William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#1  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 9:55 pm

This thread is created due to another thread going off topic.
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.

To begin, William the conquror was first Norman king of England 1066

usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman king of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became ruler of Normandy

He was a descendant of Rollo and was Duke of Normandy from 1035 onward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


And he was of the same house of Normandy, as Rollo

William the conqueror, House Normandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


And Rollo

House Normandy (founder) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo


And Rollo was a Viking....

was a Viking who became the first ruler of Normandy, a region in northern France. He is sometimes called the first Duke of Normandy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo


Rollo was also converted from norse paganism, to Catholicism, during his time in Normandy, which is not far from the realms of the Holy Roman Empire

Norse Paganism
later Roman Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo


Rollo followed in the footsteps of a number of barbarian kings, from other houses, to ally themselves with the Papacy, amongst the earliest being Clovis I

Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)


Now a little bit about the pope, and his influence on the crusades

In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades


And the second crusade

The Second Crusade was announced by Pope Eugene III, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade


And British troops participating in the crusades

The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade


And also

The Third Crusade (1189–1192) was an attempt by the leaders of the three most powerful states of Western Christianity (England, France and the Holy Roman Empire) to reconquer the Holy Land following the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade


Now i did not even know there was a valid argument against any of this.
I thought it was pretty all contemporary,
But apparently there is huge opposition to those assertions.

I fail to see how a link between William the conqueror and Roman Catholicism requires such proving, but apparently it does.

Or, perhaps there is a valid debate against William the conqueror being connected with Roman Catholicism?

It even says in this link here, William the conqueror was a "devout" Christian.

William the Conqueror was a devout Christian. After he conquered the country he did what he could to spread the Christian religion in England. https://spartacus-educational.com/REcatholic.htm


Is the validity of the source objectionable?

Needs to also be understood. William the Conqueror was not English. He was part on the Norman invasions that conquered England
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 10, 2020 10:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 10, 2020 10:10 pm

Nevets wrote:This thread is created due to another thread going off topic.
I pulled out of the discussion at the point of being asked "in what way was William the conqueror" connected to the pope.
The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.
I am in favour of the argument, that the pope, was at the very least, influencial in the sending of British troops during the crusades.
But those against the theory, are questioning the links between William the conqueror and the pope.

To begin, William the conquror was first Norman king of England 1066

usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


William the conqueror was a "direct" descendant of Rollo, who was the pagan viking that first became king of Normandy


He was a descendant of Rollo and was Duke of Normandy from 1035 onward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror


At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.


Nevets wrote:Rollo was also converted from norse paganism, to Catholicism, during his time in Normandy, which is not far from the realms of the Holy Roman Empire

That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands.

Nevets wrote:
Rollo followed in the footsteps of a number of barbarian kings, from other houses, to ally themselves with the Papacy, amongst the earliest being Clovis I

Converting to Christianity (Arianism was long since dead in the time of Rollo) is not the same as allying yourself with the Papacy.



Nevets wrote:Now i did not even know there was a valid argument against any of this.
I thought it was pretty all contemporary,

Because it is the consensus.

Nevets wrote:But apparently there is huge opposition to those assertions.

Then why do you fail to present any of it?

Nevets wrote:
I fail to see how a link between William the conqueror and Roman Catholicism requires such proving, but apparently it does.

Or, perhaps there is a valid debate against William the conqueror being connected with Roman Catholicism?

It even says in this link here, William the conqueror was a "devout" Christian.

Again being a devout Christian =/= being an ally of the pope or being directed by the pope.

Nevets wrote:
William the Conqueror was a devout Christian. After he conquered the country he did what he could to spread the Christian religion in England. https://spartacus-educational.com/REcatholic.htm


Is the validity of the source objectionable?
[/quote]
I don't care as it doesn't change whether William was an ally of, or controlled by, the pope.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#3  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote: At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.


I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".

Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words, diverting from what is important, and obfuscating the subject, by trying to mislead someone by implying a Duke is of less importance, and thus downplaying the importance.

In the Middle Ages, the Duke of Normandy was the ruler of the Duchy of Normandy in north-western France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy


If you want me to reply to the rest of your post, you will aslo have to put some space between my replies and your own, because going through your entire post, seperating my writing from yours, is not practical.

Any other objections to anything else you said, i shall raise in another post
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#4  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:33 pm

The argument is an off-shoot from the claim that the pope was behind the sending of British troops to the crusades.


Your claim, which is wrong. It's wrong on so many levels and has been explained to you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#5  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:34 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.


I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".t



Abject fucking lie.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2736043

Nevets wrote:And if we go to William the conquror in 1066, he was a direct descenant of Rollo, the Roman Catholic, and William was also the first king of England, a position he assumed during the early Norman invasions
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#6  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:35 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands


Exactly. Becoming "owned".
But you would be of the conspiracy theory, and allegation, that they were not loyal tennants to their landlord(s)

But yours is the allegation.

You are alleging they were double crossing
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 10, 2020 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#7  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:36 pm

Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words,


It's a Duke, not a King, so you're wrong again.

Your rate of error is about 1 per 3 words. You'd give Trump a run for his money.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#8  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:38 pm

Nevets wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: And British troops participating in the crusades


The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade


And again, you cite an entry level source which doesn't even corroborate your claims.

And I have to say I do love the laughable movement of the goal posts with you now pretending you were arguing that the Pope 'had influence' on the Crusades.

No shit, Sherlock.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#9  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:40 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words,


It's a Duke, not a King, so you're wrong again.

Your rate of error is about 1 per 3 words. You'd give Trump a run for his money.


Ok, have changed it to first "ruler" of Normandy.

But you are obfuscating.
Try also having a knowledge on the wider, actual, subject.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#10  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:41 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: And British troops participating in the crusades


The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade


And again, you cite an entry level source which doesn't even corroborate your claims.

And I have to say I do love the laughable movement of the goal posts with you now pretending you were arguing that the Pope 'had influence' on the Crusades.

No shit, Sherlock.


What is your point? Are you attempting to derail this thread also?
Please state your point, i am not a mind reader.

State "clearly" what it is about that, that does not corroborate my claims.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 10, 2020 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#11  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:42 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words,


It's a Duke, not a King, so you're wrong again.

Your rate of error is about 1 per 3 words. You'd give Trump a run for his money.


Ok, have changed it to first "ruler" of Normandy.

But you are obfuscating.
Try also having a knowledge on the wider, actual, subject.


Take your trolling and shove it back up the sticky orifice you extracted it from.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#12  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:44 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Also look up what a Duke of Normandy is. It means ruler. Your argument is a nit pick play on words,


It's a Duke, not a King, so you're wrong again.

Your rate of error is about 1 per 3 words. You'd give Trump a run for his money.


Ok, have changed it to first "ruler" of Normandy.

But you are obfuscating.
Try also having a knowledge on the wider, actual, subject.


Take your trolling and shove it back up the sticky orifice you extracted it from.


Please state clearly what it is about my claims you feel does not corroborate.

You could also refrain from commenting on my posts, or threads, if you cannot.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#13  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:44 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: And British troops participating in the crusades


The only significant Christian success of the Second Crusade came to a combined force of 13,000 Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, Scottish, and German crusaders in 1147. Travelling from England, by ship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade


And again, you cite an entry level source which doesn't even corroborate your claims.

And I have to say I do love the laughable movement of the goal posts with you now pretending you were arguing that the Pope 'had influence' on the Crusades.

No shit, Sherlock.


What is your point? Are you attempting to derail this thread also?
Please state your point, i am not a mind reader.

State "clearly" what it is about that, that does not corroborate my claims.



Obvious trolling is obvious.

