then, the oath was designed
ot show loyalty itsself. Much like the American pledge of allegience.
Their is no evidnce it was disigned diliberatly to pesecute
catholics, thats just speculation.}-Zarove
1607: Robert Drury ...
1608: Matthew Flathers ... George Gervase ... Thomas Garnet ...
1610: Roger Cadwallador ... George Napper ... Thomas Somers ... John
Roberts, O.S.B. ...
1612: William Scot, O.S.B., ... Richard Newport ... John Almond ...
1616: Thomas Atkinson ... John Thouless ... Roger Wrenno ... Thomas
Maxfield ... Thomas Tunstall ...
1618: William Southerne ...
{Covered above, thes men died over an oath, which I myself disagree
with, but i was not a purely anti cahtolic act.}-Zarove
You seem every day more and more frustrated and angry here, Zarove.
{Actually I am fine. You are the one exploding and usign insults.}-
Zarove
Maybe it's time for you to leave, because it seems to be hard for
you to deal with the fact that we Catholics will not accept factual
errors, unpersuasive opinions, and faulty theology.
{I never asked fr any of that, but consider that you present factual
errors in claimin the Kign James is filled wiht errors, much more so
than modern versiosn, a claim you cannot sustantiatge, which is
supported only on accusation, I feel you have no ground whatsoever in
makign this claim of me.
Unless you wan tot PROVE the trnslation errors ( Which means
allowign an honest rebuttle) then you relaly ahvent been persuasive
yourself.}-Zarove
"King Jimmy" is absolutely right of course. Catholics have been
persecuted in the UK for hundreds of years. To this day we cannot
have a Catholic Prime Minister. Tony Blair attended Mass with his
wife and children and it made front-page news!!
{Yes but hat started AFTER the time of James. Remember, the reason
for htat was PARLEMENT restricting the activities of the Monarch.That
happeend at the time of the Bill of Rights and the time of King
willaim and his queen Mary. In 1701.How can you blame King James for
htis?}-Zarove
Here's a tiny glimpse of UK's treatment of Catholics Zarove...
{Dearchild, I know, however I am only defendign one Monarch, not hte
totality of British Hisotry.I am english as well.}-Zarove
Catholic Emancipation Act [1829] Abolished earlier legislation and
enabled Catholics in Britain to participate in public and political
life, allowing them to serve as members of lay corporations, to sit
in Parliament, to worship freely, to vote at elections and to hold
property unconditionally
{Which is good, and has nohtign to do with JJames, nor does the
refusal to have a Catholic PM.}-Zarove
Catholic Relief Acts The Catholic Relief Act [1776] legalised the
celebration of the mass and ended the persecution of Catholics.
{Upoi know, I can always brign up Mary and her executions of
Protestants...I now you think me Ignorant of British Hisotry, but I
really am not... Catholic rule was no better than protestant rule.
And noen fo this reflects either the accuracty of the King James
translation or its ease of reading.}-Zarove
The Catholic Relief Act [1791] allowed Catholic chapels and schools
to be registered with the Clerk of the Peace. Catholics who swore a
prescribed oath were allowed to exercise their faith
Sara
{Again, this has nohtign to do with anyhtign we are discussing, which
is mainly the accuract of the translation itsself.}-Zarove
whoa, hold up, sara,
you mean, catholics were actually persecuted in recent times by
protestants?!?!?! wow. from now on whenever a protestant tells me
about how the church didnt do anything about WWII I'm going to tell
them the little story of more than a hundred years of discrimination
against and persecution of Catholics
{And they can shoot back on persecution Cahtolcis in england and
europe gave Protestants... it swings both ways. This si why I m
agisnst useless recriminations.}-Zarove
little paul,
not one hundred years little paul. Four hundred.
{300, startign rouhgly at Cromwell. }-Zarove
Thanks for the corroboration, Sara.
{She didnt wdooberate anything. Your two poiuts abotu language and
errors wherent even addressed, she and the rest simpley assume its a
cut and dry case, but really she didnt even address the rule of
James, orf his son, or graNDSON/.}-Zarove
Since you are English, can you please tell me if what I wrote earlier
is legitimate or not.
{Its not but why beleive me, you are detemrined ot make All
Cahtolvics innocent before a bloodthiorsty Protestant empire...}-
Zarove
(It came from an old memory that may be faulty.) I wrote about
the "Guy Fawkes people, who may have been framed anyway." Is it true
(as I vaguely seem to recall) that some modern historians think that
the Catholic "conspirators" were actually innocent, but
were "framed"? Or were they definitely guilty?
