| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Did Christianity destroy ancient science?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Did Christianity destroy ancient science?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Did Christianity destroy ancient science?
    Posted: 30 Jan 2017 at 17:13
Hi! Ive upploaded a video on my youtube channel debunking the claim that christianity destroyed or held back the achievements of the ancient natural philosophers.

I would really appreciate if you viewed the video and gave your own opinions and thoughts on the subject in the forums comment section.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn6XixUJUe8



Edited by Quill & Ink HIstory - 30 Jan 2017 at 21:28
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2017 at 23:36
The video was interesting, it pointed out things I hadn't thought about, like the decline of Greek in the Western Roman Empire as reason why natural philosophy was neglected.  The fact that it was solitary individuals exploring natural philosophy is quite different from the subsidization of today.  Technology had a little more inertia than natural philosophy in antiquity.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3316
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 01:04
Christianity did play a role in subverting some of the sciences. Anything other than what was considered suitable by the Holy Roman Catholic Church was labelled as witchcraft and/or heresy, regardless of whether or not it was scientifically sound.

Many scientists, especially in the middle ages, were persecuted for their beliefs and teachings.

Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 02:47
I think you first have to solve the riddle of if Christianity didn't die on the cross or shortly thereafter. In any case defining Christianity is not that easy.

I cannot tell if Jesus (if he even existed) was promoting a eschatological cult or non violent revolution against a foreign power or both. I gave up long ago on sorting out this bit of history because it is so poorly documented.

A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy.
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:29
Hi Toyomotor!

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Christianity did play a role in subverting some of the sciences. Anything other than what was considered suitable by the Holy Roman Catholic Church was labelled as witchcraft and/or heresy, regardless of whether or not it was scientifically sound.

Many scientists, especially in the middle ages, were persecuted for their beliefs and teachings.



Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts.


With do respect, you are just repeating outdated rethoric that have nothing to do with schoolarhship on the subject and that don´t challange any of the claims I make in the video.

As for the catolic church relationship to the natural sciences during the middle ages and it labelleling "wichtcraft and/or heresy" things it did not like I recommend you read some academic litterature on the subject rather then just making empty assertions. Witchcraft was refers to essoterisism and heresy to christian sects that don´t agree with the fundemental christian ortodox teaching. None of which have anything to do with the study of nature.

The catolic church was a bigg contributer to the study of nature during the middle ages and continued to be well into the modern period. If your interessted in the church relationship to the natural sciences during the middle ages I recomend you pick up the litterature I refer to in the video since much of it also cover that subject as well.

"Today, in some areas, such as genetics, scientists still risk excommunication for their efforts."

Irrelevant to the claims Im making in the video.

Edited by Quill & Ink HIstory - 31 Jan 2017 at 10:10
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:37
Hi!

Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

I think you first have to solve the riddle of if Christianity didn't die on the cross or shortly thereafter. In any case defining Christianity is not that easy.

I cannot tell if Jesus (if he even existed) was promoting a eschatological cult or non violent revolution against a foreign power or both. I gave up long ago on sorting out this bit of history because it is so poorly documented.

A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy.


Exept I don´t since that have nothing to do with the claims Im making in the video. And if you doubt the existance of Jesus as an historical person I recommend read some academic litterature on the subject with an open mind and you will know for sure.

"A more interesting question may actually be if Plato was anti science because it highlights how differently we see the world. In the fifth century the advantages of science were not as evident, especially if society coming apart occupied most of your energy."

With due respect, I don´t have clue about what that has to do with the claims Im making in the video.


Best wishes!

Quill
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 07:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The video was interesting, it pointed out things I hadn't thought about, like the decline of Greek in the Western Roman Empire as reason why natural philosophy was neglected.  The fact that it was solitary individuals exploring natural philosophy is quite different from the subsidization of today.  Technology had a little more inertia than natural philosophy in antiquity.



Thankyou! If you wan´t to know more about the subject I strongly recommend you to pick up the literature I link to in the description(At least check out the free sources).

Best wishes!

Quill
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 13:46
Hi I liked the video and I half remembered a quote from St Paul. 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world…


http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_paul's_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm

This a very brief article but the author makes the point that the term philosophy meant something different to the Jews than it did to the Greeks. Maybe you can help me to understand what this last bit means to you in terms of the early, early church. from the article:

"Clement, who was followed in the main by the earlier Alexandrines, regards Greek philosophy not only as a preliminary training for the gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant given by God to the Greeks. Others, who were the great majority, and of whom may be taken as an extreme type, set their forces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching. St. Paul's speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (Acts 17:18), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clement's representations as with Tertullian's."

thanks
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 14:09
I believe that it is because I have an open mind that I find little evidence for a historical Jesus but that is another topic.

I'm glad you are setting the record straight in regards to Christian culture being not particularly more hostile to objective study of nature than other cultures.  It is popular to paint Islam as being more enlightened than Christianity in regards to the objective study of nature but that assumes that Arab scholars were working within the framework of Islam or just happen to live in places that were Muslim.  The same applies to Christian scholars as well.  The relationship between being nominally Christian as an accident of birth and the influence of Christianity on their work is not obvious.  In both cases I would say that it is more a case of in spite of religion that objective reasoning is found than because of the religion.  There is no doubt that religion provides an educational structure that produces literary competency and assess to previous work but that says nothing about how it influences objectivity.

I mentioned Plato because it also isn't clear that philosophers are not as guilty as theologians in the rejection of objective reasoning based on experience and not relying on some sort of metaphysical mumble jumbo.  Calling science natural philosophy is like equating chemistry with alchemy.  Science as we know it is a fairly recent development and the influence of philosophy is worth questioning.  Every competency has to be developed in small steps and today many people feel that the baby steps that philosophy took are somewhat irrelevant.  

In today's world the social sciences are so heavily influenced by political theory that they have some relevance to this discussion.  Post modernist, Marxist, and other philosophical influences have the same negative effect on these disciplines development as religion had on science.  The similarities are somewhat shocking actually.  It is very difficult to escape a paradign that is enforced by social mores.

The negative effect of Christianity is not limited to science but to some extent cultural development in general.  Religious dogma creates a rigidity that makes the kind of speculation that is needed to explore alternative explanations difficult.  This can certainly be seen in Islamic countries today.  It may be common to all religions.  But here we are only discussing Christianity although I think some comparative study is need to support any hypothesis. 

It's the eschatological nature of Christianity that is most troubling when considering it's influence.  In simple terms why bother with worldly concerns when the end is just around the corner and it's the afterlife you should be concerned with.  Jews seem particularly immune to this negative influence and excel in intellectual fields perhaps because they are still waiting for their savor and remain more motivated.  There is some evidence however that historically the tyrannical rabbinical structure had to give way before this was possible as was the case with the civil authority of the priest. 

I'm not arguing that Christianity has been an entirely bad thing like many atheists who seem obsessed to argue it's influence entirely negative.  I'm just addressing what is in question.  Would Western science have developed without Christianity?  That question supposes alternative histories that are entirely speculative.  What we can do is assume that without some cultural glue Western Europe may not have resisted Islam and would be as backwards as the middle east.

It seems that political correctness has gone out of it's way to make Christianity and Western culture in general a fair target of defamation.  The consensus among historians that Christianity delayed science has more to do with politics than history.  


Edited by wolfhnd - 31 Jan 2017 at 14:23
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 18:07
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Hi I liked the video and I half remembered a quote from St Paul. 

<span style="color: rgb179, 71, 0; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; text-align: -webkit-center; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world…</span>


http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/lightfoot/st_paul's_attitude_towards_philosophy.htm


This a very brief article but the author makes the point that the term philosophy meant something different to the Jews than it did to the Greeks. Maybe you can help me to understand what this last bit means to you in terms of the early, early church. from the article:

<span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">"Clement</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">, who was followed in the main by the earlier </span><span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Alexandrines</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">, regards </span><span ="topic" style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">Greek philosophy</span><span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;"> not only as a preliminary training for the gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant given by God to the Greeks. Others, who were the great majority, and of whom may be taken as an extreme type, set their forces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching. St. Paul's speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (</span>Acts 17:18<span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as much with Clement's representations as with Tertullian's."</span>
<span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">
</span>
<span style="color: rgb0, 19, 32; font-family: Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify; : rgb253, 254, 255;">thanks</span>


Hi Vanatu!

Thx for the comment. My next video is going to be on the trial of Galileo and it should be out this weekend or next week. I recommend you sub if you like my content.

I can´t find the article you are referring to but I will try to answer your question the best I can.

Regarding the quote you sent there are two interpretations I can imagine the author is having in mind(it can be both at the same time).

The first interpretation is very interesting. Among the early christians(at least among several of those who left writings) there was an idea going around that the Greek pagan philosophers had stolen their philosophical ideas and methods form the old testament. This in turn motivated several of the early christians to study philosophy and to use philosophy when studying theology. To quote Edward Grant.

”Terteullian also had harsh words for Socrates, Plato and the other Greek philosophers, and accused them, as did other christian writers, of borrowing many of their ideas from the Old testament.”

Science & Religion. 400 B.C - A.D 1550. Page 104.


The second interpretation I can imagen is that the author is referring to the handmaiden formula attitude to philosophy and the study of nature. This idea first originated with the helenic jew Philo of Alexandria. I explained what this means in the video.


As for St Pauls attitued towards philosophy Im not sure though I don´t find it that relevant to my video since the christian intellectual tradition originated hundred years after Paul and regardless of Pauls relation to philosophy, the general attitude towards philosophy and the study of nature that christians had in the patristic and medieval period was the handmaiden formula which was the attitude championed by Clement of Alexandria and St Augustine.

I hope I answerd your question and I recommend you pick up the literature. :)

Best whishes!

Quill
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 22:01
HI. I do think your video was a good effort ,no doubt. But you haven't convinced me (not that you have to).Smile 
I can't get past Augustine. He is not Clement, A. says faith before reason and when he says understand to believe he could mean don't drink out the same trough as the animals do, practical reasoning. 

Paul is important. Hundreds of years is nothing in terms of assemblage of the bible. Paul was a bit of an autobiographer it has been argued that Augustine took that format for the Confessions. He also wrote On Galatians the only complete book he wrote about anything in the Bible. Galatians is all about the grace of God over the Jewish law. 

So when Paul is saying in Corinthians that philosophy is a term for virtue it follows that Augustine would have drawn sharp lines between what serves God and what is just speculation, waste where the energy could have been used for greater glory of God. Then Augustine has the same shame for persecuting Catholics as Paul does for persecuting Christians. Paul knew about Greek philosophy to what extent no one can say but if he is at all Platonist its always to place Christ in a superior position to anything with which he is compared. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 22:45
[QUOTE=Vanuatu] HI. I do think your video was a good effort ,no doubt. But you haven't convinced me (not that you have to).



Hi!

What did I fail to convince you of? The thesis I argued for in the video was that the early christians did not destroy or hold back the study of nature or philosophy. Do you reject this thesis?



Edited by Quill & Ink HIstory - 31 Jan 2017 at 22:46
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jan 2017 at 23:57
How early is early? And does the completion of the Cannon Law determine modern Christianity? The book of Enoch isn't seen by the world at large (out of Ethiopian monastery) until 1871. 

Simply look at Fatima Portugal 1917, the supposed apparition of Mary. I'm only using this example anecdotally, one of her messages was that God does not and will not bless the work of science. People in Catholic churches at least, went fully into 20th century with a kind of disdain for science.  

I don't reject it outright. I need to read more but Augustine, is hard to accept. Maybe Thomas Aquinas
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 01:48
Origen was mentioned in the video, and Clement of Alexandria is brought up in the above discussion, Quill, what do you think of the fact that while Origen and Clement are church fathers (and Neoplatonists), they are not saints, because neither is orthodox in his beliefs?

