04 Sep 06
Originally posted by KAFKOVSo you do not believe that were the Da Vinci code released in let's say the 15th Century, that Dan Brown would have been executed for heresay?
theres no validity to something that does not have a reasonable basis
i cant speak to what could have occured in a particular place in the world, by a particular organization, because of a particular reason that you believe would have warranted a death penalty
04 Sep 06
you dont see heresy trials and accusations about those issues during the 15th century, with the rise of newer forms of Biblical interpretations during the 18th century you see things similar to what Brown alleges, and there people werent executed...
during the 15th century the issues were different, so i cant really honestly answer that question
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KAFKOVYes Dan Brown would have been fine a few hundred years before a scientist was put up on heresy charges for advocating that the Earth orbits the Sun not the reverse.
you dont see heresy trials and accusations about those issues during the 15th century, with the rise of newer forms of Biblical interpretations during the 18th century you see things similar to what Brown alleges, and there people werent executed...
during the 15th century the issues were different, so i cant really honestly answer that question
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by KAFKOVI was merely trying to emphasize your historical shortcomings
Its no different when you seperate yourself by a few centuries or millenias.
You were doing nothing of the sort. You responded in a fit of pious pique, deciding that I somehow "denigrated" an era that produced your "beautiful Saints". That's fine, I don't mind...but let's not lose sight of the topic.
I dont think Brown should be put to death, because I believe that life has a sacredness in it that should not be extinguished.
So, what do you make of the executions of scientists and free thinkers carried out by the medieval Church in the name of the Christian God, then? Do you condemn those acts as immoral?
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdEver the diplomat, vis. I suppose I should learn to choose my verbiage more carefully in order to communicate my idea more clearly.
Now, David—I’m sure that if K ever makes a mistake in history or other factual matters, he will delight in being corrected in the same felicitous manner...
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by David CSo what is it about?
Clever little monkey. This isn't about Brown, of course. I agree with that Kiwi chick, he's a horrible author.
Judging history (or the history of Christianity, in this case) with modern day values is not only fruitless, it is intellectually dishonest.
Learning from history doesn't imply assigning good/bad values to the institutions or people that supported it.
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSigh. I guess my delivery could use some work, eh? The idea should have been that morality is not absolute. The example was provided to illustrate that even the most rigorous adherents to the supposed source of "objective morals" are not immune to their changing nature.
So what is it about?
Judging history (or the history of Christianity, in this case) with modern day values is not only fruitless, it is intellectually dishonest.
Learning from history doesn't imply assigning good/bad values to the institutions or people that supported it.
Damn your fame, Dan Brown!
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by David CSorry, my rant wasn't about your delivery but about some of the witch-hunting atheists of this forum.
Sigh. I guess my delivery could use some work, eh? The idea should have been that morality is not absolute. The example was provided to illustrate that even the most rigorous adherents the supposed source of "objective morals" are not immune to their changing nature.
Damn your fame, Dan Brown!
There should be the equivalent of Godwin's Law regarding mentions of the Inquisition in theological arguments.
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaPerhaps when people stop pretending the Catholic Church has always been a benevolent and science loving organisation with the best interest of humanity at its core it won't be required to bring it up anymore.
Sorry, my rant wasn't about your delivery but about some of the witch-hunting atheists of this forum.
There should be the equivalent of Godwin's Law regarding mentions of the Inquisition in theological arguments.
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe fact that the Inquisition happened has little to do with the modern day Catholic Church. The former Pope has already acknowledged the Crusades and the Inquisition as mistakes, and apologized for them.
Perhaps when people stop pretending the Catholic Church has always been a benevolent and science loving organisation with the best interest of humanity at its core it won't be required to bring it up anymore.
Any Christian that doesn't acknowledge them as mistakes is simply contradicting his previous Pope.
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIs this thread about the Modern Day?
The fact that the Inquisition happened has little to do with the modern day Catholic Church. The former Pope has already acknowledged the Crusades and the Inquisition as mistakes, and apologized for them.
Any Christian that doesn't acknowledge them as mistakes is simply contradicting his previous Pope.
EDIT: Talk to ivanhoe and LucifiersHammer about the last point.