Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Hey Timber:

You've received a lot of applauses from the mob. Beware! They are not willing and capable of examining the merit of your "argument". So by all means, avoind the cheap glory they provide!!

I wonder if you're aware of the lightness of what you just said... For sure it was no EVIDENCE bearing to our discussion... (do you know the difference between 'argument' and 'evidence'???) Anyway...

The prejudices of this crowd are getting bit boring... And yes, Frank was absolutely right: That's more than I can chew. No argument or evidence can reach close-mindedness... only the graces of God. Never mind, I'll continue for just a little while longer...

I'll repeat myself:

Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view, mentioned by Frank, or you, or anybody?

And I'll add:

Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain Frank's "thesis" (for lack of a better term)?

Maybe the mob can help you... Laughing

Take care.

0 Replies

I hope you get totally bored really soon, Maliagar.

0 Replies

maliagar

Thanks for the compliment, I've never before been a member of a mob. (However, I wrote a thesis about the mob in Middle Ages.)

0 Replies

Maliagar

I think the single most compelling article of impeachment of your position came from one of your own witnesses:

I quote Edward Grant: "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...."

By acknowledging that "prevailing opinion" runs contrary to what he is about to assert -- he, in effect, is knocking your thesis for a loop. Remember, even you acknowledged a few posts back that we cannot go back to the middle ages to determine what was being done by whom. We pretty much have to rely, as you mentioned, on the experts.

And the experts overwhelmingly indicate that the early Church, rather than being a nurturer to science, was a bane.

Your guy acknowledges this -- and, I might add, YOU Maliagar acknowledge this also -- or the entire of your thesis would be unnecessary. YOU are saying that the majority of experts are of the opinion that the church was a foe to science -- although I will acknowledge that you are asserting, based on damn near nothing but the speculations of a few individuals, that they are wrong.

Of course you will always be able to find a few Catholic scholars, who like you, realize that what the Church did to science during its early years was an abomination -- and they, like you, will try to rewrite and revise history to comport with what they wanted things to be rather than what they actually were.

We know science came to a virtual standstill for over 800 years after the ascendancy of Christianity. Hell, damn near all progress came to a standstill at that time, in large part because the Church was a repressive influence on society. So the argument is moot as well as silly. But Maliagar is obsessed with it - and he certainly has a right to offer it and defend it.

None of what I have said, by the way, is meant to say that there were absolutely no enlightened individuals back then -- nor that there were no enlightened individuals who were church fathers. And certainly it is not to say that the church did not have a vested interest in finding out the exact date of Easter; certain calendar features; the proper time for prayers -- or have a few other interests in astronomical phenomena. But for the most part, the hierarchy of the church was interested in "when the sun, moon and stars passed over the Earth" -- and definitely not in any ideas that the sun, moon, and stars were NOT passing over the Earth -- and that the Earth was just a very minor league player in the big picture. That kind of REAL science always got slapped down -- and that is the view of damn near all current day scholars except for the few that Maliagar seems to be relying on -- people who go out of their way to mention that they are in the minority. (So much for the nonsense that the church nurtured astronomy!) (Or any other science.)

To suppose that any of the stuff you offered, Maliagar, is indicative of a church promoting science -- rather than attempting to stifle it, is wishful thinking on your part.

I compliment you on your work and your research -- but you are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- and it will never be anything more than a sow's ear.

Back to delinquent accounts: Since you have mentioned the Encyclopedia Britannica as a buttress to your thesis so often -- and since I've asked you for anything from that work that truly backs up your assertion that the church, in effect, was a nurturer rather than an impediment to science -- when are you going to produce it?

Where is it?

Quote:

My dearest Frank

You can just call me Frank. You do not really seem to hold me dear, and I do not want to see you add hypocrisy to your resume. And - that kind of introduction went out ages ago.

Quote:

I realize that oftentimes, for some people, no amount of evidence is enough to dispel deeply held beliefs. But if it doesn't work with you, it may work for somebody else.

If you will excuse the expression, AMEN!

And I needn't remind you that you are a "believer" -- where I am not.

The reminder you offered is important and I thank you for it. But it applies to you, not to me. Heed it. Open up your mind. Just assume there is not a GOD waiting to pounce on you for doing so -- a GOD who will condemn open-minded people to an eternity of unrelenting torture. (You really adore that god? Have you no sense of pride?)

I thank my fellow posters who have taken the time and effort to try to reason with Maliagar on some of the material he has presented.