Augustine is neo-Platonist, if one needs to apply a label.  Plato advocates a type of science.  What Hadot calls Orphic, like the speculation of the Timaeus.  The idea of science as the interrogation of nature comes later.  Bacon and Machiavelli.  In ancient Greek terms, the equivalent of the interrogation model would be Promethean, stealing fire from heaven.  One very basic element that Christianity provides is a unity of the divine and of nature, which in a polytheistic system cannot be taken for granted.  Religion paves the way for a unified view of science.

I enjoyed de Santillana's book 'the Crime of Galileo,' I would recommend it especially since it shows the issue as complex, with science, and religion on both sides of the argument.  Aristotle and Ptolemy provide the model for the status quo, whereas the Copernican system is also called Pythagorean or Platonic.

Welcome back Vanuatu!


Edited by franciscosan - 01 Feb 2017 at 01:49
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 02:14
Thank you franciscosan :)

Isn't Timaeus scheduled for a drive by oh, anytime now?

Was Clement, in some sense using the Greek philosophers to make Christianity more respectable to the Imperial world?
How would Alexandria advance a belief system that was openly mocked by so called libertines and pagans?


Edited by Vanuatu - 01 Feb 2017 at 04:36
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Quill & Ink HIstory View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quill & Ink HIstory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 22:47
Hi wolfhnd!

I find it funny how you take the time to write a book in the comment section that dous not adress any of the claims I made in this video. ;-)


”I'm glad you are setting the record straight in regards to Christian culture being not particularly more hostile to objective study of nature than other cultures. It is popular to paint Islam as being more enlightened than Christianity in regards to the objective study of nature but that assumes that Arab scholars were working within the framework of Islam or just happen to live in places that were Muslim. The same applies to Christian scholars as well. The relationship between being nominally Christian as an accident of birth and the influence of Christianity on their work is not obvious. In both cases I would say that it is more a case of in spite of religion that objective reasoning is found than because of the religion. There is no doubt that religion provides an educational structure that produces literary competency and assess to previous work but that says nothing about how it influences objectivity.”


This is your own personal speculations that have nothing to do with scholarship on the subject. If your interested in what historians actually think about christianitys effect on the development of science, I recommend you listen to historian of science Noah Efron.

”To be fair, the claim that christianity led to modern science captures something true and important. Generations of historians and sociologists have discovered many ways in which Christians, Christian beliefs, and christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods, and institutions of what in time became modern science.”

”Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity(Catholicism as well as Protestantism) moved early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically. Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their way into scientific discourse, with glorious results; the very notion that nature is lawful, som scholars argued, was borrowed from Christian theology. Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine´s notion of original sin(which held that Adam´s fall left humans implacably damaged) was embraced by advocates of ”experimental natural philosophy”. As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and observation to arrive at knowledge of how nature work. In this way christian doctrine lent urgency to experiments.”

”Also, many of those today considered ”fore-fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descarets boasted of his physics that ”my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.” Isaac Newton believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his christainity bolstered his physics and that his physics bolstered christianity. Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millenium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentalisation, observation, exploration, documentation and publication. They did this in some circumstances, directly in church institutions such as the renowned Jesuit seminary, the Collegio Romano, and in other circumstances less directly, through universities supported in part or full by the church. For all these reasons, one cannot recount the history of modern science without acknowledging the crucial importance of Christianity”.

Historian of science Noah Efron in ”Galileo goes to Jail and other myths about science and religion” Page 80 - 82.

Historian of science Peter Harrison has a good lecture on this subject as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_mTlhN-WuU&t=1419s


”I mentioned Plato because it also isn't clear that philosophers are not as guilty as theologians in the rejection of objective reasoning based on experience and not relying on some sort of metaphysical mumble jumbo. Calling science natural philosophy is like equating chemistry with alchemy. Science as we know it is a fairly recent development and the influence of philosophy is worth questioning. Every competency has to be developed in small steps and today many people feel that the baby steps that philosophy took are somewhat irrelevant. ”

Again, read some actually literature on the subject rather then just make empty assertions”. As for the term ”natural philosophy”, I use it because historians of science use it.

”In today's world the social sciences are so heavily influenced by political theory that they have some relevance to this discussion. Post modernist, Marxist, and other philosophical influences have the same negative effect on these disciplines development as religion had on science. The similarities are somewhat shocking actually. It is very difficult to escape a paradign that is enforced by social mores.”

Have no idea what this have to do with anything…


”The negative effect of Christianity is not limited to science but to some extent cultural development in general. Religious dogma creates a rigidity that makes the kind of speculation that is needed to explore alternative explanations difficult. This can certainly be seen in Islamic countries today. It may be common to all religions. But here we are only discussing Christianity although I think some comparative study is need to support any hypothesis.”

Schoolarship on the historical relationship between science and christianity actually exists(if you don´t know that) and you would know what historians actually thinks if you actually took time to read what they have to say.

”It's the eschatological nature of Christianity that is most troubling when considering it's influence. In simple terms why bother with worldly concerns when the end is just around the corner and it's the afterlife you should be concerned with. Jews seem particularly immune to this negative influence and excel in intellectual fields perhaps because they are still waiting for their savor and remain more motivated. There is some evidence however that historically the tyrannical rabbinical structure had to give way before this was possible as was the case with the civil authority of the priest. ”


Again, your just making empty assertion and also Jews have not excelled in science historically. See lecture by Noah Efron explaining the historical relationship between science and Judaism and I recommend you pick the book he has written on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYiEsxied4



”I'm not arguing that Christianity has been an entirely bad thing like many atheists who seem obsessed to argue it's influence entirely negative. I'm just addressing what is in question. Would Western science have developed without Christianity? That question supposes alternative histories that are entirely speculative. What we can do is assume that without some cultural glue Western Europe may not have resisted Islam and would be as backwards as the middle east.

It seems that political correctness has gone out of it's way to make Christianity and Western culture in general a fair target of defamation. The consensus among historians that Christianity delayed science has more to do with politics than history.”

I don´t want to sound rude but I gonna be honest with. Your personal speculation and perceptions has nothing to do with scholarship on the subject and is irrelevant to history. You say you ”have an opened mind” but still holds that Jesus was not an historical person which a position that not a single historian holds and that is on the same level of conspiracy theory nonsens as flat earth theories.

Historian Bart Erhman explains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W49XA2IFpYs

If you are actually interested in the historical relationship between science and christianity I recommend you go to the library and read actually academic literature on the subject and being prepared to revalue your own ideas if they don´t hold(Recommend you pick up the literature I share in the video description). I can imagen that these ideas probably hold water in your own social circles but they have nothing to do with actual history.

Best wishes!

Quill & Ink History.

Edited by Quill & Ink HIstory - 01 Feb 2017 at 22:54
"As a historian, all I wan´t to do is get the story straight based on the evidence we have"

- Ronald Numbers.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2017 at 23:49
It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?


Edited by Vanuatu - 02 Feb 2017 at 00:09
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 01:59
I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 03:13
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?

I believe he stated the time frame under discussion to be much earlier than the Inquisition.

None the less I see no reason to be a religious apologist. I also don't think that philosophy is actually linked to science in a meaningful way other than both philosophy and religion both keep literacy alive.  The human brain is like the dog who growls at the book knocked over by the wind, it finds connection everywhere because that is what it has evolved to do.  We find faces in clouds and stars, and conspiracies everywhere.  As I said earlier alchemy became chemistry and natural philosophy became science that doesn't mean that we need more alchemy to advance chemistry, more philosophy to advance science or religion for evidence and reason.  I find none of the argument compelling and still doubt that even the basic myths of religion are historical in any meaningful way let alone that without religion science would not have evolved.

Cultures evolve and science has it's own culture that is evolving without religion today.  The fact that it has it's own moral issues says more about human evolution than about a need for religion. 

 
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 11:24
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).

