OT – Norway

[briansd1]

[quote=Jazzman]Brian, all the smaller European countries speak good English, some better than we do. The Germans do as well, even the French are begrudgingly getting better, or perhaps less resistant to the idea.
[/quote]

Yes.

And the French speak English better than we think. But the French, as experts in diplomacy, believe in reciprocity. If they have to speak English, then we should speak French, especially when we visit France. Sounds fair to me.

It’s interesting to me that in Europe, average people on the street speak English well. They are also very knowledgeable on world affairs and even what’s going on in USA.

On the subject of education, eavesdropper made some interesting comments. Where are the smart people in America? We seem to belittle educated people as elitist and out of touch.

PS: Learning a foreign languages is one of the best ways to exercise the brain and slow or prevent Alzheimers’. I’m teaching myself Thai.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]well i dont know about other religions, but us jews think we’re the chosen people. a bit egotistical, perhaps, but probably true.[/quote]

Chosen how? It is DNA or religious beliefs? Are you still chosen if you’re not a Jew but are a close descendant of the Jewish tribe?

I had an interesting conversation with an Ashkenazi Jewish friend who was intent on fathering a child with another Ashkenazi Jewish woman to make his parents happy. He was willing to use a surrogate or a matchmaking service if necessary.

My argument was that the original Jewish people didn’t look Eastern European like many Ashkenazi do today. I contended that, over the centuries, and over migrations, women were raped and had sex outside of marriage.

Perhaps Jewish Americans today don’t have much DNA relations to the original chosen people as they think. Maybe some Muslims are closer DNA wise.

I’m waiting for a world-wide DNA database. It will be very revealing and will shatter long held beliefs.

What happens when people discover they are more Black than Hispanic, more German than French, more Cambodian than Vietnamese, more Hispanic than Anglo?

We have yet to discover that science is greater than faith.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]well i dont know about other religions, but us jews think we’re the chosen people. a bit egotistical, perhaps, but probably true.[/quote]

Chosen how? It is DNA or religious beliefs? Are you still chosen if you’re not a Jew but are a close descendant of the Jewish tribe?

I had an interesting conversation with an Ashkenazi Jewish friend who was intent on fathering a child with another Ashkenazi Jewish woman to make his parents happy. He was willing to use a surrogate or a matchmaking service if necessary.

My argument was that the original Jewish people didn’t look Eastern European like many Ashkenazi do today. I contended that, over the centuries, and over migrations, women were raped and had sex outside of marriage.

Perhaps Jewish Americans today don’t have much DNA relations to the original chosen people as they think. Maybe some Muslims are closer DNA wise.

I’m waiting for a world-wide DNA database. It will be very revealing and will shatter long held beliefs.

What happens when people discover they are more Black than Hispanic, more German than French, more Cambodian than Vietnamese, more Hispanic than Anglo?

We have yet to discover that science is greater than faith.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]well i dont know about other religions, but us jews think we’re the chosen people. a bit egotistical, perhaps, but probably true.[/quote]

Chosen how? It is DNA or religious beliefs? Are you still chosen if you’re not a Jew but are a close descendant of the Jewish tribe?

I had an interesting conversation with an Ashkenazi Jewish friend who was intent on fathering a child with another Ashkenazi Jewish woman to make his parents happy. He was willing to use a surrogate or a matchmaking service if necessary.

My argument was that the original Jewish people didn’t look Eastern European like many Ashkenazi do today. I contended that, over the centuries, and over migrations, women were raped and had sex outside of marriage.

Perhaps Jewish Americans today don’t have much DNA relations to the original chosen people as they think. Maybe some Muslims are closer DNA wise.

I’m waiting for a world-wide DNA database. It will be very revealing and will shatter long held beliefs.

What happens when people discover they are more Black than Hispanic, more German than French, more Cambodian than Vietnamese, more Hispanic than Anglo?

We have yet to discover that science is greater than faith.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]well i dont know about other religions, but us jews think we’re the chosen people. a bit egotistical, perhaps, but probably true.[/quote]

Chosen how? It is DNA or religious beliefs? Are you still chosen if you’re not a Jew but are a close descendant of the Jewish tribe?