Sometimes logic and reason are not enough.

In this case, it doesn't seem to be. Maliagar is determined to revise history in an attempt to sweep centuries of repression of science by the Catholic Church under the rug.

No doubt he will have people and theories - important people with cogent theories -- upon which to base this amalgam of rationalizations and denial -- and that is as it should be. That is what we want -- people attempting to poke holes in accepted theories by offering other theories.

My guess is that the few people trying to revise the obvious history -- (we pretty much can establish that science went in the toilet for hundreds of years) -- will play out their denial with other competent peers tearing their works to shreds.

We'll keep at this. Obviously it ain't goin' anywhere.

But as Tartarin observed -- it's better than watching football. (And the season doesn't start for a few more weeks!)

0 Replies

I bet you do (if you were the only one in this list, I would not have lasted a minute). But soon you all will be left to go back to your sessions of "group think".

Tartarin wrote:

I hope you get totally bored really soon, Maliagar.

0 Replies

Quote:

it's better than watching football. (And the season doesn't start for a few more weeks!)

Soccer season starts here Saturday (and I'm in the UK for a week).

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

The prejudices of this crowd are getting bit boring... And yes, Frank was absolutely right: That's more than I can chew. No argument or evidence can reach close-mindedness... only the graces of God. Never mind, I'll continue for just a little while longer...

Ohhh...not thinking of quitting and running away are you???

That would be terrible.

The last time you indicated that you might be going - and I mentioned it, you accused me of being the one on the run. Hope that doesn't happen again - although I know you - anything for a laugh.

In any case, this god of your and all his grace should see you through this with no trouble.

Quote:

I'll repeat myself:

Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view, mentioned by Frank, or you, or anybody?

And I'll add:

Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain Frank's "thesis" (for lack of a better term)?

Maybe the mob can help you...

For a very intelligent individual, Maliagar, you are incredibly dense at times.

Everyone here -- you and all your witnesses included -- agree that the vast majority of historical scholars aver that the church was an implacable impediment to science. In fact, a part of your general thesis is that the entire western world feels this way -- and THAT THEY ARE WRONG.

Those few individuals you are quoting are the exception -- and a marked exception at that.

My position is that the church was an enemy of science -- not a nurturer.

If we agree that almost everyone except those few individuals whom you have quoted feels that the church stifled science -- and if the history seems to show that science indeed was stifled during that time -- and if it appears that some of these nay-sayers have ulterior motives in proposing the theories they are proposing -- what the hell more is needed?

You, Maliagar, are my witness. You are the authority I bring forth. You and the few people you have offered having opinions contradictory to 1500 years of a different opinion. I offer history, historians, philosophers, and the man in the street.

In any case, trying to find someone to refute that in academe would be like trying to find someone to refute theories about UFO's or ESP -- or any other bizarre, off-the-wall theories. Most distinguished authorities are probably not interested enough in this fringe group to even offer up opinions on it.

You are the one who must bring forth evidence that science flourished during the early years of the Church. We do not have an obligation to offer evidence in contradiction to that -- because all of that stuff you are offering is in direct contradiction to the mainstream of thought for the last 1500 years.

Wake up! Stop trying to set up a straw man. You will never get away with such an amateur effort in this forum.

And "offering evidence that science flourished under the Church" involves a lot more than just citing authors with zany, albeit interesting, ideas on this issue. It involves showing that science thrived at that time.

What great scientific achievements came out of the first 800 years of Christianity's dominance in the western world? Tell us!

Then when we see the impressive list of those scientific acheivements -- we will all say in one voice -- Gee, Maliagar was right! Just as I am sure you will acknowledge that you are wrong if you cannot come up with such a list.

0 Replies

Actually Frank, I think I suggested that this was better than watching football. Laughing

Hmm, okay, I'll bite...I now accept Jesus as my lord and saviour, as long as that clause about being cleansed of your sins through confession still stands...oh wait, (reads fine print), only if you kill someone ELSE, not yourself due to thread-induced misery...

0 Replies

My dear Frank:

Let's see:

Quote:

You can just call me Frank. You do not really seem to hold me dear, and I do not want to see you add hypocrisy to your resume. And - that kind of introduction went out ages ago.

Lighten up, friend! I'm sure you know the difference between "hypocrisy" and a figure of speech :wink: . Sorry, but I'm an old fashioned, tradition-lover, type of guy (as if you didn't know that).

Not that I'm no hypocrite I am, every single time I sin (but hey, that's a human given everybody once in a while fails to live up to the moral standards they have adopted - it's called 'original sin'). Now, you'll understand if I'm willing to confess my sins only to a priest. Twisted Evil

Now, to the point:

You say too many things that I won't bother to deal with. I'm sure you're aware of the weakness of the following argument:

Quote:

I think the single most compelling article of impeachment of your position came from one of your own witnesses:

If not, somebody else may help you. So let's try one more time to get some EVIDENCE from you--and not just regurgitated words. Since I have the vague suspicion that Cicerone Impostor will not remind you of the core of the debate (as he dutifully did with me Laughing

), here it is once again:

1. Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view? Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain your "thesis" (for lack of a better term)?

2. The Church does not "avoid" passages that are inconvenient, as you claim. If you went to mass every day, you would read the totality of the Bible in a year. If you went to mass every Sunday, you would read the totality of the Bible in three years. Furthermore, there are plenty of "inconvenient" doctrines that the Church does not simply brush aside (divorce, contraception, abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, celibacy, etc.). So you are wrong: all over the world Christians die for what they believe, convenient or not. They are not eager to be assimilated to the world and avoid scandal. But the Church does have the authority to teach the Gospel through the ages. And the Church grows in its understanding of the Gospel (cf. Cardinal Newman).

You think the meanings of the totality of the Bible are obvious? You think the meaning of the Leviticus passage on homosexuality is obvious? Maybe its human meaning is obvious to you. But you're not doing any attempt whatsoever to reconcile that verse with, for example, Christ's commandments to forgive those who offend us. Or to reconcile that passage of Leviticus with the Prodigal Son's story. It is like, for you, Leviticus alone is the Bible. [Talking about taking things out of context]

It is very dangerous to take upon yourself the task of Biblical interpretation. Do you have any idea of how many religions started this way (including the religion of no-religion)? You seem to believe that whatever human meaning you can infer (with purely human means) from the Bible, that must be accepted as the Word of God. Wrong. You'll just get the human meaning of a specific verse or paragraph. And this is only interesting for historians or archaeologists. For the Church's guidelines on Biblical interpretation, read the Catechism, paragraphs 112-114 and 115-117.

We wouldn't have the Bible if we didn't have the Church first. As St. Augustine (4th century) once said: "I wouldn't even believe in Scripture if the Catholic Church hadn't commanded me to do so." But this is so hard to understand in a Protestant culture.

Let's see if this time you deal with the issues.

Take care.

0 Replies

and the wheel goes round and round as it spins along on the open ground.

0 Replies

The indefatigable maliagar, persisting in denial wrote:

Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view, mentioned by Frank, or you, or anybody?

And I'll add:

Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain Frank's "thesis"

<sigh> You just don't get it, do you? Your challenge has been multiply met already, but OK, maliagar, here are 20 more you can start with, alphabetized to make it easier for your librarian, and all published within the past 25 years:

Billings, Malcolm: The Crusades : Five Centuries of Holy Wars
Sterling Publications, 1996

Caplan, Eric: From Ideology to Liturgy: Reconstructionist Worship and American Liberal Judaism
Hebrew Union College Press, 2002

Confino, Alon, and Peter Fritzsche, eds. The Work of Memory: New Directions in the Study of German Society and Culture
University of Illinois Press, 2002

Fahmy, Khaled, All the Pasha's Men: Mehmed Ali, His Army and the Making of Modern Egypt.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

Freeman, Charles: Egypt, Greece and Rome - Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean
Oxford, 1996

Gies, Joseph and Francis: Life in a Medieval City
HarperCollins, 1981

Harding, Vanessa: The Dead and the Living in Paris and London, 1500-1670. Cambridge University Press, 2002

Hatina, Meir: Islam and Salvation in Palestine
Tel Aviv University, 2001

Hearder, Harry: Italy: A Short History. Second edition
Cambridge University Press, 2001

Herlihy, David and, Samuel K. Cohn, Eds: The Black Death and the Transformation of the West
Harvard Univ, 1995

Hollister, C. Warren, Medieval Europe: A Short History, 8th ed.
McGraw-Hill, 1998

MacKenzie, Cameron A: The Battle for the Bible in England, 1557-1582
Peter Lang, 2002

Magner, Lois N: History of the Life Sciences, Third revised and expanded edition.
Marcel Dekker, 2002

