The Glade 4.0

Interesting question. It is hard to say for sure, but likely we wouldn't be speaking English. It wasn't successful at stiffling much, just shifting it geographically. It isn't an accident that after that time there was an explosion of scientific advancement in Protestant Europe.

And Tayla, That wasn't an "Oath of allegience". It was a an "obey the laws of the land" clause. Whats more, it says "constitutional government" which Hitler did away with anyway, so it didn't even apply to Nazi Germany.

And yet, in some ways, they have *not* learned from their mistakes. The Pope recently claimed that condoms cannot prevent the spread of HIV. How utterly irresponsible, stupid, and intentionally ignorant was that? And yet, there they go again, putting dogma before reality at the price of other people's well being.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Then it is your position that condoms never fail, ever? The Pope was right (taking your word for it that he said it). Yes, they help prevent the spread of HIV. They do not prevent it totally, because they fail sometimes. Not acknowledging that is worse than what the Pope said, because it creates a false sense of security.

And somehow that eference to those people at that particular point in time means that Christianity is automatically a single entity in its earthly form forever? I should point out that John the Baptist had his own disciples who arguably might also be considered a separate group of the early church.



No, they didn't. There is one major set of incidents where the RC church really had a definite hand in actually making things happen, and that's the Crusades, and even there on at least one incident they condemned and excommunicated the crusaders.

Callign it "apologism" is bullshit. "Apologism" is just a loaded language way of saying "introducing facts that make the issue other than what I'm claiming it is."



No, they weren't. Evidently you didn't read my links that you already claimed I didn't provide. The actions in Occitania were by the King of France (for the 3rd time), not the church, you didn't even bother to cite what action you were talking about in most of the other things you cited, the actions in Portugal and Spain were a response to msulim conquest of those areas in the first place, and as for the Stedingers, the fact that they were church actins does not make them a crusade or evil or anything else. The bishop took the same action, including excommunicationt hat would have happened to any group of rebellious serfs. It was perfectly within the law and norms of the time, and calling it a "crusade" is just you imposing our own moral viewpoints on it.



Ahh, the old grasping at straws line. No, that would be you grasping, just trying to handwave away inconvenient facts.

Their policies were the same policies, and Germany was the same only in the sense of covering the same land and having the same population. The policies of the Weimar Republic were not the same as those of Hitler at all.

The Concordat established no support for Hitler at all. You're just claiming it says something it most clearly does not. It established the legal rights of the church in Germany, regardless of who was in power, hence its validity today.

Sorry, but just claiming "same thing" and "grasping at straws" doesn't change the fact that you're proven wrong by your own link.



No, it doesn't seem plain at all. The concordat is not between the church and Hitler. It's between the Church and Germany, and the fact of the matter is that the Church had no particular obligation to act as a watchdog on German politics. The chruch is not "giving fealty to the state", it's agreeing to support the German Constitution (something Hitler essentially disposed of as soon Hindenburg was gone; he cleverly avoided taking the office of PResident and thereby swearing the oath to the Constitution). The church had neither the right, the ability, nor the obligation to ensure that German politicians were of the correct or acceptable sort.



Who exactly would Chamberlain have had Germany fighting alongside against? Chamberlain wanted to avoid war at all costs; he certainly was not going to help Hitler invade the Soviet Union.



No vows of fealty were present. Fealty is a mideval term, and is just loaded language by you in any case. It's an agreement between two people, and the oath the Bishops swore was to the German Constitution; a country of which they were already citizines. There is nothing theologicallly objectionable about clergy being loyal citizens of their home countries.

There's also nothing wrong with clergy blessing patriotic endeavors, conscripted or otherwise. The nature of those endeavors might be called into question in this case, but that would be attempting to handwave away the fact that Hitler, despite the claims that "everyone knew what he was going to do" was actually pretty subtle and didn't just start doing whatever he wanted overnight. He was in power 6 years before invading Poland, 5 before the Anschluss with Austria, and that gave him plenty of time to build his machine up subtly. Hitler was one of many politicians up until he became Furher. There's no reason the Chruch should have beein digging through his particular obscure writings and thinking "Gee, this guy is planning to wipe out the Jews!" He had one hairbrained plan to ship them to Madagascar, maybe you thinkt hat should have clued them in?



Of course you can't.



And the fact remains that, if caught, you'll pay the price, and none of your dislike of authority will help you one bit. You're doing a great job of pointing out the physical limitations on the ability of the government to enforce the law, but that's not much of an argument against authority in and of itself, just a practical limitation.



Yes, it is. You agreed in that contract to give the employer authority over things like your work schedule. Authority comes in many forms; the fact that your employer didn't drag you to the office in chains doesn't mean they have none.



If, in fact, Germany did have the same anti-semitic values in general as its chancellor (not an unreasonable position) then where do you get the idea that the Church was going to be able to change people's minds on that issue? Especially when those priests that spoke out against it would be arrested or intimidated into silence? It isn't like Hitler was going to give anyone the opportunity to do that; if some priests had started speaking out about his planned massacre back in 1933 or 1934 he'd simply have said "What? I'm doing nothing of the sort! You're just lying about what I wrote and said, and getting involved in politics, which you're not allowed to do!" Then he'd mark those priests and down the road when the Gestapo was in full swing, they'd disappear, along with any others that weren't circumspect.

As for it being the "same country", as pointed out, that's only true of its physical properties. The Weimar Republic is no more the same Germany as Nazi Germany than Iraq is ancient Babylon.

Weimar Republic



In fact, Hitler had just lost the 1932 election to become President to Hindenburg. That event, quite frankly, absolves the Chruch, France, Britain, and anyone else of any charge in negotiating with Hitler. The evidence at the time would have indicated he was stuck as second fiddle and that his popularity was not great enough to make him President. No one can be faulted for not anticipating his circumvention of the Constitution; he'd already tried violent revolution, failed, and evidently renounced extralegal means of taking over and been rehabilitated. The Nazis, althoughh the largest party in the Reichstag after the July 1932 elections, only held 37.2% of the seats, and Hitler refused ministry under von Papen, because he wanted Chancellorship if he couldn't be President.

In fact, all this resulted in new elections yet again and the Nazis lost seats, down to 33.1%. Hitler gained Chancellorship only as part of a coalition with von Papen and the Natinalists, and his party had only 3 of 11 cabinet seats. Hitler was able to gain his powers through the passage of the Enabling Act which rendered the Constitution irrelevant since the Cabinet could do anything it pleased.

While the Center party's support was needed to pass the Act, and that party was heavily Catholic, the bottom line is that in passing it, Hitler also agreed to respect the rights of Catholics and the Church in Germany, and respect previous Concordats with Bavaria, Prussia, and Baden. There was no reason to think Hitler was anything more than just another politician in an unstable government that held elections every few months and that after his moments of prominence he'd be unable to hold his coalition together and someone else would come along, especially since part of the agreement to suppor the act involved a guarnatee that the Constitution would not be changed.

This is also following the Reichstag fire, which had allowed Hindenburg to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree.

In other words, there is nothing about Hitler or German politics in general that should have had the church howling and screaming from the very beginning. The Pope, quite frnkly, has an entire world's worth of Catholics to worry about, and the internal politics of just one nation are really not something he would be spending excessive time monitoring. By the time Hitler really attracted attention, he was fully incontrol of German society, and only external military force could alter anything. Stalin, in fact, pointed out rhetorically" "How many divisions does the pope command?" after being cautioned himself against angering the Church. The only thing the Chruch did was secure some protections for its own flock; protections that turned out to be flimsy at best.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And this is the crux of diamondeye's non-argument/fact distortions.

It's become apparent to me that no matter how many times i prove you wrong, DE, you'll keep rehashing the same inaccuracies you've already gone through. You need the last word and will argue a losing position until you are out of oxygen. Everything I've stated is plain and obvious to an objective viewer. TUrn off your bias and blinders and look again, or there is no point to this discussion.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, there really wasn't. The Church preserved knowledge as best it could; it did not destroy any excpet possibly through negligence. Who else was doing any preservation?



It is anything but indisputable fact that the Church stifled scientific advancement. Galileo was tried for heresy because he began making pronouncements on theological matters, not because of his scientific ideas. His ideas, furthermore, had serious problems such as the tidal predictions that accounted for only half the tides each day. Part of what had aroused the ire of the Chruch was his insistence in his book on the Two Chief World Systems on giving the Copernican view better tretment despite the fact that the book was supposed to be a balanced view of the two.

The other part was the fact that he'd made theological and scientific pronouncements in a polemic known as The Assayer in which he ridiculed a Jesuit for regarding comets aas physical objects (which they are) rather than a play of light as Galileo believed. It was a book in which he made a fool of himself arguing for mathematical physics against someone who was doing mathematical physics, and being wrong in the process.

The fact of the matter is that we wouldn't be in all that different a position today, since resolving the issue was merely a matter of A) making better telescopes, which met no Church objection and B) showing the Church a better version of the theory than Galileo had, which they would be willing to accept. There's also the little matter that it was already 1632 by this time and there were plenty of places where work could be done without fear of the Inquisition.



Again, this is not exactly true. The Galileo affair went on for 22 years, and the chief of the Inquisition had said frankly, that if concrete proof could be shown that Galileo and Copernicus were right and Ptolmey wrong, the Chruch would have to approach certain verses very carefully, with the revelation that it had misunderstood them.

It certainly did not outright ban scientific research the moment its doctrine was questioned; this happened only after the questioner had gone far outside his areas of expertise and into theological matters, had made several obvious and major mistakes in forming his ideas, and had published a book antagonizing a pop that was actually sympathetic to him.

The unwillingness of so many people to look at the details of matters like Galileo and try to pick and choose facts from the matter to use as a beatstick against the RC church or Christianity in general is astounding. One wonders what is so objectionable about treating the matter as it actually happened.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, there's no point to this discussion. I haven't been the one to refer to anyone as a bigot; you're just making that up. IT's also quite telling that you talk about me "needing the last word" when you've just made a post with no substantive argument, just ranting for no apparent purpoise other than to get the last word

It's just you saying "Well I'm right cause I say so!" It's just a childish proclaimation of victory because you have no facts on your side, you're in a loosing position, need the last word yourself, and are simply proclaiming your own opinions as "obvious and objective". The fact distortions are yours; I am not the one needing to select a few facts and then claim introducing any other is "Waaaa!! just apologetics!"

Turn off your bias and take off your blinders and look again.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, the church destroyed far more knowledge than it preserved. Anything that threatened it's dogma was wiped out. And not just science..."Holy Writings" that contradicted church dogma were excluded from bible canon (even if they seemed written by disciples of Jesus, such as Thomas or Mary Magdelene) and hunted down and wiped out. Cultural traditions and religions that were supplanted (usually by violence) with church doctrines were eradicated, to the point where we no longer have a lot of detail on many pre-christian cultures. The church wanted to ensure their satanic religions were never heard from again. But it's science where we were slowed down the most...the others were of historical interest, but nothing more. You even paint Galileo Galilei, as if he somehow did something wrong by proving that the earth revolved around the sun. Then you claim you have no bias.

The church has done nothing beneficial for human society. They are ultimately nothing but parasites.



No, Galileo was tried for heresy because he stated the Earth revolved around the Sun. Now, to be fair, the church had decided that that was a theological matter, stating a source of Psalm 104:5 ("The Earth...can never be moved.") The church was also wrong. The pope, while allowing him to write both sides of the issue, insisted Galileo not advocate Heliocentrism. That's like asking a scientist to present a balanced argument between a flat earth and a spherical one. Facts are facts, and Galileo had already definitively proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. Much like creationists demanding science not to advocate evolution, the church was stifling advancement.



You're honestly saying that Galileo is at fault because he hadn't created a complete model yet? Because he didn't take his heresy far enough, he was at fault? If the church disliked the Sun being at the center of the universe rather than the earth, can you imagine how much they'd have disliked the actual truth that while the earth revolves around the Sun, the sun is actually just one of hundreds of billions of stars orbiting in the galaxy, and the galaxy is just one of hundreds of billions moving out from a central point...no, I don't think that would have improved his situation. (All this despite the existing models of an earth at the center of the universe not working either.) Your capacity to make excuses for church actions is nothing short of amazing.



No, I've proven my point, over and over again. Every time I do you backtrack and take a new revisionist position. You can't support your arguments with a single fact, yet I present only fact which you just brush aside, claiming your position is proven and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong.

Reminds me of someone else, actually.

Let me give you one last example



First of all, they are historically called crusades. Those aren't my words. Secondly, the fact that the King of France organized it doesn't matter since he did so with the blessing and support of the church in France. I did not deny that the actions in portugal and spain were against muslims. I listed actions against muslims as well as christians. Just because it was against muslims, doesn't make it acceptable, nor does the argument "Well, they conquered that area first, decades to centuries earlier. We're in the right!" (But mommy, she hit me first! Tu quoque.) Excommunicating rebellioius serfs was normal for the time excuses it? THAT MAKES IT WORSE. And it was called a crusade, both by history and by the perpetrators, with the full blessing of the church. And we weren't talking about the crusades specifically, but rather Xequecal's comment about the tendency of the medieval church to encourage war on the known world, wherever it could expand its power, and the general bloodguilt of the church.

I suppose you would try to justify the Inquisition, if brought up, too.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm just skimming this thread, but I feel the need to point out that unity is not the same thing as uniformity.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Hearing all of this come from someone who has espoused the philosophy of "might makes right" repeatedly is, frankly, laughable.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I never stated "Might makes right" as a moral axion, I stated it as a realism. Since humans invent the concepts of morality --of right and wrong-- and the strongest (be it through political, social, or military power) get to define the morality for the populace at large by enshrining it in law or religion or whatever, in a very literal way "Might makes right." This is not a statement that in my view the strong can do no wrong. I have my own moral views, but my views are not necessarily the prevailing ones of society at large. There was a time when Slavery was "right," when killing the infidel was considered a good thing. (Still is, for some people.) Everyone has their own morality. But the only ones that make any difference real difference are the moralities of those who hold power of some kind. I suppose if you want your opinions to count, start a club/society/cult, gain political power, or write a best-selling novel espousing it. Just because Hitler had the power to do what he did doesn't make me approve of him, but in every way that mattered, he was "right" -- right up until the point where he started to lose the war and we with the power to do so declared him wrong. I'm grateful he didn't win, but if he did, it's very possible our prevailing morality would be very different today.

By more Machiavellian standards, the Church has done most things very "right." It has held onto its power structure longer than any human organization ever created, although it has waned in the latter part of the last century and beyond. However, Niccolò Machiavelli didn't write the prevailing morality of our society today (nor did he even agree himself with The Prince), and certainly didn't write anything resembling my morality.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The irony is astounding.


It's become apparent to me that no matter how many times DE proves you wrong, Talya, you'll keep rehashing the same inaccuracies you've already gone through. You need the last word and will argue a losing position until you are out of oxygen. Everything DE has stated is plain and obvious to an objective viewer. TUrn off your bias and blinders and look again, or there is no point to this discussion.

Oh, look, fun. You can parrot my post back to me with the name changed. Your talented! Except I posted facts and links and logic, while Diamondeye just posted his unsupported revisionist history and weak justifications, his only links further supporting my argument. I'm not seeing the irony.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

DE effectively destroyed your arguments. And your responses have essentially amounted to "Nuh uh!".

Heh. Funny, you have that backwards. Of course, you're also (ineffectively) trying to argue with Corolinth about the church's role in stifling science and progress, too. I think you have the same inability to look critically at the church that DE does. He attempted to justify the crusades, the violent spread of the faith...and you agree with that?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Taly you got pwned. And you've always stated that your moral position is reality - several times you've stated that might makes right is what you go by. Now you just don't like what someone else's might did. This is exactly why might makes right is a poor moral framework - because it isn't moral at all it is amoral. It seems the thing you fear most is having a moral framework at all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is a direct misrepresentation of everything I've said in this regard (and is tangental to the rest of the discussion, anyway.) I have repeatedly said I have my own morality, as does everyone else, apart from whatever the prevailing morality that "Might" has made "Right." I've also said our individual morals really don't make any difference. This thread is actually a rather good illustration of that point. My disgust with the church (which is based on Church actions compared to our current prevailing morality) hasn't caused them to be disbanded or lose their membership. The church has the "might" to even convince its followers that black is white and light is dark (see this thread), since its actions cannot be justified even by its own stated morality, they instead change history so those actions seem more acceptable. The church, after all, can do no wrong.

You want to imply that not believing in the existence of objective morality implies one has no morality at all. That's not the case. It just means one recognizes that not everyone has the same morals, and there is no definitive morality through which to judge the others by. However, through "might," one can certainly force people to accept one's own morality as that "objective" standard. For a while, anyway.

Anyway, you've gotta be pretty desperate to keep bringing unrelated tangental discussions into this one in an attempt to sidetrack the main point. DE did the same by arguing over whether the church actions various crusades should really be considered crusades, despite the church supporting them and them historically being called crusades. It's obfuscation over semantics, nothing more.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Whose desperate - I think that was my first post in this thread so I've got no stake to be desperate about. I'm just pointing out you're conflicting with multiple statements you've made regarding your own morality over the years.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is, quite frankly, sheer nonsense since the vast majority of the knowledge available had nothing to do with church dogma at all, and even when it did, the church typically didn't destroy it, although they sometimes hid it. They usually couldn't destroy it; there was no way to know where copies might be with no modern libraries or communications.



No, they weren't hunted down and wiped out, which is why they were known today, and as for those Gospels, just because they had those names attached did not mean they belonged in canon or were written by the names attached. In any case, it's hardly a valid cricticism of the Church to decide which writings were canonical and which were not. Jesus gave no guidance on the subject, but He did give authority to decide such things to the Church.



Ok, we no longer have a lot of detail. That's got a lot to do with the sheer amount of time, not to mention this nasty entity that was pretty damn aggressive towards other cultures around the same time - it was called the Roman Empire, and it wasn't Christian at all until late in its life cycle.

You're just making vague allusions to the fact that Christian doctrine supplanted paganism in a lot of places and implying that this was done by extensive violence when in fact the violence was generally just the usual wars and some of the participants happened to be Christian.



What the church wanted isn't relevant; there's nothing wrong with wanting opposing ideas to be discarded and yours adopted. I'd be perfectly happy if no one ever heard from communists again.



Wow, you really can strawman can't you? I said no such thing. First of all, Galileo didn't prove it; although he came very close. However, a theory that includes such major discrepancies as not accounting for easily observed tidal behavior is definitely not proof. Proof happened just a little bit later when other people made needed corrections.

What I did say Galileo was wrong about were comets (which he was) and that he intruded himself onto theological matters, and that he was an ******* about it, and brought a lot of his problems on himself.

This didn't appreciably slow down science, nor did anything else the church did since all the science in this areas was dependant on telescopes being invented and I don't think you'll be able to find any church objection to optics as a science.

In other words, while the Church was certainly not fair or well-advised to do what it did to Galileo, the fact remains that the matter was anything but suppression of science for conflicting with dogma. The church had said "We'll re-look at the dogma if you resolve problems X, Y, and Z, and while you're at it, leave the theology to us". Galileo evidently was as concerned with his own prominence and attacking people who proved him wrong on issues like comets as he was with science, and so his affair is hardly the travesty of justice that the Protestant propaganda since the affair would have us believe (Yeah, I'm biased all right! I'm a protestant, cricticising protestants for anticatholic distortion of an issue! That's bias for you!)



This is sheer nonsense. Churches of all kinds have done charitable work throughout history. Then of course there has been actual scientific advancement within the Church, but I guess Gregor Mendel was just a parasite, eh?



No, it wasn't because Galileo had not proven this. His theories were too full of problems he hadn't been able to rsolve yet. He advocated circular planetray orbits, and it was already known that if heliocentrism were correct, they must be elliptical, and there was the tidal problem.

The church had not decided that the helicentrism question was theological; it had decided it wasn't going to revise its doctrine until Galileo could fix his issues. Galileo had shown evidence, but it was insufficient. Claiming he had definitively proven anything with his theory is like claiming HIGCC is "definitiviely proven."



What's astonishing is your capacity to strawman my argument. Yes, Galileo was at fault for publishing a model, but not because it was incomplete, because it was wrong. His model included wrong tidal predictions and wrong orbital predictions. The church didn't "dislike" his model at all, and they wouldn't have liked what we've discovered since any less. What they were was unwilling to change theological interpretations to fit a hypothesis that was inadequately supported.

Galileo affair





Do you get that? Is that in sufficiently clear English for you? GALILEO DID NOT HAVE PROOF.



The head of the Inquisition itself explcitly said that if Galileo could prove his ideas, then Scripture would need to be reinterpreted because it had been clearly misunderstood. The fact of the matter, however, is that nothing was proven. Period. This claim that Galileo had conclusively proved hsi theory is utter bullshit fabrication.



The sheer hilarity of you posting this after your ranting, screaming, temper-tantrum posting and your "proven" arguments that are based on facts you've evidently just made up and hoped no one would check is hilarious.

All you're doing at this point is revising the history of the thread. It's quite plain that you're simply hoping to score points by claiming to have proven things, or that I'm somehow revising things, or that I'm "brushing things aside" by addressing ALL of your points in detail, including links that show where you're simply making up history to suit your view. This despite the fact that you've chosen to rant and scream rather than actualy make or address a point at all in at least 50% of your responses here.