I had an interesting conversation with an Ashkenazi Jewish friend who was intent on fathering a child with another Ashkenazi Jewish woman to make his parents happy. He was willing to use a surrogate or a matchmaking service if necessary.

My argument was that the original Jewish people didn’t look Eastern European like many Ashkenazi do today. I contended that, over the centuries, and over migrations, women were raped and had sex outside of marriage.

Perhaps Jewish Americans today don’t have much DNA relations to the original chosen people as they think. Maybe some Muslims are closer DNA wise.

I’m waiting for a world-wide DNA database. It will be very revealing and will shatter long held beliefs.

What happens when people discover they are more Black than Hispanic, more German than French, more Cambodian than Vietnamese, more Hispanic than Anglo?

We have yet to discover that science is greater than faith.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]well i dont know about other religions, but us jews think we’re the chosen people. a bit egotistical, perhaps, but probably true.[/quote]

Chosen how? It is DNA or religious beliefs? Are you still chosen if you’re not a Jew but are a close descendant of the Jewish tribe?

I had an interesting conversation with an Ashkenazi Jewish friend who was intent on fathering a child with another Ashkenazi Jewish woman to make his parents happy. He was willing to use a surrogate or a matchmaking service if necessary.

My argument was that the original Jewish people didn’t look Eastern European like many Ashkenazi do today. I contended that, over the centuries, and over migrations, women were raped and had sex outside of marriage.

Perhaps Jewish Americans today don’t have much DNA relations to the original chosen people as they think. Maybe some Muslims are closer DNA wise.

I’m waiting for a world-wide DNA database. It will be very revealing and will shatter long held beliefs.

What happens when people discover they are more Black than Hispanic, more German than French, more Cambodian than Vietnamese, more Hispanic than Anglo?

We have yet to discover that science is greater than faith.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.[/quote]

Svelte: Not harsh and not wrong. For the record, I don’t accept Wiki entries as being anything other than what they (generally) are: Unsubstantiated pieces of data, lacking attribution and intellectual rigor. I have seen more people fall flat on their face trying to use Wiki “facts” to rebut someone.

Much like my question regarding the Inquisition: Which Crusades are we speaking of? All of them? What were the primary causes, in your opinion? I’d respond by referencing the “Reconquista” (Spain), which started early in the 8th century, and also tie into the Battle of Manzikert late in the 11th, which was tied to defense of the Byzantine Empire. I can make, and strongly defend, the point that the Crusades represented the response of Christendom to Muslim oppression of Christians and Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. As regards “Terrorism” as you’re attempting to define it, both sides (Muslim and Christian) engaged in wholesale slaughter at various points throughout the various Crusades (and previous and concurrent Muslim invasions), but you need to place these events into context (i.e. the time in history in which they occurred).

Regarding the “1578 handbook for inquisitors” (correctly known as the “Directorium Inquistorum” or “Witch Hunter’s Guide”), this book was NOT part and parcel of the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Even more precisely, the Spanish Inquisition (which I believe is the one you and Bubba are referencing) was not religious, but a secular affair, convoked by the Spanish king and queen, WITHOUT approval of the Holy See.

Get your facts straight, and use a better source for reference than Wikipedia.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.[/quote]

Svelte: Not harsh and not wrong. For the record, I don’t accept Wiki entries as being anything other than what they (generally) are: Unsubstantiated pieces of data, lacking attribution and intellectual rigor. I have seen more people fall flat on their face trying to use Wiki “facts” to rebut someone.

Much like my question regarding the Inquisition: Which Crusades are we speaking of? All of them? What were the primary causes, in your opinion? I’d respond by referencing the “Reconquista” (Spain), which started early in the 8th century, and also tie into the Battle of Manzikert late in the 11th, which was tied to defense of the Byzantine Empire. I can make, and strongly defend, the point that the Crusades represented the response of Christendom to Muslim oppression of Christians and Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. As regards “Terrorism” as you’re attempting to define it, both sides (Muslim and Christian) engaged in wholesale slaughter at various points throughout the various Crusades (and previous and concurrent Muslim invasions), but you need to place these events into context (i.e. the time in history in which they occurred).

Regarding the “1578 handbook for inquisitors” (correctly known as the “Directorium Inquistorum” or “Witch Hunter’s Guide”), this book was NOT part and parcel of the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Even more precisely, the Spanish Inquisition (which I believe is the one you and Bubba are referencing) was not religious, but a secular affair, convoked by the Spanish king and queen, WITHOUT approval of the Holy See.

Get your facts straight, and use a better source for reference than Wikipedia.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.[/quote]

Svelte: Not harsh and not wrong. For the record, I don’t accept Wiki entries as being anything other than what they (generally) are: Unsubstantiated pieces of data, lacking attribution and intellectual rigor. I have seen more people fall flat on their face trying to use Wiki “facts” to rebut someone.

Much like my question regarding the Inquisition: Which Crusades are we speaking of? All of them? What were the primary causes, in your opinion? I’d respond by referencing the “Reconquista” (Spain), which started early in the 8th century, and also tie into the Battle of Manzikert late in the 11th, which was tied to defense of the Byzantine Empire. I can make, and strongly defend, the point that the Crusades represented the response of Christendom to Muslim oppression of Christians and Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. As regards “Terrorism” as you’re attempting to define it, both sides (Muslim and Christian) engaged in wholesale slaughter at various points throughout the various Crusades (and previous and concurrent Muslim invasions), but you need to place these events into context (i.e. the time in history in which they occurred).

Regarding the “1578 handbook for inquisitors” (correctly known as the “Directorium Inquistorum” or “Witch Hunter’s Guide”), this book was NOT part and parcel of the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Even more precisely, the Spanish Inquisition (which I believe is the one you and Bubba are referencing) was not religious, but a secular affair, convoked by the Spanish king and queen, WITHOUT approval of the Holy See.

Get your facts straight, and use a better source for reference than Wikipedia.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.[/quote]

Svelte: Not harsh and not wrong. For the record, I don’t accept Wiki entries as being anything other than what they (generally) are: Unsubstantiated pieces of data, lacking attribution and intellectual rigor. I have seen more people fall flat on their face trying to use Wiki “facts” to rebut someone.

Much like my question regarding the Inquisition: Which Crusades are we speaking of? All of them? What were the primary causes, in your opinion? I’d respond by referencing the “Reconquista” (Spain), which started early in the 8th century, and also tie into the Battle of Manzikert late in the 11th, which was tied to defense of the Byzantine Empire. I can make, and strongly defend, the point that the Crusades represented the response of Christendom to Muslim oppression of Christians and Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. As regards “Terrorism” as you’re attempting to define it, both sides (Muslim and Christian) engaged in wholesale slaughter at various points throughout the various Crusades (and previous and concurrent Muslim invasions), but you need to place these events into context (i.e. the time in history in which they occurred).

Regarding the “1578 handbook for inquisitors” (correctly known as the “Directorium Inquistorum” or “Witch Hunter’s Guide”), this book was NOT part and parcel of the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Even more precisely, the Spanish Inquisition (which I believe is the one you and Bubba are referencing) was not religious, but a secular affair, convoked by the Spanish king and queen, WITHOUT approval of the Holy See.

Get your facts straight, and use a better source for reference than Wikipedia.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]
Do the Crusades ring a bell?

How about the Inquisition?[/quote]

Wow. So, the Crusades were “terrorism”? I’d opine on the Inquisition, but I’m not entirely sure which Inquisition you’re speaking of.

The Roman Inquisition? The Spanish? Portuguese? Which one? The Papal Inquisition?

Good Lord. First off, actually read some history, and, second, COMPREHEND what you’re reading. Failing that, watch some Monty Python. They covered the Spanish Inquisition quite nicely (“nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”), including Torquemada and the Comfy Chair.