Marshall, Peter: Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England.
Oxford University Press, 2002

Marshall, Peter, and Alec Ryrie, eds: The Beginnings of English Protestantism. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Nye, Mary Jo, ed: The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences. (Vol 5, The Cambridge History of Science)
Cambridge University Press, 2003

Olson, Oliver K: Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform Harrasowitz Verlag, 2002

Signorotto, Gianvittorio, and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, eds: Court and Politics in Papal Rome 1492-1700 (Cambridge Studies in Italian History and Culture) Cambridge University Press, 2002

Steedman, Carolyn, Dust: The Archive and Cultural History
Rutgers University Press, 2002

Tuchman, Barbara W.: A Distant Mirror : The Calamitous 14th Century
Ballantine Books, 1987

And, just as a bonus, here are are 4 enormously useful, and authoritative, websites dedicated to Medieval Studies:

http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/
The Brigham Young University Medieval Library

http://www.fordham.edu/mvst/
The Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/wess/
The University of Virginia Western European Studies Section

http://www.the-orb.net/
The On Line Reference Book for Medieval Studies

Apart from those, here's another webite of inestimable use to those interested in philosophy:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/about.htm
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I will repeat myself: Whether there is validity to your argument or not, your presentment of that argument has provided no substantiation thereof.

0 Replies

maliagar

As St. Augustin said:
"Ama et fac quod vis".

0 Replies

Wow! What an overwhelming argument!!! I suppose I have no way out, but to accept your implication that AAAALLLL those sources agree with Frank and you... What a powerful argument!!!! Laughing

Timber, if you're gonna participate in this discussion at all, please make some CONTRIBUTIONS to it. If not, leave it to Frank (or to the unbiased and unprejudiced Cicerone...).

[My goodness!!!...... Surprised

]

timberlandko wrote:

The indefatigable maliagar, persisting in denial wrote:
Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view, mentioned by Frank, or you, or anybody?

And I'll add:

Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain Frank's "thesis"

<sigh> You just don't get it, do you? Your challenge has been multiply met already, but OK, maliagar, here are 20 more you can start with, alphabetized to make it easier for your librarian, and all published within the past 25 years:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Timber, if you're gonna participate in this discussion at all, please make some CONTRIBUTIONS to it. If not, leave it to Frank (or to the unbiased and unprejudiced Cicerone...).

Normally on civilized discussions, only the creator of a thread (or a moderator or webmaster) excluds members from participating.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

1. Could you mention one academic of comparable credentials that directly contradicts my witnesses points of view? Could you bring to this forum ONE author of comparable credentials (that is, a specialist on the Middle Ages from a reputable university and/or publisher) that has devoted book-length research to sustain your "thesis" (for lack of a better term)?

There is no need to do so. We both agree that the vast majority of scholars consider the other side of the coin from that which you are arguing -- to be the case.

Your witnesses have conceeded that.

But I see that Timber has named some people in the community of scholars who hold to the traditional view with regard to the Church v. Science.

Quote:

The Church does not "avoid" passages that are inconvenient, as you claim. If you went to mass every day, you would read the totality of the Bible in a year. If you went to mass every Sunday, you would read the totality of the Bible in three years.

That is absolutely, totally false. You do not know what you are talking about here -- or you have misstated the reality.

Quote:

Furthermore, there are plenty of "inconvenient" doctrines that the Church does not simply brush aside (divorce, contraception, abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, celibacy, etc.).

Oh...the stuff about sex they never brush aside -- and they never consider making sex a sin as an inconvenient position. (pun intended!)

I didn't say they brush aside everything, Maliagar, but they sure brush aside the inconvenient ones.

Quote:

So you are wrong: all over the world Christians die for what they believe, convenient or not.

Another straw man, Maliagar. I was not talking about taking definite position with regard to Catholic orthodoxy, and you damn well know it.

But how about the many passages from the first five books of the Bible that show the god of the Bible to be a murderous barbarian?

Quote:

You think the meanings of the totality of the Bible are obvious?

Not at all. But if people like you are allowed to brush aside the inconvenient passages by talking about a holistic approach, we are not going to get any closer to the truth about what is said and described in that book.

Quote:

You think the meaning of the Leviticus passage on homosexuality is obvious?

Yes I do! And I do not understand why you are able to fool yourself into thinking it isn't.

