On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:

> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>
> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.

We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.

Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us.

They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:10:23 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
> > discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
> > in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
> >
> > I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
> > But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>
> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>
> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.

Frank and the indefatiqueable six believe that if they simply don't believe in religion that they won't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:13:40 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us..
> They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )

Hawaii not only was a US territory, but a very large, Navy, Army and Army Air Force base. From the moment of the first bullet fired upon a US territory by a hostile enemy we are at war, but people like Russell who has never been in the military doesn't know that. This is how they got around making endless wars without having to declare them.

What is extraordinary is that the stupid six have not one wit of interest in truth. They ONLY have a dick need to prove me wrong.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, William Crowell wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/8/2022 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >
> > > The rest of the world take our bike inside or, where that's not
> > > possible, shops elsewhere.
> > > http://www.yellowjersey.org/877/pumpkjul.jpg
> > When commuting by bike, I've almost always been able to take my bike
> > into the workplace. The only exception was a year-long temporary
> > assignment that was something like 30 miles away - too far to bike
> > anyway. They had a guard at the gate who checked ID passes each morning,
> > so were pretty strict in general.
> >
> > I did ride there on Bike To Work Day. I wasn't allowed to take the bike
> > in, but the guard was happy to keep an eye on the bike for me.
> >
> > I remember wondering about this issue when I started teaching at this
> > university. Another faculty member who also rode to work advised me
> > "Don't ask! Just do it!" And of course he was right.
> >
> > However, another faculty friend had a son who liked to bike to school.
> > For whatever reason, the campus security guy would not let him stash his
> > bike in his father's office. I think the logic was something like "If we
> > let one student take his bike indoors, all the other students will want
> > to do that."
> >
> > But I'm a big fan of asking forgiveness - if necessary - instead of
> > permission.
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> Frank, I really have a wild hair up my buttocks about workout gyms. Usually they not only won't let you bring your bike inside, but they also object to your keeping a large lock and chain on the premises. I decided not to tolerate this kind of disrespect for the customer because it happened when I inquired about membership at 2 gyms around here. So I decided to forego the gym workout and just ride my bike instead. The devil may take the dambed gyms, as far as I am concerned. I guess I just don't need to get buffed that badly after all.
Last night I had dinner with my brother and he has the idea that you have to lift weights etc. to maintain your health. I suppose those Tour de France pros are the picture of unhealthy.

On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>
>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>
> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>
> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.

Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.

Or not.

Hence, Theology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/18/2022 10:18 AM, Ann Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:10:23 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>>
>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>>
>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>>
>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>
> Frank and the indefatiqueable six believe that if they simply don't believe in religion that they won't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

"Ann Kunich" (or whoever Tom is incompetently using for internet access)
has absolutely no idea what Frank believes. And probably could not
comprehend it if it were explained.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn
something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941.
The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another
three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us.
>
>They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )

Well, the Japanese formally declared war on the U.S. on December 7th.
about 2 hours after their attack on Pearl Harbor.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 07:23:41 -0700 (PDT), Ann Kunich
<elizabethannie.47@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:13:40 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us.
>> They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )
>
>Hawaii not only was a US territory, but a very large, Navy, Army and Army Air Force base. From the moment of the first bullet fired upon a US territory by a hostile enemy we are at war, but people like Russell who has never been in the military doesn't know that. This is how they got around making endless wars without having to declare them.
>
>What is extraordinary is that the stupid six have not one wit of interest in truth. They ONLY have a dick need to prove me wrong.

Wrong (yet) again. In the Gulf of Tonkin Incident N. Vietnamese war
ships were reported to have fired on the U.S.S. Maddox and the U.S.S.
C. Turner Joy. The U.S. did not declare war.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>>
>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>>
>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>>
>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>
>Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.
>
>Or not.
>
>Hence, Theology.

Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?

(in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
person in Jerusalem)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:13:40 AM UTC-5, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us..
> They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )

Hawaii was a USA Territory when it was bombed on December 7, 1941. And they were USA Naval ships and seamen in the USA Navy. They were USA citizens. I'd say there is enough "us" to it.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:49:44 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 10:18 AM, Ann Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:10:23 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
> >>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
> >>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
> >>>
> >>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
> >>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
> >>
> >> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
> >> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
> >>
> >> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
> >
> > Frank and the indefatiqueable six believe that if they simply don't believe in religion that they won't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire..
> "Ann Kunich" (or whoever Tom is incompetently using for internet access)
> has absolutely no idea what Frank believes. And probably could not
> comprehend it if it were explained.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I see where you got "Ann" from. But when I see the email address for Tommy's other account, it starts with "elizabeth".

Tommy, is your wife, second wife, third wife, divorced prior wife, name Elizabeth or Ann?

On 5/18/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>>>
>>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>>>
>>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>>>
>>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>>
>> Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.
>>
>> Or not.
>>
>> Hence, Theology.
>
> Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
> you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?
>
> (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
> person in Jerusalem)
>

With similar on both sides before and after 1099.

Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:59:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/18/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>>>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>>>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>>>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>>>>
>>>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>>>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>>>>
>>>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>>>
>>> Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.
>>>
>>> Or not.
>>>
>>> Hence, Theology.
>>
>> Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
>> you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?
>>
>> (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
>> person in Jerusalem)
>>
>
>With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>
>Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.

I wasn't singling out the Christians as every religion has had there
time at bat. Not that religion, per se, is always the underlying cause
but it certainly is a good rallying cry. "Kill him in the name of God"
generates much more enthusiasm then "Kill him, I want his land".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:46:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, you are not wrong but neither are you I believe (wholly) right
>(how do you like that argument)

It's after midnight here. Trying to answer that question will surely
put me to sleep.

>When Henry VIII "nationalized" the
>Church the usual explanation is to allow him to divorce a wife, which
>the Pope had denied him. i.e., a purely religious matter. I am
>inclined to believe that, perhaps a more pressing reason was because
>at the time the Church "owned" or controlled abut 1/4 of all the
>cultivated land in the country... and paid no taxes to the King.

Yep. Just follow the money:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII>
"Henry was an extravagant spender, using the proceeds from the
dissolution of the monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament.
He also converted the money that was formerly paid to Rome into royal
revenue. Despite the money from these sources, he was continually on
the verge of financial ruin due to his personal extravagance, as well
as his numerous costly and largely unsuccessful wars..."

>The First Crusade was partially in response to Byzantine requesting
>military assistance against the Turks, but the actual pilgrimage, led
>by Peter the Hermit, was, apparently, a purely religious matter.

That didn't last. By the time the 4th crusade arrived, those
participating were having a profitable time pillaging the large cites
on the route and holding a fair number of important people for ransom.
"Sack of Constantinople"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople>

>The Muslim Sunni-Shia divide was largely political in deciding who
>would be Caliph upon the death of The Prophet Muhammad

Yep. Caliph means "successor".

>>Another good excuse was to keep the mercenary armies busy. In 1095
>>Pope Urban II had a problem. He was deep in debt to money lenders and
>>mercenaries for previous marginally successful military adventures.

>Do you have a reference for the Pope leading, or having an army?

Nope. To the best of my knowledge on the topic, none of the early
popes ever led an army. Instead, they hired expensive mercenaries to
do the dirty work.

>I've
>read reference to letters written by the Pope urging the Catalonian
>lords to continue the fight against the Moors, assuring them that
>doing so would offer the same divine rewards as a conflict against the
>Seljuks, but nothing about his having an army. Although he certainly
>was having problems with the antipope "Clement III"

The armies of the day were much smaller. The local lords raised what
amounted to a militia, while the mercenaries handled the siege weapons
and supplies. The size of these armies varied with the seasons.
During the harvest season, the armies were tiny because only the
professional mercenaries were available. Once the harvest was brought
in, the farmers were distracted by raiders trying to steal the
harvest. By the time things returned to something resembling normal,
there was very little time left for the armies to actually fight.
Worse, they really didn't want to fight and spent a substantial part
of the winter on maneuvers intended to catch the opponents off guard,
such as at Crecy in 1346. When there was a battle, it was usually by
accident. Large armies aren't needed for that kind of warfare and
were probably not worth mentioning in political communications.

>>His mercenary army wanted to be paid and was threatening to pillage
>>his lands unless payment was forthcoming. His solution was to start
>>the first Crusade and send them to holy land to do some looting. The
>>eastern treasures and whatever they could loot along the roads seemed
>>to be better than what was available in Europe. So, off they went on
>>a religious crusade. The crusade worked well enough at getting the
>>mercenaries out of Europe that it was repeated three times.

>Err... you mean the King of England and France were mercenaries? 3rd
>Crusade (:-)

Of course. As long as money was exchanged, I guess it could called a
mercenary enterprise. Everyone from mercenary to peasant farmer were
greedy, saw an opportunity to do some looting, and thought that having
the support of the church would make such an enterprise possible,
especially if the church supplies a large number of indulgences which
could be sold or traded. What the church got out of it was getting
rid of the mercenaries for a while.

>>Just follow the money and religion will not be far behind.
>
>I suspect it is, to some extent a matter of the "chicken or the egg"
>certainly politics can be the fundamental cause but I suspect that
>equally religion or money can be a cause.

When there is a mutual benefit, it really doesn't matter whether the
egg or chicken came first.

>We have had quite a number of political riots, or demonstrations over
>the years and while certainly they were led or instigated by
>politicians I have talked to some of the actual rioters, the troops on
>the street, and a large number of them are true believers.

That discussion could easily turn into a string of conspiracy
theories. I'll pass (this time).

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 17 May 2022 08:59:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>The Popes encouraging expeditions to protect pilgrims in
>Jerusalem were somewhere around 1000~1200. The more
>developed power structure of 1500~1600 or so was very
>different and various Popes fielded their own armies,
>overall fairly successfully.

Protect? During the Crusades, the Templars largely invented the
modern banking system. There were two problems that needed to be
solved:
1. Pilgrims were getting robbed on the way to the holy land and back.
2. It was sinful to charge interest on loan or other financial
transaction because Jesus evicted the interest charging money changers
from the temple.

The solution was for the pilgrims to give the Templars their money at
the start of the pilgrimage in exchange for a piece of paper
indicating the amount deposited. The pilgrims would make their way to
the holy land without having to drag their treasury with them. On
arrival in the holy land, they would exchange the paper for equivalent
amount of money. No interest or service charges would be levied, but
the pilgrims were expected to make a substantial "donation" for the
services rendered. That was about it for the protection.

>It was Mussolini who crafted the Lateran Treaty after which
>the Papacy controlled only the Vatican.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 19 May 2022 00:53:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:46:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, you are not wrong but neither are you I believe (wholly) right
>>(how do you like that argument)
>
>It's after midnight here. Trying to answer that question will surely
>put me to sleep.
>
>>When Henry VIII "nationalized" the
>>Church the usual explanation is to allow him to divorce a wife, which
>>the Pope had denied him. i.e., a purely religious matter. I am
>>inclined to believe that, perhaps a more pressing reason was because
>>at the time the Church "owned" or controlled abut 1/4 of all the
>>cultivated land in the country... and paid no taxes to the King.
>
>Yep. Just follow the money:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII>
>"Henry was an extravagant spender, using the proceeds from the
>dissolution of the monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament.
>He also converted the money that was formerly paid to Rome into royal
>revenue. Despite the money from these sources, he was continually on
>the verge of financial ruin due to his personal extravagance, as well
>as his numerous costly and largely unsuccessful wars..."
>
>>The First Crusade was partially in response to Byzantine requesting
>>military assistance against the Turks, but the actual pilgrimage, led
>>by Peter the Hermit, was, apparently, a purely religious matter.
>
>That didn't last. By the time the 4th crusade arrived, those
>participating were having a profitable time pillaging the large cites
>on the route and holding a fair number of important people for ransom.
>"Sack of Constantinople"
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople>
>
>>The Muslim Sunni-Shia divide was largely political in deciding who
>>would be Caliph upon the death of The Prophet Muhammad
>
>Yep. Caliph means "successor".
>
>>>Another good excuse was to keep the mercenary armies busy. In 1095
>>>Pope Urban II had a problem. He was deep in debt to money lenders and
>>>mercenaries for previous marginally successful military adventures.
>
>>Do you have a reference for the Pope leading, or having an army?
>
>Nope. To the best of my knowledge on the topic, none of the early
>popes ever led an army. Instead, they hired expensive mercenaries to
>do the dirty work.
>
>>I've
>>read reference to letters written by the Pope urging the Catalonian
>>lords to continue the fight against the Moors, assuring them that
>>doing so would offer the same divine rewards as a conflict against the
>>Seljuks, but nothing about his having an army. Although he certainly
>>was having problems with the antipope "Clement III"
>
>The armies of the day were much smaller. The local lords raised what
>amounted to a militia, while the mercenaries handled the siege weapons
>and supplies. The size of these armies varied with the seasons.
>During the harvest season, the armies were tiny because only the
>professional mercenaries were available. Once the harvest was brought
>in, the farmers were distracted by raiders trying to steal the
>harvest. By the time things returned to something resembling normal,
>there was very little time left for the armies to actually fight.
>Worse, they really didn't want to fight and spent a substantial part
>of the winter on maneuvers intended to catch the opponents off guard,
>such as at Crecy in 1346. When there was a battle, it was usually by
>accident. Large armies aren't needed for that kind of warfare and
>were probably not worth mentioning in political communications.
>

Re Crecy... From what I read, the English army landed in Normandy and
conducted a chevauchée, a sort of scorched earth march, nearly to
Paris, then turned north, crossed the Somme and met the French at
Crecy. The English army is estimated at some 7-15 thousand the French
army has been estimated at 72,000 to 120,000. These are hardly small
armies.
The armies in the 3rd crusade amounted to, English - 8,000, French -
maybe 2,000.

>>>His mercenary army wanted to be paid and was threatening to pillage
>>>his lands unless payment was forthcoming. His solution was to start
>>>the first Crusade and send them to holy land to do some looting. The
>>>eastern treasures and whatever they could loot along the roads seemed
>>>to be better than what was available in Europe. So, off they went on
>>>a religious crusade. The crusade worked well enough at getting the
>>>mercenaries out of Europe that it was repeated three times.

Re 1st Crusade. Are you sure that the Pope, Urban II, had a mercenary
army? I did some research and I can find no reference to it while I
can find reference to letters he wrote, for example, to the Catalonian
lords beseech them to continue the fight against the Moors (in Spain)
and promising them "divine rewards", no mention of money.

>>Err... you mean the King of England and France were mercenaries? 3rd
>>Crusade (:-)
>
>Of course. As long as money was exchanged, I guess it could called a
>mercenary enterprise. Everyone from mercenary to peasant farmer were
>greedy, saw an opportunity to do some looting, and thought that having
>the support of the church would make such an enterprise possible,
>especially if the church supplies a large number of indulgences which
>could be sold or traded. What the church got out of it was getting
>rid of the mercenaries for a while.

I ... think... you are getting a bit excited. You can hardly consider
the Kings of, perhaps, the two strongest nations in Europe as
mercenary(s).
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 01:05:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 08:59:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>The Popes encouraging expeditions to protect pilgrims in
>>Jerusalem were somewhere around 1000~1200. The more
>>developed power structure of 1500~1600 or so was very
>>different and various Popes fielded their own armies,
>>overall fairly successfully.
>
>Protect? During the Crusades, the Templars largely invented the
>modern banking system. There were two problems that needed to be
>solved:
>1. Pilgrims were getting robbed on the way to the holy land and back.
>2. It was sinful to charge interest on loan or other financial
>transaction because Jesus evicted the interest charging money changers
>from the temple.
>
>The solution was for the pilgrims to give the Templars their money at
>the start of the pilgrimage in exchange for a piece of paper
>indicating the amount deposited. The pilgrims would make their way to
>the holy land without having to drag their treasury with them. On
>arrival in the holy land, they would exchange the paper for equivalent
>amount of money. No interest or service charges would be levied, but
>the pilgrims were expected to make a substantial "donation" for the
>services rendered. That was about it for the protection.

Well, the Knights Templar were formed in 1119 and fought in at least
14 major battles until 1302.

While they did "invent", I believe, the first international financial
system, they seem to have done other things (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/19/2022 3:05 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 08:59:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> The Popes encouraging expeditions to protect pilgrims in
>> Jerusalem were somewhere around 1000~1200. The more
>> developed power structure of 1500~1600 or so was very
>> different and various Popes fielded their own armies,
>> overall fairly successfully.
>
> Protect? During the Crusades, the Templars largely invented the
> modern banking system. There were two problems that needed to be
> solved:
> 1. Pilgrims were getting robbed on the way to the holy land and back.
> 2. It was sinful to charge interest on loan or other financial
> transaction because Jesus evicted the interest charging money changers
> from the temple.
>
> The solution was for the pilgrims to give the Templars their money at
> the start of the pilgrimage in exchange for a piece of paper
> indicating the amount deposited. The pilgrims would make their way to
> the holy land without having to drag their treasury with them. On
> arrival in the holy land, they would exchange the paper for equivalent
> amount of money. No interest or service charges would be levied, but
> the pilgrims were expected to make a substantial "donation" for the
> services rendered. That was about it for the protection.
>
>> It was Mussolini who crafted the Lateran Treaty after which
>> the Papacy controlled only the Vatican.
>

Innovative yes but not fundamentally different from hawala,
or traveler's checks or cloud-based banking.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:23:43 AM UTC-4, elizabet...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:13:40 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us.
> > They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )

> Hawaii not only was a US territory, but a very large, Navy, Army and Army Air Force base.

There are large military installations on the island of Oahu. The entire island is not a military base. Yes, I lived there frm1970-73, first at Helemano Military Reservation, then at Schofield Barracks.

> From the moment of the first bullet fired upon a US territory by a hostile enemy we are at war,

BZZZZT wrong again, sparky. We aren't at war until congress declares it.

> but people like Russell who has never been in the military doesn't know that. This is how they got around making endless wars without having to declare them.

Right, like this: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
>
> What is extraordinary is that the stupid six have not one wit of interest in truth. They ONLY have a dick need to prove me wrong.

You have that exactly backwards. We have no dick needs, we are only interested in the truth.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 12:59:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
> > person in Jerusalem)
> >
> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>
> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

This war was 800 years later (Russo-Turkey) but it left us with a song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6vyZ_q-TjA

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-4, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, William Crowell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2022 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The rest of the world take our bike inside or, where that's not
> > > > possible, shops elsewhere.
> > > > http://www.yellowjersey.org/877/pumpkjul.jpg
> > > When commuting by bike, I've almost always been able to take my bike
> > > into the workplace. The only exception was a year-long temporary
> > > assignment that was something like 30 miles away - too far to bike
> > > anyway. They had a guard at the gate who checked ID passes each morning,
> > > so were pretty strict in general.
> > >
> > > I did ride there on Bike To Work Day. I wasn't allowed to take the bike
> > > in, but the guard was happy to keep an eye on the bike for me.
> > >
> > > I remember wondering about this issue when I started teaching at this
> > > university. Another faculty member who also rode to work advised me
> > > "Don't ask! Just do it!" And of course he was right.
> > >
> > > However, another faculty friend had a son who liked to bike to school..
> > > For whatever reason, the campus security guy would not let him stash his
> > > bike in his father's office. I think the logic was something like "If we
> > > let one student take his bike indoors, all the other students will want
> > > to do that."
> > >
> > > But I'm a big fan of asking forgiveness - if necessary - instead of
> > > permission.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > Frank, I really have a wild hair up my buttocks about workout gyms. Usually they not only won't let you bring your bike inside, but they also object to your keeping a large lock and chain on the premises. I decided not to tolerate this kind of disrespect for the customer because it happened when I inquired about membership at 2 gyms around here. So I decided to forego the gym workout and just ride my bike instead. The devil may take the dambed gyms, as far as I am concerned. I guess I just don't need to get buffed that badly after all.

> Last night I had dinner with my brother and he has the idea that you have to lift weights etc. to maintain your health. I suppose those Tour de France pros are the picture of unhealthy.

oy vey.....

https://www.velonews.com/training/training-best-weight-training-excercises-for-cyclists/
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/strength-training-basics-for-cyclists/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/the-best-strength-exercises-for-cyclists/
https://usacycling.org/article/strength-training-for-cyclists-a-practical-view-from-a-cycling-coach
https://stagescycling.com/en_us/content/strength-training-for-cyclists
https://trainright.com/cyclists-benefit-strength-training/

But do the pro's do it? Yes!

https://www.teamefcoaching.com/blog/tejay-van-garderen-s-strength-training-tips/
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/training/peter-sagans-training-secrets-a-week-in-the-life-of-the-triple-world-champion-358009
https://www.quickstep-alphavinylteam.com/en/blog/5150/take-a-look-inside-world-champion-julian-alaphilippe-s-pain-cave

Then of course there's the bible on the subject

https://www.amazon.com/Weight-Training-Cyclists-Program-Endurance/dp/1934030295

And yes, I have a freeweight routine I use as well (though not as often as I should)

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:24:39 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:59:47 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 5/18/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
> >>>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
> >>>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
> >>>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
> >>>>
> >>>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
> >>>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
> >>>
> >>> Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed..
> >>>
> >>> Or not.
> >>>
> >>> Hence, Theology.
> >>
> >> Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
> >> you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?
> >>
> >> (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
> >> person in Jerusalem)
> >>
> >
> >With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
> >
> >Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
> >new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
> >kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
> >made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
> >to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
> I wasn't singling out the Christians as every religion has had there
> time at bat. Not that religion, per se, is always the underlying cause
> but it certainly is a good rallying cry. "Kill him in the name of God"
> generates much more enthusiasm then "Kill him, I want his land".
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I was always fond of "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own". Arnaud Amalric - a Cistercian abbot and commander of the Albigensian Crusade, was reported to have said something similar to this prior to the massacre at Béziers.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>
> >
> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>
> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.

But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are left to themselves other than to steal things from.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> >
>> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>>
>> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
>
> But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing
> and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be
> taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either
> side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are
> left to themselves other than to steal things from.

That is completely ahistorical, and an odd choice of tense. The first
crusade sack of Jerusalem was unusually bloody even for the time, and at
the time rape, massacre, or enslavement of everyone in cities falling
to siege was more or less normal.