As a Catholic, it never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant the supposedly “learned” are.[/quote]

Wow dude that is harsh, harsh, harsh and surprisingly rude considering you are wrong.

Terrorism, as defined in the dictionary:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Now, select quotes from Wikipedia on the Inquisition:

“the 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose on inquisitorial penalties…translation from the Latin:…for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified…” Violence, intimidation, and coercion. Right there.

“The Spanish Inquisition,, tied to the authority of the Spanish Crown, also examined political cases.”

and the Wikipedia entry for the Crusades:

“The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control…The Crusades had some temporary successes, but the Crusaders were eventually forced out of the Holy Land. Nevertheless, he Crusades had major far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts on Europe.”

Let’s see. Violence used to coerce for political purposes. Sounds like terrorism to me, by the definition above.[/quote]

Svelte: Not harsh and not wrong. For the record, I don’t accept Wiki entries as being anything other than what they (generally) are: Unsubstantiated pieces of data, lacking attribution and intellectual rigor. I have seen more people fall flat on their face trying to use Wiki “facts” to rebut someone.

Much like my question regarding the Inquisition: Which Crusades are we speaking of? All of them? What were the primary causes, in your opinion? I’d respond by referencing the “Reconquista” (Spain), which started early in the 8th century, and also tie into the Battle of Manzikert late in the 11th, which was tied to defense of the Byzantine Empire. I can make, and strongly defend, the point that the Crusades represented the response of Christendom to Muslim oppression of Christians and Muslim incursions into previously Christian lands. As regards “Terrorism” as you’re attempting to define it, both sides (Muslim and Christian) engaged in wholesale slaughter at various points throughout the various Crusades (and previous and concurrent Muslim invasions), but you need to place these events into context (i.e. the time in history in which they occurred).

Regarding the “1578 handbook for inquisitors” (correctly known as the “Directorium Inquistorum” or “Witch Hunter’s Guide”), this book was NOT part and parcel of the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Even more precisely, the Spanish Inquisition (which I believe is the one you and Bubba are referencing) was not religious, but a secular affair, convoked by the Spanish king and queen, WITHOUT approval of the Holy See.

Get your facts straight, and use a better source for reference than Wikipedia.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m not sure who the Jews were chosen by but they seem selected for something. Personally I decided to stop the line and refused to marry anyone Jewish much to my folks chagrin. I think my kids are better for the cross racial mixture. Mixed kids are common at their schools and they have glowing skin tone. Seems to improve disposition too; that is, they’re not as neurotic as my forebears! In fact they seem superior to me by almost any measure. They’re catholic, but seem to have got infected by my atheism though I have always been silent on the issue.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m not sure who the Jews were chosen by but they seem selected for something. Personally I decided to stop the line and refused to marry anyone Jewish much to my folks chagrin. I think my kids are better for the cross racial mixture. Mixed kids are common at their schools and they have glowing skin tone. Seems to improve disposition too; that is, they’re not as neurotic as my forebears! In fact they seem superior to me by almost any measure. They’re catholic, but seem to have got infected by my atheism though I have always been silent on the issue.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m not sure who the Jews were chosen by but they seem selected for something. Personally I decided to stop the line and refused to marry anyone Jewish much to my folks chagrin. I think my kids are better for the cross racial mixture. Mixed kids are common at their schools and they have glowing skin tone. Seems to improve disposition too; that is, they’re not as neurotic as my forebears! In fact they seem superior to me by almost any measure. They’re catholic, but seem to have got infected by my atheism though I have always been silent on the issue.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m not sure who the Jews were chosen by but they seem selected for something. Personally I decided to stop the line and refused to marry anyone Jewish much to my folks chagrin. I think my kids are better for the cross racial mixture. Mixed kids are common at their schools and they have glowing skin tone. Seems to improve disposition too; that is, they’re not as neurotic as my forebears! In fact they seem superior to me by almost any measure. They’re catholic, but seem to have got infected by my atheism though I have always been silent on the issue.

[Author]

Posts