Quote:
Maybe its human meaning is obvious to you. But you're not doing any attempt whatsoever to reconcile that verse with, for example, Christ's commandments to forgive those who offend us.

That can be stated another way. You, Maliagar, are doing nothing whatsoever to accept that the injuctions of the god of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus are often in opposition to each other.

Why do you accept the teachings of Jesus over the commands of the god of the Bible? Especially since Jesus went out of his way to indicate that he was not here to change any of the commands of the god of the Bible.

(Yes, he seems to have done it anyway -- but perhaps that shows a bit of hypocrisy in Jesus!)

Quote:
Or to reconcile that passage of Leviticus with the Prodigal Son's story. It is like, for you, Leviticus alone is the Bible.[/b] [Talking about taking things out of context]

You professional Christians make me sick with that "take it out of context" nonsense -- since that seems to be exactly what you do regularly.

Put the Leviticus passage on homosexuality in context for us. Put the Leviticus passage on slavery in context forl us.

Quote:
It is very dangerous to take upon yourself the task of Biblical interpretation.

It is even more dangerous to allow the Catholic Church to do the interpreting for us. But I doubt that you can see that.

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how many religions started this way (including the religion of no-religion)? You seem to believe that whatever human meaning you can infer (with purely human means) from the Bible, that must be accepted as the Word of God. Wrong. You'll just get the human meaning of a specific verse or paragraph. And this is only interesting for historians or archaeologists.[/b] For the Church's guidelines on Biblical interpretation, read the Catechism, paragraphs 112-114 and 115-117.

You mean that same catechism that did such an abysmal job of dealing with the slavery question? Jeez, why would anyone depend on that book for dependable information?

Quote:
We wouldn't have the Bible if we didn't have the Church first. As St. Augustine (4th century) once said: "I wouldn't even believe in Scripture if the Catholic Church hadn't commanded me to do so." But this is so hard to understand in a Protestant culture.

We wouldn't have a Bible if it weren't for the Jews -- and they think most of the stuff the Catholic Church teaches is bullshit. So what is your point?

Quote:
Let's see if this time you deal with the issues.

I think I have dealt with every item you raised.

A PERSONAL NOTE: I want to disassociate myself from any remarks that suggest it would be a benefit to A2K if you were to leave. Anything I can say (short of agreeing with your thesis here) that will keep you as an active member -- I will say it. We need a voice of the Catholic Church here; I am happy your are here; I encourage you in every way to stay.

0 Replies

I know, I know. I'm an uncivilized, bigoted, Nazi, heartless, totalitarian, intolerant, etc., etc., etc. Smile

Normally, in a civilized dicussion, a moderator would make sure that real arguments and real evidence are presented to the fore, so that people don't waste their times. Surprised

Walter Hinteler wrote:

maliagar wrote:

Timber, if you're gonna participate in this discussion at all, please make some CONTRIBUTIONS to it. If not, leave it to Frank (or to the unbiased and unprejudiced Cicerone...).

Normally on civilized discussions, only the creator of a thread (or a moderator or webmaster) excluds members from participating.

0 Replies

Timber has contributed plenty to this discussion, and noting the frequency of your posts, you could not possibly have read all the sources he posted, maliagar. Or, in the off-chance that you are familiar with them all, let us hear your refutation of said sources, one by one. Also, I thought pride/hubris was a mortal sin, and goeth before the fall. Extreme sarcasm is the first sign, they say.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you went to mass every day, you would read the totality of the Bible in a year. If you went to mass every Sunday, you would read the totality of the Bible in three years.

Mass services must be very different in the USA from those in Europe:

here, we just quote (different quotations than the usual mass textes, I mean) from the bible in the epistle and the gospel. And there is to found very rarely something from the Old Testament.

0 Replies

Oh, I want to second Frank's support of maliagar. I agree to disagree, but maliagar does fill a void here on A2K.

0 Replies

Tell ya what:

Let me hear your refutation of the sources I mentioned before, one by one (Encarta, Britannica, and the 4 or 5 books whose book descriptions I provided - even book reviews in one case).

Then we can talk.

Rolling Eyes

:wink:

cavfancier wrote:

Timber has contributed plenty to this discussion, and noting the frequency of your posts, you could not possibly have read all the sources he posted, maliagar. Or, in the off-chance that you are familiar with them all, let us hear your refutation of said sources, one by one. Also, I thought pride/hubris was a mortal sin, and goeth before the fall. Extreme sarcasm is the first sign, they say.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know