3
   

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 06:25 pm
This is so much better than football Laughing
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 06:29 pm
Hey, Sofia. A couple of comments:

Sofia wrote:
I'm a Christian, but don't use faith in an argument, because I don't put forward an unprovable item in a debate...


Smart thing to do. The only problem is: How do we determine what exactly is provable and unprovable? We need an epistemology to define this issue. And the epistemologies of Aristotle and Sextus Empiricus were very different. As the epistemologies of Ayer, Popper, or Feyerabend. Some see the world through the lenses of logical positivistm, and others with Thomistic glasses. And unless we are fully aware of the debates between all these philosophers, we are likely to pick one of them in an act of, well, FAITH. Or we are likely to take our cues from the general culture (another act of faith). I've said this many times already: Faith is a fact of human existence, and even the atheists BELIEVE that there is no God and build upon this belief nothing less than their lives.

The standards of evidence, of certainty, of proof, change according to the epistemology and logic we adopt. And they also depend on the nature of the object we are judging (mathematical entities, natural objects, human subjects, moral values, God...). It is a mistake to apply a standard that comes from mathematics to the understanding of human subjects, or to apply a standard that comes from theology to the understanding of gravity.

Quote:
I do believe the Bible read as scholarly exercise will not yield the same understanding as it does when read through faith.


Absolutely. The fact that you understood what I said makes me feel a little bit more confident that, after all, I can get across one or two ideas... :wink:

Take care.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 06:30 pm
I guess those catholics that interpreted the bible aren't humans. c.i.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 06:48 pm
Quote:
Quote:
[Said Maliagar]:
Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages. But hey, this can also be a lie.


[Said Frank:] What are you smoking? Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years....


On the Middle Ages - First, was Encarta. This time, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Encyclopedia Britannica on DVD :wink: : (excerpts):

"The term and its conventional meaning were introduced by Italian humanists with invidious intent; the humanists were engaged in a revival of classical learning and culture, and the notion of a thousand-year period of darkness and ignorance separating them from the ancient Greek and Roman world served to highlight the humanists' own work and ideals. In a sense, the humanists invented the Middle Ages in order to distinguish themselves from it. The Middle Ages nonetheless provided the foundation for the transformations of the humanists' own Renaissance. ...

The materials from which this civilization was molded were essentially threefold: the inheritance of classical antiquity, Christian tradition, and Germanic and Scandinavian social patterns. Classical antiquity, which set the standards of learning, culture, and government by which medieval no less than Renaissance scholars measured their own achievements, passed into Europe by several routes. …The Roman Catholic church was able to play an essential role in preserving literacy and even some classical learning in its liturgy and literature, in maintaining some of the forms of public administration in its diocesan government, in perpetuating the tradition of corporate responsibility for peace and the relief of want, and perhaps most of all in creating a new universal society to replace that once provided by the fallen empire. It was ultimately the Latin church rather than the Roman imperial tradition that determined the frontiers of modern Europe.

The only schools of Europe in the 8th century, except perhaps in parts of northern Italy, were those attached often to monasteries and more rarely to bishoprics. … The rise of the new skills in dialectic in the 11th and 12th centuries produced two phenomena: first, a confidence in rational thought as a means of solving problems, especially those raised by the conflict of authorities, and, second, a number of teachers whose exceptional talents attracted scholars from the farthest ends of Europe. The self-confidence and European reputation of Peter Abelard reveal this movement at its most distinctive. Around such teachers grew up either religious communities such as that of Saint-Victor of Paris or the earliest universities. In the 12th century, the lawyers of Bologna, the doctors of Salerno, and, above all, the theologians of Paris were becoming organized bodies governed by a chancellor; by the 13th century, the universities possessed their own statutes regulating the arduous courses of study toward recognized degrees. The crown of studies was the pursuit of the highest knowledge, theology. The forms of 13th-century university study gave rise to the characteristic theological achievements of the period, the summae of the Dominican St. Thomas Aquinas and the Franciscan St. Bonaventure. The founding of universities received a new impetus at the end of the 14th and 15th centuries, when they spread into Scandinavia, Scotland, and eastern Europe. "
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:34 pm
maliagar wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
[Said Maliagar]:
Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages. But hey, this can also be a lie.


[Said Frank:] What are you smoking? Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years....


On the Middle Ages - First, was Encarta. This time, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Encyclopedia Britannica on DVD :wink: : (excerpts):

"The term and its conventional meaning were introduced by Italian humanists with invidious intent; the humanists were engaged in a revival of classical learning and culture, and the notion of a thousand-year period of darkness and ignorance separating them from the ancient Greek and Roman world served to highlight the humanists' own work and ideals. In a sense, the humanists invented the Middle Ages in order to distinguish themselves from it. The Middle Ages nonetheless provided the foundation for the transformations of the humanists' own Renaissance. ...

The materials from which this civilization was molded were essentially threefold: the inheritance of classical antiquity, Christian tradition, and Germanic and Scandinavian social patterns. Classical antiquity, which set the standards of learning, culture, and government by which medieval no less than Renaissance scholars measured their own achievements, passed into Europe by several routes. …The Roman Catholic church was able to play an essential role in preserving literacy and even some classical learning in its liturgy and literature, in maintaining some of the forms of public administration in its diocesan government, in perpetuating the tradition of corporate responsibility for peace and the relief of want, and perhaps most of all in creating a new universal society to replace that once provided by the fallen empire. It was ultimately the Latin church rather than the Roman imperial tradition that determined the frontiers of modern Europe.

The only schools of Europe in the 8th century, except perhaps in parts of northern Italy, were those attached often to monasteries and more rarely to bishoprics. … The rise of the new skills in dialectic in the 11th and 12th centuries produced two phenomena: first, a confidence in rational thought as a means of solving problems, especially those raised by the conflict of authorities, and, second, a number of teachers whose exceptional talents attracted scholars from the farthest ends of Europe. The self-confidence and European reputation of Peter Abelard reveal this movement at its most distinctive. Around such teachers grew up either religious communities such as that of Saint-Victor of Paris or the earliest universities. In the 12th century, the lawyers of Bologna, the doctors of Salerno, and, above all, the theologians of Paris were becoming organized bodies governed by a chancellor; by the 13th century, the universities possessed their own statutes regulating the arduous courses of study toward recognized degrees. The crown of studies was the pursuit of the highest knowledge, theology. The forms of 13th-century university study gave rise to the characteristic theological achievements of the period, the summae of the Dominican St. Thomas Aquinas and the Franciscan St. Bonaventure. The founding of universities received a new impetus at the end of the 14th and 15th centuries, when they spread into Scandinavia, Scotland, and eastern Europe. "



Ummmm...didn't you say something about "science" being "maintained" during this time.

Yes...yes, you did. I remember now. In fact, you even mention it at the beginning of your comments here.

You wrote:
Quote:
Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages. But hey, this can also be a lie.


And I took issue with the "science" part of that. I wrote:

Quote:
What are you smoking? Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years....


Perhaps you forgot.

Hey, anyone can forget.

So all this stuff you just imposed on us about the church maintaining theology and philosophy is another red herring.

Come on, Maliagar.

Post something showing that the Church during the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages defended, advanced, or maintained SCIENCE!

That clearly -- according to your own posting -- was what I disputed.

It's gonna be a tough job doing that, though, because the Church did damn near everything it could to stiffle science -- to silence it. It still does whenever and wherever it can get away with it.

But I am always willing to hear some quotes from you that actually deal with what we are discusssing -- so give it a shot.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:35 pm
cavfancier wrote:
This is so much better than football Laughing



Well, I don't know about that.

But it ain't bad!!!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:52 pm
I find it telling that the decline of Rome as a civilization is contemporaneous with the rise of Christianity as a philosophy. The collapse of centralized civil madministratiopn left only the infrastucture of The Church on which to weave the fabric of society. Yes, The Church, and its monastaries, were the repositories of knowledge and the centers of learning from the collapse of empire to the beginnings of the Age of Reason. The Church, however, used those resources not to advance knowledge, but to provide suitable candidates to people its own administrative infrastructure. It did not promote knowledge and critical inquiry, but rather taught orthodoxy and submission to its own authority. It was not because of The Church, but despite it that The Enlightenment came about and that The Dark Ages were at last dispelled. The printing press, the compass, and the machine tool liberated mankind, not The Bible, The Chatechism, and The Monastic Orders. Left to The Church, we'd still have The Fuedal System.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 08:03 pm
----

Man, you're very much fixed in your old prejudices, eh? You need to update a little bit your library.

Here's more EVIDENCE:

"Contrary to prevailing opinion, the roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Indeed, that revolution would have been inconceivable without the cumulative antecedent efforts of three great civilizations: Greek, Islamic, and Latin. With the scientific riches it derived by translation from Greco-Islamic sources in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian Latin civilization of Western Europe began the last leg of the intellectual journey that culminated in a scientific revolution that transformed the world. The factors that produced this unique achievement are found in the way Christianity developed in the West, and in the invention of the university in 1200. A reference for historians of science or those interested in medieval history, this volume illustrates the developments and discoveries that culminated in the Scientific Revolution.

This is the book description of "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts", by Edward Grant, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science and Professor Emeritus at Indiana University. Cambridge University Press, November 1996. ISBN: 0521567629. You can find this information in Amazon.com

Do I hear an admission now??? :wink:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Ummmm...didn't you say something about "science" being "maintained" during this time.

Yes...yes, you did. I remember now. In fact, you even mention it at the beginning of your comments here.

You wrote:
Quote:
Don't forget that it was the Church who maintained universities, scientists, and the flame of classical philosophy during the Middle Ages. But hey, this can also be a lie.


And I took issue with the "science" part of that. I wrote:

Quote:
What are you smoking? Christianity -- and the Church -- probably set science back in western civilization by 1000 years....


Perhaps you forgot.

Hey, anyone can forget.

So all this stuff you just imposed on us about the church maintaining theology and philosophy is another red herring.

Come on, Maliagar.

Post something showing that the Church during the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages defended, advanced, or maintained SCIENCE!

That clearly -- according to your own posting -- was what I disputed.

It's gonna be a tough job doing that, though, because the Church did damn near everything it could to stiffle science -- to silence it. It still does whenever and wherever it can get away with it.

But I am always willing to hear some quotes from you that actually deal with what we are discusssing -- so give it a shot.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 08:14 pm
Frank, I'll take watching a good debate over football any day, not to mention, football is a tad homoerotic and anti-Christian, yes? Heh heh....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 08:20 pm
maliagar, no "Admission" from Frank is warranted; The Church did little more than teach some carefully selected folks how to read, and served, in the absence of any other suitable institution, as a repository for Graeco-Islamic learning looted by the Crusaders from the Middle East, where some honest inquiry and evidence-driven discovery were going on. Yes, The University arose from antecedents in The Church, but it was not a conscious, intended development on the part of The Church, and was even viewed by The Church as usurpation of its authority and an occasion of sin, error, and heresy. I contend again that Theology is the antithethis of Science, and I invite your response.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 08:42 pm
Oh, and your cite of Grant is not evidence, it is merely Grant's conclusion, his opinion, derived from the evidence he purportedly examined and chose to incorporate into his hypothesis. Others, looking at the same or similar evidence, draw other conclusions. One's agreement or disagreement with a hypothesis does not constitute evidence one way or the other.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 08:50 pm
You proclaim too many things without supporting your views...

Once again, there are many kinds of evidence. And since we don't have a time machine to travel to the Middle Ages, and since we're only a few decades old, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE CAN POSSIBLY HOPE TO HAVE IS THE RESEARCH OF HISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS, AND SIMILIAR TYPES.

Understood?

Now, historians have their own cycles and fads, and the types of things they said about the Middle Ages 300 or 200 years ago are very different from the things they've been saying in the last century.

(of course, you need to pay attention to what historians say to be aware of these things)

And by the way, Greco-Islamic knowledge did not reach the Christian West through the "looting of the Crusades" (in the east) but through the Caliphate of Cordoba, Spain and the University of Paris (in the West).

timberlandko wrote:
Oh, and your cite of Grant is not evidence, it is merely Grant's conclusion, his opinion, derived from the evidence he purportedly examined and chose to incorporate into his hypothesis. Others, looking at the same or similar evidence, draw other conclusions.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 09:33 pm
Well, among the historians who have influenced my views are the Durants. From the prface of Vol VI of their epic 10 Volume Half-Century tromp through humankind's past:
Will Durant wrote:

We begin by considering religion in general, its functions in the soul and the group and the conditions and problems of the Roman Catholic Church in the two centuries before Luther. We shall watch England and Wyclif in 1376-82, Germany and Louis of Bavaria in 1320-47, Bohemia and Huss in 1402-85, rehearsing the ideas and conflicts of the Lutheran Reformation. And, as we proceed, we shall note how social revolution, with communistic aspirations, marched hand-in-hand with religious revolt. We shall weakly echo Gibbon's chapter on the fall of Constantinople and, shall perceive how the advance of the Turks to the gates of Vienna made it possible for one man to defy at once an emperor and a pope. We shall consider sympathetically the efforts of Erasmus for the peaceful self-return of the Church. We shall study Germany on the eve of Luther and may thereby come to understand how inevitable he was when he came.

In Book II, the Reformation proper will hold the stage, with Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, Zwingli and Calvin in Switzerland, Henry VIII in England, Knox in Scotland and Gustavus Vasa in Sweden, with a side glance at the long duel between Francis I and Charles V. And other aspects of European life in that turbulent half-century (1517-64) will be postponed in order to let the religious drama unfold itself without confusing delays.

Book III, will look at "the strangers in the gate": Russia and the Ivans and the Orthodox Church; Islam and its changing creed, culture and power; and the struggle of the Jews to find Christians in Christendom. Book IV will go "behind the scenes" to study the law and economy, morals and manners, art and music, literature and science and philosophy of Europe in the age of Luther. In Book V we shall be forced to admire the calm audacity with which she weathered the encompassing storm. In a brief Epilogue we shall try to see the Renaissance and the Reformation, Catholicism and the Enlightenment, in the large perspective of modern history and thought.

My assertions as pertain to this topic are muchly derived therefrom. Zoe Oldenberg is an influence as well, and there's always Victor Frankel, who's Man's Search For Meaning struck me as a cogent, insightful examination of the subject matter.
I'll grant that The Caliphate of Cordoba, on the occasion of its fall to Christendom, bulked up the European Knowledge Coffers ... not all of the looting by the Crusaders was confined to The Middle East. I recall, for example, the Sack of Constantinople.

But, to the point. It was you who asserted that The Church's Moral Authority provided the definitive treatment of the matter of the treatment of homosexuals. All you have been asked to do is to substantiate that statement. That this conversation has gone on for so many varied, contentious replies rather clearly indicates your failure to have done so. At this point, the only one convinced of your argument is you; many of the rest of us remain thoroughly unswayed by your brand of rhetoric. As the proponent of a hypothethis, the burden of proof relating to that hypothesis is yours. Those interacting with you in this matter evidently are unsatisfied that what you have produced is proof, and many have termed your responses to be no more substantiual than mere dogma, and certainly not definitive, evidentiary proof. You merely tell us what you believe, with an occasional sidetrip into the metaphysical foundation for your beliefs. I contend not only have you failed to prove your case, but that your case is unprovable.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 09:38 pm
*thud*
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 09:45 pm
BOING............
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 10:14 pm
The Durants????? Laughing Laughing

timberlandko wrote:
Well, among the historians who have influenced my views are the Durants.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 11:40 pm
Yes, the Durants .. and I misspoke when I said The Story of Civilization was a "10 Volume" opus, it is really 11, along with a few companion pieces. It is History as story, yes, and from a point of view. By itself, informative and entertaining. When read critically, with reference to and reading of attributed source material (footnotes and bibliographies really get me going), a veritable inexhaustible mine of history. I have been influenced by Will Durant and Ariel, and by Bertrand Russel and Jean Paul Sartre and Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas and Francis Bacon and Ignatius Loyola and Thucydides and Juilian Jaynes and Josephus and Baruch Spinoza and Niccolo Machiavelli and Winston Churchill and Samuel Elliot Morrison and Isaac Asimov, among others as well. Cardinal Newman is in there, and so is Bishop Sheen and Sun Tzu, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, and a whole panoply besides, of varying vaue and provenance. I have been influenced by many, but I've formed my own opinions, not succumbed to any one else's ... historically, philosophically, or in the matter of motorcycle maintainance.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 11:56 am
The important thing is that you just admitted that we have to rely on the evidence provided by historians to make up our minds about such issues as the Church and science in the Middle Ages.

And since you've read so much, you probably know that the role of Christianity in the development of science has been under revision (by historians and philosophers of science) during the last 100 years or so. Many of the prejudices of the Rennaisance and Enlightenment have been proved wrong.

That's the evidence we have TODAY.

timberlandko wrote:
Yes, the Durants .. and I misspoke when I said The Story of Civilization was a "10 Volume" opus, it is really 11, along with a few companion pieces. It is History as story, yes, and from a point of view. By itself, informative and entertaining. When read critically, with reference to and reading of attributed source material (footnotes and bibliographies really get me going), a veritable inexhaustible mine of history. I have been influenced by Will Durant and Ariel, and by Bertrand Russel and Jean Paul Sartre and Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas and Francis Bacon and Ignatius Loyola and Thucydides and Juilian Jaynes and Josephus and Baruch Spinoza and Niccolo Machiavelli and Winston Churchill and Samuel Elliot Morrison and Isaac Asimov, among others as well. Cardinal Newman is in there, and so is Bishop Sheen and Sun Tzu, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, and a whole panoply besides, of varying vaue and provenance. I have been influenced by many, but I've formed my own opinions, not succumbed to any one else's ... historically, philosophically, or in the matter of motorcycle maintainance.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:08 pm
maliagar wrote:
the role of Christianity in the development of science has been under revision (by historians and philosophers of science) during the last 100 years or so. Many of the prejudices of the Rennaisance and Enlightenment have been proved wrong.

That's the evidence we have TODAY.

I would submit the Revisionist History of which you speak is not exactly acaqdemically widespread, but rather is the product of religionists of much the same stripe as those who claim "Scientific Evidence" for Jonah's flood. They're of course entitled to their opinions, however at odds those opinions may be with the observed phenomona. And any are welcome to accept or reject the provenance of those opinions, based on their own assessment and appraisal of such evidence as is available.
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:18 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If humans are unable to interpret the bible, why even bother reading it? c.i.


One thing is to read the Bible in humility, out of personal devotion and the search spiritual development, and another to take upon oneself the task of defining orthodox Christian teaching.

Christians are encouraged to read the Bible within the context of their faith, to grow in it and perfect it. But it is not up to them to read to Bible to DEFINE DOCTRINE. That task corresponds to the successors of the apostles (the bishops) led by the successor of Peter (the Pope).

People that did not know of (or accept) this distinction ended up rebelling against the apostolic authority of the bishops, breaking up the Church, and founding their own religious movements (Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, and more recently, Mormons, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.).

We're all learning something in this forum.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/14/2025 at 06:33:29