Revisionism is acceptable it is what Clement of A. needed to do to make Christianity the religion of educated people. Today things need to be revised again or the church will be edged out in favor a different belief system.
All for exploring ideas but saying (paraphrasing) almost all historians agree that Jesus was a true historical figure is getting way ahead of the curve. 
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the Catholic church of 40 years ago and it was still like a wagon wheel in the mud on most matters (non practical) concerning the application of science and agreement with Cannon law only. More to come..


Edited by Vanuatu - 02 Feb 2017 at 11:25
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2017 at 11:29
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

It's not a fiction that Cannon Law and St Augustine support the  absolute inerrantcy of the accepted books. 

Nor that the Catholic Church conducted numerous Inquisitions against heresy or split with Canonical Law. The Church killed and tortured to suppress knowledge.

No Catholic scientific contributions were recorded until the sixth century and it was again practical knowledge. Not speculation on the relationship between man and grace.  

Do you need links to scientists monks killed by the Inquisition over scientific matters?

I believe he stated the time frame under discussion to be much earlier than the Inquisition.

None the less I see no reason to be a religious apologist. I also don't think that philosophy is actually linked to science in a meaningful way other than both philosophy and religion both keep literacy alive.  The human brain is like the dog who growls at the book knocked over by the wind, it finds connection everywhere because that is what it has evolved to do.  We find faces in clouds and stars, and conspiracies everywhere.  As I said earlier alchemy became chemistry and natural philosophy became science that doesn't mean that we need more alchemy to advance chemistry, more philosophy to advance science or religion for evidence and reason.  I find none of the argument compelling and still doubt that even the basic myths of religion are historical in any meaningful way let alone that without religion science would not have evolved.

Cultures evolve and science has it's own culture that is evolving without religion today.  The fact that it has it's own moral issues says more about human evolution than about a need for religion. 

 

No. The time frame is part of the problem. Thomas Aquinas of 12th century works but Augustine doesn't, is my 'issue' if there actually is one. I asked him to clarify regarding Cannon law, first codified around 400 AD. The further back in time of the early church the less likely to find agreement on church, philosophy and science. 
And I do think he does great work and I admire what he has done or I wouldn't comment. Seemed like he was looking for some scrutiny to test out his ideas.


Edited by Vanuatu - 02 Feb 2017 at 11:30
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2017 at 01:30
This is what Augustine was about, IMHO. He was a primitive, he helped ritualize the mass and the life of a christian as in "baptism at infancy."
 

Colossians 2:15, Jesus, “disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them,” 

MISTRANSLATIONS AND MISANTHROPES

One of the essential tenants of Universalism is that all punishment in Hell is remedial, curative, and purifying. As long as Western Christianity was mainly Greek — the language of the New Testament — it was Universalist.

Interestingly, NONE of the Greek-speaking Universalists ever felt the need to explain Greek words such as “aion” and “aionion.” In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal.” These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church. As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don’t like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!

Augustine, influential Damnationist theologian

Augustine, influential Damnationist theologian

By far, the main person responsible for making Hell eternal in the Western Church was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Augustine’s Christian mother did not kick him out of her house for not marrying the girlfriend he got pregnant, but she did oust him when he became a Manichean Gnostic. Later, he renounced Manichaeism and returned to the Roman Church where he was made Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. He did not know Greek, had tried to study it, but stated that he hated it. Sadly, it is his misunderstanding of Greek that cemented the concept of Eternal Hell in the Western Church. Augustine not only said that Hell was eternal for the wicked but also for anyone who wasn’t a Christian. So complete was his concept of God’s exclusion of non-Christians that he considered un-baptized babies as damned; when these babies died, Augustine softened slightly to declare that they would be sent to the “upper level” of Hell. Augustine is also the inventor the concept of “Hell Lite”, a.k.a. Purgatory, which he developed to accommodate some of the Universalist verses in the Bible. Augustine acknowledged the Universalists whom he called “tender-hearted,” and curiously, included them among the “orthodox.”

At this point, it should be noted that many in the early Church who were Universalist cautioned others to be careful whom they told about Universalism, as it might cause some of the weaker ones to sin. This has always been a criticism of Universalism by those who think that people will sin with abandon if there is no threat of eternal punishment. In fact, modern psychology has affirmed that love is a much more powerful motivator than fear, and knowing that God loves each and every person on the planet as much as God loves you does not promote delinquency. Conversely, it is Christian exclusivity that leads to the marginalization of other human beings and the thinking that war and cruelty to the “other” are justified since they’re going to Hell anyway! This kind of twisted thinking led to the persecution of the pagans, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust.

http://christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/salvation-conspiracy/



Edited by Vanuatu - 04 Feb 2017 at 01:41
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2017 at 00:58
Hell is one thing, Holocaust is another.
I guess that I never believed that people necessarily knew what they were talking about when they talked about hell or God, etc.  I never doubted them for that matter either.  Augustine is an amazing thinker, who has shaped the world in many ways, I tend to think those ways are favorable over all.  I think Augustine is well reasoned, whether you agree with him is another matter.  But I see him as advocating communication, over the use of violence to make his point.

Let's say you have a pool table with various pockets, all pockets except one will occasionally spit out a ball (or balls), of course, the one will end up with all the balls in it eventually.  That is like religion, if you are exclusive and don't permit people from ideological backsliding, eventually everyone will belong to your organization, whereas if you allow people to leave and worship at other temples, well eventually you will end in none, given a lively, and active environs.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2017 at 22:18
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think Quill has a good point, he is trying to do 'X' and is inviting people to comment on his thesis.

Others wish to use that as a jumping off point for their own speculations or issues, that is valid, but not what Quill is aiming at.  The image of "herding cats" comes to mind.

People paint with a broad brush, they like to say religion is anti-science, whereas the fact is that science has always been in partnership with religion since, forever.  Of course, religion is a power structure, and so at times it has used science as a whipping boy and scapegoat.  I don't see this as a characteristic of religion, so much as a characteristic of humanity.  Galileo did not so much get cross with Catholicism, as he did with Aristotelian Jesuits, the Dominicans and the Pope.  There has, however, been an anti-scientific streak in Protestant denominations, which finds it useful to rant against science (albeit with some justification).

Finally, as someone who has studied alchemists you should know that early Christians and alchemists followed the book of Enoch. It was the mindset even in Alexandria 350 AD that the closer you were to antediluvian Enoch, the closer you are to Adam. No one in the early church was looking to modernize that belief. Please demonstrate any proof that they were.
Quill has a theory- what is his point?
How exactly are 'others' using Quill's theory for speculation? As far as I can see Quill is doing the speculation and you are obfuscating, there was a broad brush used by the early church, accuracy seems unimportant here as others are deliberately ignoring the nature and mindset of people at the time in question.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2017 at 23:58
Just an aside- the church fathers were St Paul, and the apostles Peter, Mark and John. Their students followed. 
Where is St Augustine identified as an early church father?


Edited by Vanuatu - 27 Feb 2017 at 00:02
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1767
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 01:09
There is a book called 'the last of the Fathers,' about Bernard of Claurivaux. by Thomas Merton.  So if you look at the Western (Catholic) Church, you have church fathers as late as middle ages.  But usually when Church Fathers are mentioned, what is talked about is theologians in the first centuries of Christianity.  Eastern Orthodoxy recognizes there are still individuals becoming saints, who are (also considered) Church Fathers.

Look up Church Fathers on wikipedia.

Are you asking what Quill said?  You can look up his video as easily as I can.  I seem to remember that Quill has a fairly cogent argument, but others want to grab the ball and run off with it.   Make it into something else.  Of course, you are talking about something I wrote 15+ days ago.  I don't know what he said, I don't know what I said, I have kind of moved on since then, and I believe so did he.  I don't know if he is monitoring this thread.  He wanted people to respond to what he wrote, the case he made, and so I tried to give him some concrete feedback.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:10
The church fathers were the people who knew Jesus and their students by definition. Later writers have added to the list but we were talking about a particular time frame and a philosophy, were we not? 
Augustine represents a paradigm shift from the "Early Church Fathers"

Yet, as explored below, the groundwork for this shift was laid long before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313. In the two centuries that led up to the edict, two crucial interpretive errors found their way into the church that made conditions ripe for the paradigm shift incident to the Edict of Milan. The second century fathers failed to keep clear the biblical distinction between Israel and the church. Then, the third century fathers abandoned a more-or-less literal method of interpreting the Bible in favor of Origen's allegorical-spiritualized hermeneutic. Once the distinction between Israel and the church became blurred, once a literal hermeneutic was lost, with these foundations removed, the societal changes occasioned by the Edict of Milan caused fourth century fathers to reject premillennialism in favor of
Augustinian amillennialism.

You can keep your Wiki, no ty.

I know what Quill said that's why I tried to inquire about naming Augustine. I don't know why Quill put it behind him, he never comments directly to inquiry.
You respond to threads written years ago but will not clarify your position from 15 days ago? You don't know what you wrote? The church fathers used Enoch as a guide and for the men of the early church it would be heresy to embrace Greek philosophy. Augustine is a schism in the early church not in keeping with the church fathers. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Hell is one thing, Holocaust is another.
I guess that I never believed that people necessarily knew what they were talking about when they talked about hell or God, etc.  I never doubted them for that matter either.  Augustine is an amazing thinker, who has shaped the world in many ways, I tend to think those ways are favorable over all.  I think Augustine is well reasoned, whether you agree with him is another matter.  But I see him as advocating communication, over the use of violence to make his point.

Let's say you have a pool table with various pockets, all pockets except one will occasionally spit out a ball (or balls), of course, the one will end up with all the balls in it eventually.  That is like religion, if you are exclusive and don't permit people from ideological backsliding, eventually everyone will belong to your organization, whereas if you allow people to leave and worship at other temples, well eventually you will end in none, given a lively, and active environs.

Agree or disagree is not the point that's right. Augustine is not representative of a consistent view dating back to the church fathers. The rest of what you wrote here, seems unrelated as does comment on use of violence.(??) he was aviolent man for most of his young adult life. He is penitent not liberal.


Edited by Vanuatu - 27 Feb 2017 at 02:19
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3316
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 02:57
I wouldn't have thought that Christianity destroyed ancient science, retarded it's progress and development certainly.

As we all know, Holy Mother Church tortured and executed anyone whose views were a departure from those of the Church, calling them heretics.

There is no doubt in my mind that European sciences would have progressed better and earlier had there been no interference by the Church.

Quote Agree or disagree is not the point that's right. Augustine is not representative of a consistent view dating back to the church fathers. The rest of what you wrote here, seems unrelated as does comment on use of violence.(??) he was aviolent man for most of his young adult life. He is penitent not liberal.

I agree. Notwithstanding that the Church was supposed to stand for all that was good and righteous, it directed a reign of terror across Europe and the New World for hundred of years.

Can the Roman Catholic Church justify past deeds?


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2017 at 03:32

With it, no longer was the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church. Rather, Christianity would be, in many ways, a mirror-image of the empire itself. "It was catholic, universal, ecumenical, orderly, international, multi-racial and increasingly legalistic."70 It was a huge force for stability.71 Hence, Christianity after 313 would become worldly, rather than other-worldly.

The church's new-found favor from Rome caused dramatic upheavals. Jerome complained that "one who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; another moves overnight from the ampitheatre to the church; a man who spent the evening in the circus stands next morning at the altar, and another who was recently a patron of the stage is now the dedicator of virgins."72 He wrote that "our walls glitter with gold, and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry."73

Good quote from St Jerome. The first step was Origen and Augustine basically saying that the five books of Moses (Enoch was to be kept out of the Bible as per the Church Fathers) were not about the Jews but about Christianity (paraphrasing) next step the Jews are booted from Jerusalem. Oh well, looks like God just cut the Jews off. Too bad the but the Pentateuch was really about 3rd century Christians not the Israelites.

JP II did a good deal of apologizing. I don't think anyone tries to justify it anymore.

The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.102 seconds.