{They confessed,a nd where caught int he act. }-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2004.
Zarove
I'm not your 'Dearchild'
Please try not to be so patronising. It's a particularly offensive
trait.
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 20, 2004.
I meant no offence, it was just an expression, a fairly common one
where I live.
I appologise for any affront.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2004.
King Jimmy’
I’m sorry I didn’t respond to you earlier, I’ve been a bit caught -
up with things here.
From what I’ve read, the case against Guy Fawkes wouldn’t even make
it to court today. There was never any display of evidence, namely
the gunpowder. No evidence was ever found of a tunnel. Hand-writing
experts claim that the writing purporting to be the plotters
planning the crime was a forgery. The confession was acquired
through the use of torture..you know the kind of things that went on
in the Tower of London. Thumb screws, stretching limbs until the
bones broke, whipping, that kind of civilised stuff. The kind of
thing that might lead a man to confess to any number of heinous
crimes.
God bless
Sara
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 22, 2004.
King Jimmy, I deleted your last post as it was patronizing and contained
personal attacks. Also, please change your "handle". It could offend
non-Catholics who visit the forum. Thanks.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 22, 2004.
It goes too far to exhonerate a man jut because he is Catholic.
King James may be hated, mainly due to his Bible, but this ought
not cloud your judgement on issues, and to think he was an innocent
voctom of religious persecution is simpley idiculkous. What was the
Motive for framign him? Yo make Catholics look bad?Then who DID
exactly set up all those Barrels of Funpowder down their, and how do
you explain, exaclty, the fac tthat he was apprehende din the very
act of blowing everyone up?
You may want a Hisotry in which all Catholcis are good and
innocent, btut he simple fac tof reality is that Catholics are HUMAN,
and do ERR on occasison, this includes Mr.Fawkes and his
conspirators.
I no more look down at Catholisism for hte Fawkes incedent than you
shoud look down on all Protestants over the crime of a single set of
protestants shoudl the incedent be repeated.
You may of course feel free to ignore this Post King Jimmy, and
Sara, afrer all, you have boht decided that I am an idiot who
shoudlnt be listened to, and htat Fawkes as an innocent victim, but
if you read on I shall present my case, and prove it i you ask.
Kinf James's own Wife was Catholic, and James suffered form accute
paranoia, caused by attmepted assasinations and constant plots that
plauged his childhood. ( None of the Monarchs seemed mentally stable
in this period...)
However, his wife informed the Pope that James wa snot only
kindly disposed to Catholics in General, but that he may in fact
convert.
This changed after the Gunpowder plot, and increased hostility
toward Catholcis renewed in England as the CITESENRY began to blame
THE CAHTOLIC CHURCH in general forhte actiosn of these few renegades.
James himself, either for political reasons or for a
predjudice, then declined to convert.
Fawkes himself was guilty as Charged, no matter your attempts
at Catholic Veneration, and exhoneration.
You only seek him innocent in this matter, however, to bolster
the martrydom claim of poor Cahtolics killed by evil protestants (
And wholly ignoring the death rtoll Catholic monarchs have themselves
incured in theor own religious Zeal, which I remind you is a poor
indicator of the actual rleigion.).
Fawkes had ot be innocent, and framed, because James was bad,
and his Bible, so filled with outdate dlanguage that no one can
understand and thats so flled with errors, was prodiced by a
MURDERER!!!
sorry, the shock vlaie and sentementality is over. Prodice REAL
EVIDENCE of FGawkes innocence if you please, not mindless drivel
designed to ingratiate a few Overzelpous defenders fothe faith that
overlook guilt and culpability of a criminal in favour of bolstering
their own predjudicial biases which themselves are admonished by the
very Church they attempot to defend.
In closing I present, form Encyclopidia Britanica online, the
Biography of Guy Fawkes.
Search Britannia
BRITANNIA GATEWAYS
Home | History | Travel
Tours | London | Arts
Panorama | News
HISTORY GATEWAYS
Monarchs | Timelines
Documents | Maps | EBK
King Arthur | Time Indexes
Guy Fawkes
by David Herber
Born: 13 April 1570, Stonegate, Yorkshire
Died: 31 January 1606, Old Palace Yard, Westminster
Guy Fawkes was the only son of Edward Fawkes of York and his wife
Edith Blake. Prior to Fawkes's birth, Edith had given birth to a
daughter Anne on 3 October 1568, but the infant lived a mere seven
weeks, being buried on 14 November of the same year. Two sisters
followed Guy, another Anne (who later married Henry Kilburns in
Scotton in 1599) on 12 October 1572, and Elizabeth (who later married
William Dickenson, also in Scotton, in 1594) on 27 May 1575.
Edward Fawkes, who was descended from the Fawkes family of Farnley,
was a notary or proctor of the ecclesiastical courts and advocate of
the consistory court of the Archbishop of York. On his mother's side,
he was descended from the Harrington family who were eminent
merchants and Aldermen of York.
Fawkes became a pupil of the Free School of St. Peters located in "Le
Horse Fayre", which was founded by Royal Charter of Philip and Mary
in 1557. He counted there amongst his schoolfellows, John and
Christopher Wright, Thomas Morton (afterwards Bishop of Durham), Sir
Thomas Cheke and Oswald Tesimond. His time there was under the
tutelage of a John Pulleyn, kinsman to the Pulleyns of Scotton and a
suspected Catholic who some believe may have had an early effect on
the impressionable Fawkes.
On 17 January 1578, Edward Fawkes was buried at St. Michael-le-
Belfry. Edith spent nine years as a sedate and respectable widow
before moving to Scotton between 18 April 1587 and 2 February 1588-
89. There she married Dionysius (or Dennis) Bainbridge, son of Philip
Bainbridge of Wheatley Hall and Frances Vavasour of Weston (who had
previously allied herself to the Fawkes family through her first
marriage to Antony Fawkes of York who died in 1551). Dionysius was
described by a contemporary as "more ornamental than useful", and
both he and Edith appeared to have made use of Guy's meagre
inheritance while it was still in their powers to do so.
It is possible that Fawkes married, for the International Genealogy
Index (IGI) compiled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints records a marriage between Guy Fawkes and Maria Pulleyn in
1590 in Scotton, and it also records the birth of a son Thomas to Guy
Fawkes and Maria on 6 February 1591. However, these entries appear to
be taken from a secondary source and not from actual parish register
entries, and so they cannot be clarified further.
Fawkes came of age in 1591 and proceeded to dispose of parts of his
inheritance. The first documentary proof of this is through an
indenture of lease dated 14 October, 33 Eliz.
A transaction is recorded between "Guye Faux of Scotton in the Co. of
Yorke, gentilman, and Christopher Lomley of Yorke, tailor", to whom
Fawkes leased for twenty one years, "three and a half acres in
Clifton, with one other acre there, and a barn and garth attached to
Gilligaite", a suburb of York. Robert Davies who found these
documents in 1830, says that "On the seal appended to one of them,
though the impression is nearly effaced, the figure of a bird is just
discernible, apparently a falcon". This apparently confirms Fawkes'
descent for the falcon is the crest of the family of Fawkes of
Farnley.
Another document, an indenture of conveyance is dated 1 August, 34
Eliz., between "Guye Fawkes of the cittie of Yorke, gentilman, and
Anna Skipseye, of Clifton, spinster", which indicates that Fawkes was
no longer in Scotton. For a brief period after this, he was employed
as a footman by Anthony Browne, 2nd Lord Montague, a member of a
leading recusant family.
Fawkes is believed to have left England in 1593 or 1594 for Flanders,
together with one of his Harrington cousins who later become a
priest. In Flanders he enlisted in the Spanish army under the
Archduke Albert of Austria, who was afterwards governor of the
Netherlands.
Fawkes held a post of command when the Spaniards took Calais in 1596
under the orders of King Philip II of Spain. He was described at this
time as a man "of excellent good natural parts, very resolute and
universally learned", and was "sought by all the most distinguished
in the Archduke's camp for nobility and virtue". Tesimond also
describes him as "a man of great piety, of exemplary temperance, of
mild and chearful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a
faithful friend, and remarkable for his punctual attendance upon
religious observance".
Fawkes's appearance by now was most impressive. He was a tall,
powerfully built man, with thick reddish-brown hair, flowing
moustache, and a bushy reddish-brown beard. He had also apparently
adopted the name or affectation Guido in place of Guy. His
extraordinary fortitude, and his "considerable fame among soldiers",
perhaps acquired through his services under Colonel Bostock at the
Battle of Nieuport in 1600 when it is believed he was wounded,
brought him to the attention of Sir William Stanley (in charge of the
English regiment in Flanders), Hugh Owen and Father William Baldwin.
Fawkes severed his connection with the Archduke's forces on 16
February 1603, when he was granted leave to go to Spain on behalf of
Stanley, Owen and Baldwin to "enlighten King Philip II concerning the
true position of the Romanists in England". During this visit he
renewed his acquaintance with Christopher Wright, and the two men set
about obtaining Spanish support for an invasion of England upon the
death of Elizabeth, a mission which ultimately proved fruitless.
Upon return from this mission, Fawkes was informed in Brussels that
Thomas Wintour had been asking for him. About Easter time, when
Wintour was about to return to England, Stanley presented Fawkes to
him. It cannot be proved, but perhaps Wintour had already informed
Fawkes of the conspirators' intentions, because in Fawkes' confession
he states that "I confesse that a practise in general was first
broken unto me against his Majesty for reliefe of the Catholique
cause, and not invented or propounded by myself. And this was first
propounded unto me about Easter last was twelve month, beyond the
Seas, in the Low Countries of the Archduke's obeyance, by Thomas
Wintour, who came thereupon with me into England".
Between Easter and May, Fawkes was invited by Robert Catesby to
accompany Thomas Wintour to Bergen in order to meet with the
Constable of Castile, Juan De Velasco, who was on his way to the
court of King James I to discuss a treaty between Spain and England.
In May of 1604, Guy Fawkes met with Robert Catesby, Thomas Percy,
John Wright and Thomas Wintour at an inn called the Duck and Drake in
the fashionable Strand district of London, and agreed under oath
along with Percy to join the other three in the gunpowder conspiracy.
This oath was then sanctified by the performing of mass and the
administering of the sacraments by the Jesuit priest John Gerard in
an adjoining room. Fawkes assumed the identity of John Johnson, a
servant of Percy and was entrusted to the care of the tenement which
Percy had rented. Around Michaelmas, Fawkes was asked to begin
preparations for work on the mine, but these plans were delayed until
early December as the Commissioners of the Union between England and
Scotland were meeting in the same house. Eventually the work in the
mine proved slow and difficult for men unused to such physical
labours, and further accomplices were sworn into the plot.
About March 1605, the conspirators hired a cellar beneath Parliament,
once again through Thomas Percy, and Fawkes assisted in filling the
room with barrels of powder, hidden beneath iron bars and faggots. He
was then despatched to Flanders to presumably communicate the details
of the plot to Stanley and Owen.
At the end of August, he was back in London again, replacing the
spoiled powder barrels, and residing at "one Mrs. Herbert's house, a
widow that dwells on the backside of St. Clement's Church". He soon
left this accommodation when his landlady suspected his involvement
with Catholics. On 18 October he travelled to White Webbs for a
meeting with Catesby, Thomas Wintour, and Francis Tresham to discuss
how certain Catholic peers could be excluded from the explosion. On
26 October, the now famous Monteagle Letter was delivered into the
hands of William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle. Concern quickly erupted
amongst the conspirators, but the letter's apparent vagueness
prompted Catesby to continue with their plans.
On Wednesday 30 October, Fawkes, apparently ignorant of the letter's
existence inspected the cellar again and satisfied himself that the
gunpowder was still in place and had not been disturbed. On Sunday 3
November, a few of the leading conspirators met in London and agreed
that the authorities were still unaware of their actions. However,
all except Fawkes made plans for a speedy exit from London. Fawkes
had agreed to watch the cellar by himself, having already been given
the task of firing the powder, undoubtedly because of his munitions
experience in the Low Countries where he had been taught how to "fire
a slow train". His orders were to embark for Flanders as soon as the
powder was fired, and to spread the news of the explosion on the
continent.
On the following Monday afternoon, the Lord Chamberlain, Thomas
Howard, Earl of Suffolk, searched the parliament buildings
accompanied by Monteagle and John Whynniard. In the cellar they came
upon an unusually large pile of billets and faggots, and perceived
Fawkes whom they described as "a very bad and desperate fellow". They
asked who claimed the pile, and Fawkes replied that it was Thomas
Percy's in whose employment he worked. They reported these details to
the King, and believing, by the look of Fawkes "he seemed to be a man
shrewd enough, but up to no good", they again searched the cellar, a
little before midnight the following night, this time led by Sir
Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate and Gentleman of the Privy
Chamber. Fawkes had gone forth to warn Percy that same day, but
returned to his post before night. Once again, the pile of billets
and faggots was searched and the powder discovered, and this time
Fawkes was arrested. On his person they discovered a watch, slow
matches and touchwood. Fawkes later declared that had he been in the
cellar when Knyvett entered it he would have "blown him up, house,
himself, and all".
Early in the morning of 5 November, the Privy Council met in the
King's bedchamber, and Fawkes was brought in under guard. He declined
to give any information beyond that his name was Johnson and he was a
servant of Thomas Percy. Further interrogations that day revealed
little more than his apparent xenophobia. When questioned by the King
how he could conspire such a hideous treason, Fawkes replied that a
dangerous disease required a desperate remedy, and that his
intentions were to blow the Scotsmen present back into Scotland.
King James indicated in a letter of 6 November that "The gentler
tortours are to be first used unto him, et sic per gradus ad mia
tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst], and so God
speed your goode worke", as it [torture] was contrary to English
common law, unless authorised by the King or Privy Council.
Eventually on 7 November Guido's spirit broke and he confessed his
real name and that the plot was confined to five men. "He told us
that since he undertook this action he did every day pray to God he
might perform that which might be for the advancement of the Catholic
Faith and saving his own soul". The following day he recounted the
events of the conspiracy, without naming names, then on the 9
November he named his fellow plotters, having heard that some of them
had already been arrested at Holbeche. Guido's final signature, a
barely legible scrawl, is testament to his suffering. There is no
direct evidence as to what tortures were used on Guy Fawkes, although
it is almost certain that they included the manacles, and probably
also the rack.
On Monday 27 January 1606, the day of the capture of Edward Oldcorne
and Henry Garnet, the trial of the eight surviving conspirators began
in Westminster Hall. It was a trial in name only, for a guilty
verdict had certainly already been handed down. The conspirators
pleaded not guilty, a plea which caused some consternation amongst
those present. Fawkes later explained that his objection was to the
implication that the "seducing Jesuits" were the principal offenders.
On Friday, 31 January 1606, Fawkes, Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood
and Robert Keyes were taken to the Old Palace Yard at Westminster and
hanged, drawn and quartered "in the very place which they had planned
to demolish in order to hammer home the message of their wickedness".
Thomas Wintour was followed by Rookwood and then by Keyes. Guido,
the "romantic caped figure of such evil villainy" came last. A
contemporary wrote:
"Last of all came the great devil of all, Guy Fawkes, alias Johnson,
who should have put fire to the powder. His body being weak with the
torture and sickness he was scarce able to go up the ladder, yet with
much ado, by the help of the hangman, went high enough to break his
neck by the fall. He made no speech, but with his crosses and idle
ceremonies made his end upon the gallows and the block, to the great
joy of all the beholders that the land was ended of so wicked a
villainy".
David Jardine, in his book "A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot"
(1857), says that "according to the accounts of him, he is not to be
regarded as a mercenary ruffian, ready for hire to do any deed of
blood; but as a zealot, misled by misguided fanaticism, who was,
however, by no means destitute of piety or humanity".
Reproduced by kind permission of the Gunpowder Plot Society
Sources
.............
Aveling, Dom. Hugh, O.S.B., 'The Catholic Recusants of the West
Riding of Yorkshire 1558-1790', Proceedings of the Leeds
Philosophical & Literary Society, Leeds, X, 1963
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, International Genealogy
Index
Davies, Robert, The Fakkes of York in the Sixteenth Century,
Including Notices of the Early History of Guye Fawkes, the Gunpowder
Plot Conspirator
Dictionary of National Biography, 1895
Durst, Paul, Intended Treason: What really happened in the Gunpowder
Plot, 1970
Edwards, Francis, S.J., Guy Fawkes: the real story of the Gunpowder
Plot?, 1969
Edwards, Francis, S.J., The Gunpowder Plot: the narrative of Oswald
Tesimond alias Greenway, trans. from the Italian of the Stonyhurst
Manuscript, edited and annotated, 1973
Fraser, Antonia, Faith & Treason - The Story of the Gunpowder Plot,
1996
Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, What Gunpowder Plot Was, 1897
Gerard, John, The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest, tr. Philip
Caraman
Gerard, John, S.J., What was the Gunpowder Plot? The traditional
story tested by original evidence, 1897
Hawarde, Reportes of Star Chamber
Haynes, Alan, The Gunpowder Plot, 1994
Howell, Thomas Bayley, ed., Cobbett's Complete Collection of State
Trials.., II, 1603-1627
Jardine, David, A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, 1857
Longley, Katharine M., Three Sites in the City of York
Pullein, Catharine, The Pulleynes of Yorkshire, 1915
Simons, Eric N., The Devil of the Vault, 1963
Spink, Henry Hawkes, The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter,
1902
Weekely News, Monday 31 January 1606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Aims of the Gunpowder Plot Society
The aims of the Gunpowder Plot Society are to promote and encourage
research on all aspects of the Gunpowder Plot by providing a central
repository for information, source material, and research assistance,
as well as to provide an open forum for discussion through our
mailing list and newsletters.
Britannia.com (T) 302.234.8904 (F) 302.234.9154 Copyright
©1999 Britannia.com, LLC
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2004.
King Jimmy, I apologize for not noticing Zarove's "idiotic" comment
when it occurred, however, everyone is asked to bring any comment
they find offensive to the attention of the moderator. No one
contacted me in this regard at the time.
I have a copy of your deleted post and will provide you with a copy
if you contact me at my email address. I have no objections if you
want to re-post it minus the offending remarks.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.
I just checked to confirm that I indeed have a copy of the post in
question. Unfortunately, I do not. If anyone on the "post alert"
list can provide me with a copy at my email address I will see that
King Jimmy gets a copy of it as well. Although I am not responsible
for keeping copies of all posts, I am sorry for the inconvenience
this may have caused. Thank you.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.
Zarove
Please do not accuse me of calling you an idiot. That's grossly
unfair since I've never called anyone an idiot at any time.
Since you insist on telling lies about my posts I won't bother
responding to anything else you say. I gave up reading your response
after reading your unfounded accusations.
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 23, 2004.
I also wasnt tryign to be accuitory, again, apolofies, however, I
have been hostily treate don this thread, and for a logn time on the
net.
Rather or not you think me sincere or noce, I fel that you and Kign
Jummy are beign unfair to me, and my points I raise.
But rather than even ATTEMPT to see it form my perspective, you
simpley dismiss me out of hand ( WHich I anticipated anyway)
Fine, anothe rappology. But will you appologise to Paul for callign
him "Little Paul", was htat not as insultign as I was to you when I
called you Dearchild? Does anyone deny that I was treated rather
harshly on this thread?
I said what I siad in exhasperation, and grankkly, form your own
responces as well as Jimmy's, I do beleive that what I said is
forgivable.
But I will contact, for the second time, the Modratoir and ask,
again, if I am beign inflamitory. I will turn myself in.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2004.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. Since Sara and Jimmy BOTH think I am beign
inflamitory and making youble, I have issued this letter tot he
Moderator, and am allowign him to settle the dispute. If indeed I
have done anyhtign innapropriate then I will allow myself to be
hanlded by him.
TO ED:
Can you look into the God crated evil thread, I am apparently
Inflametory in my discussion, tot he extend ot beng treated Hostilly.
Of failt is ,ine , please record it on the board, so I can procceed
properly, if they are overreacting, which I feel they are, then you
can at leaast get me out of the fire a bit.
I leave the whole matter to your judgement.
TO ED:
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2004.
I refer to litte paul as little paul to differentiate between him
and big Paul (the moderator)! That's common practise on the forum
Zarove. little paul himself uses that term. He uses all lowercase
letters in his name, hence the use of the term little paul.
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 23, 2004.
Zarove, I am not a referee. You will have to sort this out on your
own.:)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.
I didnt know that, but my point stands. I feel you BOTH are beign
unjustly hostile to ME even though you claim the reverse is true.
I meant no offence, yet offended. But I think my words where ill
considered, and you saw offence where none was offered to allow your
own predjudices to be perceived in my words.
Nonetheless, if I am in the worng, I will be punished, I have
contacted Ed, and shall be dealt with. This si the best the Troll
that I am can offer you, and to respind no more tot his thread till
the matter is resolved. This allows you and Jimmy plenty of time to
post , as I will nto answer, and will nto disturb you any further,
till after th eincedent has met conclusion.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2004.
SORRY did not see Eds post. He must gave posted at the same time.
The main point of all this is simple. I said noting to deliberate
offend yet you took offence. I strongly feel that no matter WHAT I
say or how you will automatically assume I am benign snide,
sarcastic, patronizing, or insulting.
You two can continue to be self congratulatory and self
cooberating, and continue tellign others how Horrid I am, But this
will not make facts of the errors made on this thread.
all I asked was a fair say, this did not occure. I am sorry for any
offence, but as I said, anyhtign I sid woudl be offence, and shoudl I
appooligise for trying to speak?Or merely for having a differenc eof
opinion?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2004.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