HAHAHAHA Oh MAN what some scientists will say about GW to scare us

Started Aug 18, 2011 | Discussions thread
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 43,627Gear list
Like?
Re: The internet is not the place for the thin skinned I guess.
In reply to dradam, Aug 27, 2011

dradam wrote:

Chato wrote:

Yes, I live a "very sad life." Proof being that I disagree with you. How pathetic of me. And soooo clever of you to make this a part of the discussion. Obviously it must be something I said to you that was rude and insulting.

Dude, chill. I was originally pointing out how amusing I found this particular example djedi chose to use, and why. You missed the forrest for the trees. If you want to make every conversation a confrontation that's certainly your choice, I can't imagine it's too pleasant though.

Then stop doing it, and contribute to saving electrons. I can't recall saying that "you have a sad life."

Anyhow, since you insist on donating your two cents about EVERYTHING and really really want to make this a serious discussion, lets.

As opposed to YOU who didn't comment on this thread?

Whatever you say Mr. 53 Post Per Week. Are there ANY threads on this board you aren't involved in?

Unfortunately, unlike the persons described as being God by the Church, I am mortal, and can only contribute on a limited number of threads.

1) Yes, people were tried for heresy for translating the bible. Most famously William Tyndale. However, it wasn't for the act of translation, but because the Church felt he had change the text in such ways as to undermine the institution of the Church. Not that it's ok to burn people for that, but there is certainly an important distinction there.

That is plain and simple NOT TRUE. The Church regarded Latin; i.e. "The vulgate, which is obviously a translation from Hebrew and Greek. Plain and simple they stated that translating it into the native language would remove the Priest as the intermediary between the Church and the people. That only They should be allowed to tell the people what was or what was not the word of God.

Many Bible stories existed, all under the direct control of the Church. By printing the Bible into native languages that ability to have a monopoly on Gods word would be destroyed. Long before Tybdale, they burned the bones of John Wycliff, and seized and burned every copy of HIS translation they could get their hands on.

It was their thesis that the Bible itself endorsed the Catholic Church and hiarchy

Your implication was that the Church being opposed to the translation of the bible was an example of their opposition to the spread of science and knowledge in general.

Yup, this is true. Any knowledge that threatened the Church was heresy.

The Church had no [general] problem with people translating other works, only the Bible. As the Bible and the interpretation thereof is a central part of the religion then any attempt to misrepresent the bible would be, by definion, heresy. I'm not saying the Church was right, only that there is a difference between translating the Bible for a lay audience and translating the works of Aristotle or Plato in their eyes.

You could go further if you wanted to. The Church absolutely loved Plato, which is why more than any other ancient author we have a larger perecentage of his works. They loved him because he "proved" the existence of One God. But Lucretious was on their lists of books to burn. Kepler was banned. In fact the list was so extensive that the Council of Trent had to cut back on these early lists.

It was the Catholic Church, once it gained power, that organised and systamatically burned and destroyed the works of the ancients that they thought in any manner would distract the faithful from worshipping Jesus.

We now know that they burned the library of Alexandria.

And if some monks preserved the writings of some of the ancients, it was despite dogma, not because of it. Edward Gibbon, writes in his work, "The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," his personal horror and sense of loss, because of Church actions.

(SNIP)

Besides, that was hardly the point. An athiest (djedi), praising the church for getting past something that is nothing more than a strawman argument originally made by another athiest as an example of the Church being OPPOSED to change, and is believed by the general public because they read it in a FICTIONAL story. It's so perfectly ironic it takes my breath away.

Breathe, breathe, it's good for the metabolism...

That the Chuch regarded the Rule by Devince Right of Kings to be Gods will need not distract you from defending them 200 years later.

(snip)

If you are claiming that the Church didn't burn ALL books of knowledge, I would agree with you. But basically you are running around citing this or that encouragement of knowledge as proof that they were not against science.

And you are running around citing ONE example as proof that they were.

But in fact they WERE against science, wherever and whenever they saw it as a threat to their monopoly on knowledge. Even the ability to read the Bible was a threat against their monopoly, and the proof of that is that they never translated the Bible themselves.

Their monopoly was on religious knowledge, not all knowledge.

One cannot create a society based on the fruit of science, when you pick and choose which facts are tolerable, and which are heretical. It took the Protestant Revolutions to free humanity from the desire of the Church to control all knowledge. If it had NOT been for that revolution, we would still regard the earth as the center of the universe, Harvey would not have discovered that blood circulates, and Leeuwenhoek and Kepler would have been burned as heretics.

Well, the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak, so only books like the Da Vinci Code are still banned by the Church.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
LOL!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow