| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2004 10:59:26 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You believe it to be the Word of God; all we know is that some guys wrote this stuff down, and I suspect them (like all men) of embroidering the truth just a wee bit out of obvious self-interest. |
Obvious self-interest? Many of the Bible writers were killed for what they believed/wrote. Most gained no wealth or political power. Many were shunned from society. The Bible speaks negatively about people who desire wealth, power, and control over other people. The material things that selfish people want are considered "idols" to be avoided. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and rebuked those who wanted him to acquire worldly power.
Unlike most ancient writers, the writers of the Bible portrayed themselves in very unflattering ways. According to Moses himself, he was a poor speaker who never quite made it to the promised land. David admitted to committing adultery and murder, and said "surely I was sinful from the time my mother conceived me". Isaiah couldn't stand to be in the presense of God because of his "unclean lips". Peter is referred to (by Jesus) as "Satan". Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, called himself a "wretched man" and described his own struggles with sin.
This is hardly the way anyone would write if they were doing so for their own personal gain. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:09:24 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
How many of you folks saw the "Passion of the Christ"? Remember the crowds and the great looking satin walking among them. He was perfectly portrayed. He is still lurking for folks, especially the Christian believers. He wants Christians to fail. He already owns non-believers, so he doesn't care about them. Just my thoughts. |
How can a figment of your imagination "own" me?
This kind of statement shows what I see as the major difference between many (if not most) believers and most atheists (not all of either, so if what I am saying offends you, then I obviously don't mean you).
Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean that I say you are wrong to believe. My philosophy is that I don't have faith in a supreme being, you do. I may be wrong or you may be wrong. I have yet to meet a Christian who was willing to give me the same courtesy. I am deeply offended by the people who tell me "I'll pray that you find God". It makes me want to say "I'll hope that you find your way out of your fantasy and back to reality." (but, of course, I never do).
I would not deny anyone their beliefs as long as they don't try to force them on me. That is what I see whenever someone in charge (President) wants to make laws based on their interpretation of what God wants. Arguments using God have no place in law. I choose not to follow God's word (or the human interpretation of those words), don't use the law to force me to.
I've heard all the arguments that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. Good. That also included freedom of religion so that the above example does not happen. Or are atheists excluded? My morals are well thought out and my appliction of those morals is open to adjustment when new facts come to light. I resent any implication that they are less valid for not being forced on me by a supreme being.
If you believe in God and are happy with that, then I am happy for you. Please give me the same respect for my beliefs. Wrongs have been done in the name of atheism as well as in the name of Christianity. None of the sides are blameless, but all have cores of good people wanting the freedom to practice their own beliefs.
drg
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:18:37 PM · #178 |
Seems to me that many Christians are so hung up on sex and the power it commands, and I"m not sure why. Afterall, if you believe that god created the universe, then god also created humans and god is within all who live. So why is it that to covet another (whether hetero or homo) and partake in the delights of another's body is so taboo for the right leaning Christians? To me, loving another's body is a spiritual matter. Of course, going along with that is loving in other ways too, but then, why the division?
The only answer to this I can think of is that it's all about control. :) |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:25:24 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean that I say you are wrong to believe. My philosophy is that I don't have faith in a supreme being, you do. I may be wrong or you may be wrong. I have yet to meet a Christian who was willing to give me the same courtesy. |
I'll give you that courtesy!
But in defense of those who are "pushing religion down your throat" (not a quote of your words, but I know this happens), I think in many (not all) cases they could be doing so in love.
The condition that Christians believe this world to be in is such: We are separated from God and we won't know true life unless through Jesus Christ who came as the Messiah to fulfill God's promise to provide salvation for us from our sin.
With that in mind, and assuming charitable motives, I understand a friend's zealous attempt to show you the freedom they're convinced that they've found. I've heard a Christian compare it to the hypothetical situation of knowing that a friend has a deadly disease and trying desperately to convince his friend that this disease is real and that there is a cure for it if only he will seek help. The friend thinks Mr. Christian is absurd but Mr. Christian can't help himself but keep trying to show his friend that he's telling the truth, making him ever more absurd-looking and radical.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:28:35 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The only answer to this I can think of is that it's all about control. :) |
Hold on now, I've been trying to be arms length in this discussion but this remark seems really pessimistic of you...especially considering the candid discussion we seemed to be having earlier.
Let's admit that sex is a wonderful thing but most of us agree it has to be treated carefully and within guidelines, right? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:33:29 PM · #181 |
I think that people need to be treated carefully, but what kind of guidelines are you referring to?
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The only answer to this I can think of is that it's all about control. :) |
Hold on now, I've been trying to be arms length in this discussion but this remark seems really pessimistic of you...especially considering the candid discussion we seemed to be having earlier.
Let's admit that sex is a wonderful thing but most of us agree it has to be treated carefully and within guidelines, right? |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 11:50:29 PM · #182 |
Well, let me preface my comment by saying that I don't want to talk about what the specific guidelines should or shouldn't be (that would be a different thread)...Nor do I want to talk about how to determine these guidelines. But to answer your question:
You said "So why is it that to covet another (whether hetero or homo) and partake in the delights of another's body is so taboo for the right leaning Christians?
I think partaking in the delights of another's body is worthy of some guidelines. One that I personally think is extremely worthy of consideration is that a social/personal commitment (call it Marriage if you like...or whatever) to the "another" referred to above should involve exclusivity of "delight-partaking"...In everyday terms, infidelity is an awful thing and will wreck relationships. That's just one example of a guideline that I think is universally valuable, not just by power-hungry 'right-leaning christians'...
...or is this where you and I see a great divide?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:19:34 AM · #183 |
Is that a general rule that has to apply to everyone? Does all sex have to take place within a committed relationship regardless if both parties (or all parties :) agree to it that way? Does all sex have to take place for the purposes of procreation in mind? Why do Catholics not allow use of condoms? Also, is there a good way and a bad way for a heterosexual couple to have sex?
I do not intend to be disrespectful of you, Mike. I'm just perplexed by this rigidity regarding sexuality when it comes to christianity.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Well, let me preface my comment by saying that I don't want to talk about what the specific guidelines should or shouldn't be (that would be a different thread)...Nor do I want to talk about how to determine these guidelines. But to answer your question:
You said "So why is it that to covet another (whether hetero or homo) and partake in the delights of another's body is so taboo for the right leaning Christians?
I think partaking in the delights of another's body is worthy of some guidelines. One that I personally think is extremely worthy of consideration is that a social/personal commitment (call it Marriage if you like...or whatever) to the "another" referred to above should involve exclusivity of "delight-partaking"...In everyday terms, infidelity is an awful thing and will wreck relationships. That's just one example of a guideline that I think is universally valuable, not just by power-hungry 'right-leaning christians'...
...or is this where you and I see a great divide? |
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:42:56 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by postoakinversion:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You believe it to be the Word of God; all we know is that some guys wrote this stuff down, and I suspect them (like all men) of embroidering the truth just a wee bit out of obvious self-interest. |
Obvious self-interest? Many of the Bible writers were killed for what they believed/wrote. Most gained no wealth or political power. Many were shunned from society. The Bible speaks negatively about people who desire wealth, power, and control over other people. The material things that selfish people want are considered "idols" to be avoided. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and rebuked those who wanted him to acquire worldly power.
|
Precisely why I find the policies of the current administration to be so so repugnant -- their usurpation of the mantle of defender of "Christian values" while promoting an economic system directly antithetical to those values represents the height of hypocrisy. In everything matter except sex I find they promote values almost directly contrary to the teachings of Moses and Christ.
Perhaps they better read those Ten Commandments before they go posting them everywhere -- someone may make them try to live by them ...
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 12:19:46. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:47:27 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You believe it to be the Word of God; all we know is that some guys wrote this stuff down, and I suspect them (like all men) of embroidering the truth just a wee bit out of obvious self-interest. |
You seem very passionate about this, General. What parts do you feel do you feel were affected a wee bit by self-interest?
Not emphasizing any words, I just didn't want to be out-underlined. |
The part about the scheming woman being responsible for duping that poor naif Adam into Original Sin, thus condemning all of future humankind to a lifetime of suffering and travail. Since Man was here first, and since Man is so smart, mightn't he accept just a portion of the responsibility?
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 00:49:14. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 02:04:02 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The part about the scheming woman being responsible for duping that poor naif Adam into Original Sin, thus condemning all of future humankind to a lifetime of suffering and travail. Since Man was here first, and since Man is so smart, mightn't he accept just a portion of the responsibility? |
That's a strange caricature of what is usually called "The Fall of Adam". References to Original Sin in the Bible refer to Adam, not Eve. In Romans 5, Paul says "sin entered the world through one man", and "through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners". If that's not giving the man responsibility for original sin, I don't know what is.
There's nothing in Genesis 3 about Eve "scheming" or Adam not being responsible. Their sin wasn't being "duped" or simply eating a fruit. They both sinned by not believing/trusting in what God told them. They thought they knew better than God. They committed the same sin at approximately the same time, and they were both equally responsible.
The Bible was well ahead of its time in its proclamation of ontological equality between men and women. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:16:49 PM · #187 |
The Genesis story of Adam and Eve is bothersome to me in two ways. First, it appears as the watershed in history for the denial of feminine power, which to my understanding, up until that point most cultures and societies were matriarchical. It establishes this by purporting that womankind came out of mankind from his rib and seems to establish a gender heirarchy. It must have appeared to ancient cultures that because of childbirth woman to be the superior gender and the originator of all life. We know, of course, that it takes an ovum and a sperm, so then why not equality between the sexes? My answer to that would be so that invading armies, who most likely were men, could establish a rule and belief that could not be challenged by the masses, and so maintain their power over the long term.
Secondly, and related to the first, is what I have stated earlier in this thread, which is that religion/Christianity has taken (or wants to) take away the responsiblity from people for their personal lives and put it into the hands of those who declare their greater knowledge/access to the "higher power." |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 12:34:40 PM · #188 |
the first man was created by aliens anyways.
and since you can't prove otherwise, it might be true.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 12:36:25. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 03:56:53 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Precisely why I find the policies of the current administration to be so so repugnant -- their usurpation of the mantle of defender of "Christian values" while promoting an economic system directly antithetical to those values represents the height of hypocrisy. In everything matter except sex I find they promote values almost directly contrary to the teachings of Moses and Christ.
|
Here here. And this is why him winning due to the "moral" vote is all the more pathetic, misguided and hypocritical; overall it disgusts me.
Again why I say Christianity blinds people and holds back rational, logical and scientific process thought. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 04:25:21 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Precisely why I find the policies of the current administration to be so so repugnant -- their usurpation of the mantle of defender of "Christian values" while promoting an economic system directly antithetical to those values represents the height of hypocrisy. In everything matter except sex I find they promote values almost directly contrary to the teachings of Moses and Christ.
|
Here here. And this is why him winning due to the "moral" vote is all the more pathetic, misguided and hypocritical; overall it disgusts me.
Again why I say Christianity blinds people and holds back rational, logical and scientific process thought. |
Quite the contrary, my friend. Christianity does not blind people, neither does it hold back rational, logical, and scientific process thought.
Nicholas Copernicus was a Christian. He sometimes referred to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Johannes Kepler was a Christian. He was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity.
Galileo Galilei was a Christian. He expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.
Rene Descartes was a Christian. He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth.
Isaac Newton was a Christian. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle was a Christian. As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish.
Michael Faraday was a Christian. He was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature.
Gregor Mendel was a Christian. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk.
Lord Kelvin ( William Thompson ) was a Christian. He was a very committed Christian. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment.
Max Planck was a Christian. He expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols."
Though not a Christian, Albert Einstein maintained that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Care to reconsider? |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 04:43:15 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Rene Descartes was a Christian. He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. |
I'd always heard that Descartes' Catholicism was based on a strictly logical contruct; that if the Catholics were wrong about how it works you hadn't lost much in living a pious life, while if, just if they were somehow right, then there's be Hell to pay ... : )
On the other hand I've also heard of some real hedonists who repented so sincerely on their deathbeds that they were considered to have died in a state of Grace, and possibly even beatified.
Now that I think of it, perhaps modern economics isn't so far removed from the structure of the (Catholic) Church ... it occurs to me that the current model of corporations transferring of pollution tax credits is remarkably similar to the practice of selling indulgences which could be redeemed for sins ... |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 05:13:24 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Rene Descartes was a Christian. He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. |
I'd always heard that Descartes' Catholicism was based on a strictly logical contruct; that if the Catholics were wrong about how it works you hadn't lost much in living a pious life, while if, just if they were somehow right, then there's be Hell to pay ... : )
On the other hand I've also heard of some real hedonists who repented so sincerely on their deathbeds that they were considered to have died in a state of Grace, and possibly even beatified. |
Deathbed confessions of faith are quite common. One hopes that they are also sincere, for it is impossible to fool God. Also likely are conversions in prison - Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, come to mind. The most wondrous thing about Grace is that it in an equal opportunity employer, so to speak. It's never too late, and one is never to sinful to benefit from its offer.
Your reference to beatification is, I presume, related to the Catholic Church, since I know of no other that issues such honors. In that case, it would be impossible to be beatified following a deathbed conversion, since one of the requirements is that the one being considered must have exhibited in life an orthodoxy of doctrine.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Now that I think of it, perhaps modern economics isn't so far removed from the structure of the (Catholic) Church ... it occurs to me that the current model of corporations transferring of pollution tax credits is remarkably similar to the practice of selling indulgences which could be redeemed for sins ... |
I'm not familiar enough with either to comment on the analogy, so I'll trust that you can draw one in greater detail, if asked. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:24:24 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Now that I think of it, perhaps modern economics isn't so far removed from the structure of the (Catholic) Church ... it occurs to me that the current model of corporations transferring of pollution tax credits is remarkably similar to the practice of selling indulgences which could be redeemed for sins ... |
I'm not familiar enough with either to comment on the analogy, so I'll trust that you can draw one in greater detail, if asked. |
FromDictionary.com:
Indulgence: (6) Roman Catholic Church. The remission of temporal punishment still due for a sin that has been sacramentally absolved.
These were documents issued by Church officials which functioned much like Monopoly's "Get Out Of Jail Free" card; it could essentially be traded-in in exchange for being punished for committing a sin. These were often available for a cash "donation" to the Church, and I believe were sometimes traded in exchange for some other obligation, giving the recipient an unforseen opportunity to sin without repercussions.
Companies which pollute somewhat less than they are "allowed" can trade "credits" to plants which over-pollute, allowing those violators to avoid penalties for the violations, and removing the incentive to improve the efficiency of the plant.
This has the effect of allowing Congress to appear to vote for an "clean air" measure while actually failing to lower emmissions levels overall.
Perhaps not a perfect analogy, since Congress (despite their own opinion on the matter) will never be mistaken for the source of all that is good and just with the world. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:33:55 PM · #194 |
Perhaps one of you can interpret a bit of Scripture for me. I know it's usually bad form to cite brief Biblical exerpts, but this one seems pretty concise and self-contained. It is from Timothy II:
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
It is my understanding that the imperial, feudal, and captitalistic economic models are all based on the premise that desire for the accumulation of material wealth, goods, and priviledge, and relief from actual physical productive labor, are the best and primary motivators for human inventiveness and progress.
Socialism and anarchism (as well as many Native American societal models, among other alternatives, but not state Communism) are based on the idea that we should all cooperate in achieving a decent life for all; not "coveting" our neighbor's possessions but freely sharing of ourselves and our own, especially with the less-fortunate than ourselves.
It is well-documented that the poor routinely give a greater percentage of their income to charity than do the rich (and the rich are better positioned to profit from the donation in the form of tax deductions and publicity).
Given all this, how does any Christian support corporate capitalism as practiced in the USA? It seems to me that at its very core it is antithetical to the one of the most fundamental Christian values.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 18:35:21. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:43:05 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Precisely why I find the policies of the current administration to be so so repugnant -- their usurpation of the mantle of defender of "Christian values" while promoting an economic system directly antithetical to those values represents the height of hypocrisy. In everything matter except sex I find they promote values almost directly contrary to the teachings of Moses and Christ.
|
Here here. And this is why him winning due to the "moral" vote is all the more pathetic, misguided and hypocritical; overall it disgusts me.
Again why I say Christianity blinds people and holds back rational, logical and scientific process thought. |
every vote is based on morals, not just a christian's vote. your system of morals causes you to vote differently than someone on the other side of the political aisle. how you see right and wrong is different than how most christians will see right and wrong with a few exceptions. the republicans just got more of their people to vote. if more people had come out to vote against bush who share your values, you would have won. as usual you only see one side though, i'm not sure why i bothered writing this |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 06:52:13 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps one of you can interpret a bit of Scripture for me. I know it's usually bad form to cite brief Biblical exerpts, but this one seems pretty concise and self-contained. It is from Timothy II:
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
It is my understanding that the imperial, feudal, and captitalistic economic models are all based on the premise that desire for the accumulation of material wealth, goods, and priviledge, and relief from actual physical productive labor, are the best and primary motivators for human inventiveness and progress.
Socialism and anarchism (as well as many Native American societal models, among other alternatives, but not state Communism) are based on the idea that we should all cooperate in achieving a decent life for all; not "coveting" our neighbor's possessions but freely sharing of ourselves and our own, especially with the less-fortunate than ourselves.
It is well-documented that the poor routinely give a greater percentage of their income to charity than do the rich (and the rich are better positioned to profit from the donation in the form of tax deductions and publicity).
Given all this, how does any Christian support corporate capitalism as practiced in the USA? It seems to me that at its very core it is antithetical to the one of the most fundamental Christian values. |
first the verse from 1 Timothy is not "The love of money is the root of all evil." It is "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." This is quite different and something about which everyone can agree on I think. Jesus said many times, made it very important to point out things like "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first." also there was the story of the rich man who wanted to follow Christ, and Jesus told him to sell all of his belongings and follow Him. The man could not do it and walked away. Jesus then went on to say it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. What he is saying is that money is a huge corruptor, it can so easily take over our lives. It is the root of all kinds of evil. But not all and I'm not ready to judge someone else's motives or heart just based on how much money they have.
If you want to quote scripture, there's also "Do not judge, for you too will be judged." but that doesn't exactly fit into your argument does it? |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 09:09:28 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Again why I say Christianity blinds people and holds back rational, logical and scientific process thought. |
I've kept my nose out of this one for a while, but I really need to call you on this. If it hadn't been for Christianity, and more specifically the Catholic church, most of the works of the ancient philosophers would have been lost. Most western books before the mid 1500's were preserved by the church. Most of the scientific advances from the Renaissance were funded by the church. The fire at the library in Alexandria would have seemed like a minor hiccup compared to what would have been lost during the Dark Ages without the church.
I'm not implying that some scientific ventures have not been suppressed by the church. Just pointing out that you are taking a very one sided view of things.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 09:25:02 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps one of you can interpret a bit of Scripture for me. I know it's usually bad form to cite brief Biblical exerpts, but this one seems pretty concise and self-contained. It is from Timothy II:
"The love of money is the root of all evil." |
The correct quote is...
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Although you may be thinking of another quote, since you mentioned Timothy II...
2 Timothy 3:2-5 or so
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
I think it's saying that when the lust for money eclipses humankind's love of things spiritual, that they don't treat each other very well. It is not that having money is a bad thing. There are many passages that say just the opposite. Fiscal responsibility is a virtue (if I'm reading the Bible right)... But the "Love" of money, which I believe is better translated as the "Lust" of money, is the problem...
Aside from that I agree that our economic system isn't very conducive to Godliness... But I don't think it's opposed either.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 10:29:32 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Again why I say Christianity blinds people and holds back rational, logical and scientific process thought. |
I've kept my nose out of this one for a while, but I really need to call you on this. If it hadn't been for Christianity, and more specifically the Catholic church, most of the works of the ancient philosophers would have been lost. Most western books before the mid 1500's were preserved by the church. Most of the scientific advances from the Renaissance were funded by the church. The fire at the library in Alexandria would have seemed like a minor hiccup compared to what would have been lost during the Dark Ages without the church.
I'm not implying that some scientific ventures have not been suppressed by the church. Just pointing out that you are taking a very one sided view of things. |
Actually, I believe those ancient (Greek) scientific writings were preserved by the Arabs during what in Europe is commonly known as the "Dark Ages." Later, after the Moors were rooted out of southern Europe and Iberia the ancient writings were re-translated from Arabic into Latin, leading to a Renaissance ("rebirth") of scientific thought in western Europe, against the stout resistance of the Church.
Galileo may have been a devout Catholic, but the Church he apparently respected forced him to publicly recant his (correct) scientific views, and imprisoned him (admittedly a form of house arrest) for much of the latter stages of life. Less well-known and benign is the fate of Bruno. Just to be clear, "heresy" is a crime against the church, not the government.
BRUNO, GIORDANO
Giordano (Filippo) Bruno (1548-1600) was an Italian philosopher, poet, and priest who spread the ideas of Copernicus as well as his own ideas that there were an infinity of worlds in the universe and that the stars were other suns. He was burned at the stake for heresy.
Message edited by author 2004-11-06 22:31:40. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:22:30 PM · #200 |
| The intolerance and persecution of witches by the christians for centuries is a good example of how threatened the church felt by these women who revered nature. They studied nature and were healers that used herbal knowledge and were also midwives. Seems to me the church needs to keep women under control for they fear their powers of healing, childbirth, sexuality and connection to the natural. |
|