Really, I hate to break it to you, but most people here are just as intelligent as you are and are not going to be fooled by such desperation.



By whom exactly?



Yes it does matter, since them "blessing it and supporting it" doesn't make it a church action, a religious one, or give them any real responsibility for it. Occitania wasn't even a nation, just a region with a conglomeration of feudal lords, and territorial conquest was accepted and normal for the day.



I know you didn't, and I didn't say that. I said they were against muslims that had attacked those areas in the first place.



It's very much acceptable. Territorial conquest is only acceptable in modern terms; at the time it was quite normal. As for the Tu quoque, that's equally absurd. Someone can come into your territory, take it over, dismantle your churches, and make your people second-class citizens, but if you kick them out you're equally wrong? I guess the Allies were just as wrong as the Germans and the Chinese just as wrong as the Japanese.



No it doesn't. "Worse" according to who? You? Ok, Taly's personal morality is offended. That's nice.

It is nice to note, however, that "objective morality is nonsense" goes by the wayside in favor of moral outrage when you can cricticize the church.



Who called it a crusade? You've shown nowhere that the church called the action a crusade, and even if they did, so what? You're just saying "Crusades are bad cause I say so!"



Actually it was his comment that the early church did those things (which they didn't), something you've brushed aside repeatedly. Then there's the fact that the chruch never "encouraged war on the known world" at all; it sanctioned specific wars at specific times for specific reasons. In view of the tendancy of that "known world" to be populated by violent barbarians that attacked pretty much everything in sight and Muslims who spread their own faith by the sword from its founding, pretty much any of that is at least partly a matter of survival.

In any case, there is no such thing as bloodguilt. It's a nonsense concept.



Which one? The Spoanish Inquisition was the Spanish crown using the church in Spain as its own tool. As for the regular Inquisition, the church certianly had the right to regulate the doctrine of its membership. We find the idea of allowing them secular power over such members today, but it was the accepted norm for the time. Ill-advised and hardly to be returned to, but "justified" would be relative to our own standards. It was justifiable by theirs; it isn't by ours.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you had, it would no longer be laughable, just sad.

Since you view it as a "realism", and, (again, in your determinist view) Christianity had to exist, and its adherants had to act as they did, they had to be right.

Why even spend countless words over numerous pages ***** about it? Because you have to?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Except that the church doesn't have to be perfect according to its own stated morality; in fact that's rather the pooint of its existance. No one can live up to it. No need for changing history exists, nor has that been done. The history changing has been done by people who claim things like "Galileo had definitive proof!"



No, what's being pointed out is that you're either A) contradicting yourself by expressing moral outrage at what the church has done or B) expressing it in terms of your personal morals (which you haven't made clear) and expecting anyone to give a **** after repeated posts where you express derision for morality in general.



No, the depseration is yours. You're inventing facts, and you've made several posts now which are just victory proclaimations and now that 2 other people are pointing out your nonsense, one of who doesn't often agree with me, you're just lumping them in as "desperate" for not agreeing with you. That's desperate. IT's right up there with calling an agreement with the Weimar Republic "support for Hitler", or creating new versions of the Galileo affair.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, you are (at best) misremembering those "statements." I remember you had a signature quote of me for years, "Might makes right." You left out all the context, of course. For one it won't fit in a signature, but more importantly it doesn't make as good a sound bite when you ignored all the preamble that led up to the sentence "in a very real way, 'Might makes right.'"

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

If everybody "misremembers" your stance on that issue, does that make them all incorrect, or does that mean you didn't convey your actual beliefs very well?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There's a pretty wide gulf between occasionally missing the mark, and blatant disregard for the teachings of Christ that the church, by its behavior, has been guilty of over the last 1600 years. When one looks with an objective view, the church's actions since inception are despicable by the very standards it claims to espouse.



Uh, he did? He didn't prove his heliocentric model at all, because it was wrong. He DID prove rather conclusively that the earth orbited the sun. While the rest of his model failed to make much sense, he did show that the earth orbiting the sun was the only model yet created that actually fit the observed patterns of celestial bodies. I suppose one can argue that that isn't definitive proof, someone else could have come up with another model, but the fact is his model fit, whereas the church doctrine did not.



That is non-sequitur. What, i'm not allowed to be morally outraged just because morals are relative? There is nothing contradictory about that.



No, i have shown you facts.

-The church caused scientific stagnation and to this day attempts to interfere with research that it feels treads on its dogma. (Galileo, Hawking are two obvious examples)
-The Vatican itself had a treaty that represented a virtual alliance between Hitler and the Catholic Church in Germany, signed and approved at the highest levels. (The Concordat.)
-The church was directly or indirectly responsible for the persecution and murder of millions of people for various reasons. (Crusades, Inquisitions, church-sanctioned military actions, forced conversions on threat of torture/death, etc.)

Those are all that matter. You've tried to justify these, or obfuscate them, or deny them, but those three things are incontrovertable and undeniable. You keep coming up with flimsy excuses that don't hold water to justify or argue those points, or blatantly provide misinformation about them, but you haven't really said anything that truly contradicts any of those facts. You just make irrelevant excuses like "Germany wasn't officially called Nazi Germany at the time!" or "Galileo's theory wasn't entirely accurate so he was wrong to contradict church doctrine!" or "They had it coming!" or "That's just how they did things back then." None of those matter. You're quick to use your "No True Scotsman" fallacy by claiming that the perpetrators were not really the church, instead being "The King of France" (ignoring that the King of France both had the encouragement and blessing of the church, and also played a part in representing the church in France, as most monarchs do...just as the monarch of England is an official representative of the Church of England, complete with title.) Not a church action my ***.



It's two or three people, and they remember only what's convenient for them to remember. It's easy to put words in people's mouths when the evidence that would prove you wrong was lost long ago.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Aside from the false dilemma, "the church" has constituted different individuals in that time period, and in any case yo're just begging the question. They have not missed the mark all that badly. Finally, human beings in general miss the mark on a daily basis.



Wow. Aside from the backpeddling from what you said above, AND the fact that he didn't conclusivly prove that at all, as the wiki link demonstrated, the fact is that "heliocentric model" and "earth going around the sun" mean the same **** thing in this context! You're just dancing all over the place.

No, the fact that the universe is not centered on the Sun doesn't matter because no one was yet concerned with the rest of the universe in developing either model. Nor does "Galileo's basic idea was right while the church was wrong" matter because that was the issue in question and the one that Galileo could not definitively answer. You can't use what was later determined to be right to say anything about Galileo. From the link below regarding Compernicus:



The fact was that Galileo could not even prove the earth orbited the sun. He wasn't trying to prove that the center of the universe was anywhere outside the solar system, nor was the church opposing any such argument; that matter was beyond the physical capabilites of science of the time to explore, so don't bother nitpicking the literal meaning of Heliocentric versus what it meant in the context of the argument.



You really aren't bothering to read, just making up something convenient to argue against, aren't you? No one said you can't be morally outraged. The problem is that you're A) not qualifying this as your opinon at all but presenting it as a moral argument to convince others and B) the fact that you keep referring to having "proven your points" which you haven't, which you've relied on fabricated claims to do, and which don't mean **** anyhow if they're just your opinion. Like I said: we get it. You don't like the church or religion. This is all just spleen-venting.



This was shown to be false in Galileo's case, repeatedly, and you're just using wall-of-ignorance tactics at this point. As for Hawking, I ahve no idea what you're talking about but I don't recall ever hearing of him being suppressed in any way.

Let's look at Copernicus:



Yeah, they jumped right on suppressing that.



Blatant falsehood, as demonstrated fromt he link you provided. It was anything but an alliance, and it had nothing to do with Hitler other than that he happened to be Chancellor at the time.



Again, patent falsehood both numerically



No, this is jsut you claiming for yourself the authority to override the historical facts and context surrounding each of these in order to paint them in as unfavorable a light as possible. It's nothing but another victory proclaimation and a series of additional strawmen.

Keep ranting. Keep having the temper tantrum. Go on, keep making posts claiming to have "proven your points" and blah blah blah. All you're doing is flushing your credibility down the toilet. The fact of the matter is that when it comes down to the facts you've been utterly crushed and your only defense when it's pointed out you're incorrect is to say "But that's just a flimsy excuse!"

Yes, we all know that pointing out contradictory information is a "flimsy excuse". All you've done is dive head-first into the tactics of the "certain other poster" you mentioned earlier, evidently hoping that if you accused me of them first, others here wouldn't notice.




No, everyone remembers your posting history quite well. You're simply making up whatever's convenient right now.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."