But I have to say that the particular brand of trolling is quite special.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#14  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:45 pm

Nevets wrote:
Please state clearly what it is about my claims you feel does not corroborate.


I already educated you about it before.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2735907


Nevets wrote:You could also refrain from commenting on my posts, or threads, if you cannot.


And you could also stop lying, bullshitting and blagging... as you don't appear to be stopping, enjoy reaping the rewards.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#15  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 10:50 pm

quote="Thomas Eshuis";p="2736106"] Converting to Christianity is not the same as allying yourself with the Papacy. [quote]

That is inconsistent with your previous statement, which was that they ally themselves with those that grant them lands
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 10, 2020 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#16  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:52 pm

Non-sequitur.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#17  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands


Exactly. Becoming "owned".
But you would be of the conspiracy theory, and allegation, that they were not loyal tennants to their landlord(s)

But yours is the allegation.

You are alleging they were double crossing



Bullshit.

Cite where Thomas alleged anything of the sort.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#18  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 11:02 pm

Thomas is intelligent.
He can spaeak for himself.

But it was his assertion "That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands."

If they are merely, "pretending" to be loyal to those that grant them lands, then this is an "allegation".

Are "you" alleging that those that granted them the lands, did not also want loyalty in return? Did they grant the lands, and titles, out of charity?

But i should be having this debate with Thomas.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#19  Postby Nevets » Mar 10, 2020 11:14 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.


I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".t



Abject fucking lie.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2736043

Nevets wrote:And if we go to William the conquror in 1066, he was a direct descenant of Rollo, the Roman Catholic, and William was also the first king of England, a position he assumed during the early Norman invasions


Your argument is extreme.
The Normans became catholicised.
The whole point is how they connect to the pope.
My link clearly says, First Norman King of England.
If i said "first king of England", it is because i made a typo error, and forgot to include Norman, which goes against my whole point, which is pointing out the Norman conquer of England in 1066 and its Catholic elements.
But the entire argument is based around the Norman invasion, and implimentation of Catholicism, and religion.
You are strengthening my argument by pointing out my typos. Not weakening.

I suspect you will now pick me up on "the normans becoming catholicised", because you will take it literal, and claim that i am claiming this means "all" normans in the world became catholicised, and not only just those rulers from Normandy, even though i did not explicitly include that in my statement.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 10, 2020 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#20  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2020 11:20 pm

Nevets wrote:Thomas is intelligent.


You have a history with Thomas?


Nevets wrote:He can spaeak for himself.


I didn't suggest he couldn't. What I did say is that you are - ONCE AGAIN - making up other peoples' positions for them. And I already talked to you about that before:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2735910

Spearthrower wrote:...you keep strawmanning... actually, it's worse than strawmanning because a strawman is a weak rendition of an existing argument. You don't even bother strawmanning existing arguments, you just make up wholesale positions for other people even though they've made no suggestion whatsoever that is their position.

Pull that kind of crap enough, and you're going to find your stay here becomes ever less comfortable.



Nevets wrote:But it was his assertion "That was quite typical for pagan leaders being granted lands and fiefdoms in Christian lands."

If they are merely, "pretending" to be loyal to those that grant them lands, then this is an "allegation".


You've cited what he said, and then you've completely made up content that is not present in Thomas' post. The sentence in red is nothing to do with what Thomas said.

Where does he say they are 'pretending'?

Where has he made any allegation at all?

Answer: he hasn't - you're making up a position for him and then demanding he defend it.

That doesn't float. It's bullshit, and it's well into a couple of dozen iterations of this, starting with Theropod.


Nevets wrote:Are "you" alleging that those that granted them the lands, did not also want loyalty in return? Did they grant the lands, and titles, out of charity?


You're still doing it. No, I am not alleging anything, nor is Thomas - you don't make up our positions for us.



Nevets wrote:But i should be having this debate with Thomas.


It's not a debate - you can't hold a debate with someone where you think you can play both parts.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest