At What Point?

[Into the Night]

This is where your tenth grade education has left you unequipped to understand European history.

Not only were you unaware that a monastic education in the middle ages included astronomy, logic, and mathematics...

Monasteries (with very few exceptions) did not teach astronomy, logic, or mathematics.

I'm sure you were completely unaware that the Byzantine Empire - under the direct influence of Greek Orthodox Christianity - made profound advances in the sciences, technology, medicine.

The Byzantine empire contributed no significant theories to science.

They DID, however, preserve the technology, some mathematics, and some theories of science from other cultures.

 

[Cypress]

Let's see you try to redefine words again.

Science is not experiments. There is no such thing as 'experimental science'.

That primarily came from Islam, not Christianity.

Because Galileo relented enough to suffer house arrest instead.

Thanks for your confession that the claim "Christianity" burned scientists was overblown and exaggerated to the point of parody.

The Greek Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire was the point of transmission of Greek knowledge and logic to both Islam and Renaissance Italy. The fact most Americans know almost nothing about the Eastern Roman Empire is because our primary and secondary school history education is heavily focused on western Europe.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for your confession that the claim "Christianity" burned scientists was overblown and exaggerated to the point of parody.

You are hallucinating again. I never made any such statement.

 

[Cypress]

Monasteries (with very few exceptions) did not teach astronomy, logic, or mathematics.

The Byzantine empire contributed no significant theories to science.

They DID, however, preserve the technology, some mathematics, and some theories of science from other cultures.

Frantically Googling a topic you didn't know much about two minutes earlier runs the risk of leaving massive gaps in your understanding.

The Irish monks, and monks of the continent played a key role in keeping literacy alive during the early middle ages. Charlemagne is well-known for monastic reform and making education in the Trivium and Quadrivium subjects more widespread in European monasteries.

The claim put forward was that Christianity was burning scientists. The fact that the Byzantine Empire preserved, and even advanced knowledge inherited from the Greeks in math, medicine, physics, technology demonstrates that scholarship and natural philosophy were not repressed under Greek Orthodox Christianity, let alone being burned at the stake.


Now, if anyone wants to have an honest fact based discussion about science repression, say the Scopes monkey trial or the efforts to block stem cell research, I am all ears.

 

[Into the Night]

Frantically Googling a topic you didn't know much about two minutes earlier runs the risk of leaving massive gaps in your understanding.

You can't blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Sybil.

The Irish monks, and monks of the continent played a key role in keeping literacy alive during the early middle ages. Charlemagne is well-known for monastic reform and making education in the Trivium and Quadrivium subjects more widespread in European monasteries.

What 'Irish monks'??

The claim put forward was that Christianity was burning scientists.

Never happened. You are hallucinating again, Sybil.

The fact that the Byzantine Empire preserved, and even advanced knowledge inherited from the Greeks in math, medicine, physics, technology demonstrates that scholarship and natural philosophy were not repressed under Greek Orthodox Christianity, let alone being burned at the stake.

The Byzantine empire did not make any significant contribution to any theory of science.

Now, if anyone wants to have an honest fact based discussion about science repression, say the Scopes monkey trial or the efforts to block stem cell research, I am all ears.

Not science.

 

[Yakuda]

you have made no meaningful point on the thread.


so the whole of the law means love thy neighbor as thyself.

it still a radical departure from how Jews of the time saw Jewish law.

that's just being able to read.

That is not the whole of the law. You've added garbage to the discussion

 

[Yakuda]

Thanks for the tacit and grudging admission that a human life does not begin at the moment of conception, which is what conservatives have been hollering from the rooftops my entire adult life.

Sure it does. No where did I say otherwise. What does the word "fetus" mean?

 

[Litmus]

That is not the whole of the law. You've added garbage to the discussion

Jesus said it was..

go be a Jew, if you don't jesus's teachings.

 

[Litmus]

Sure it does. No where did I say otherwise. What does the word "fetus" mean?

Frantically Googling a topic you didn't know much about two minutes earlier runs the risk of leaving massive gaps in your understanding.

The Irish monks, and monks of the continent played a key role in keeping literacy alive during the early middle ages. Charlemagne is well-known for monastic reform and making education in the Trivium and Quadrivium subjects more widespread in European monasteries.

The claim put forward was that Christianity was burning scientists. The fact that the Byzantine Empire preserved, and even advanced knowledge inherited from the Greeks in math, medicine, physics, technology demonstrates that scholarship and natural philosophy were not repressed under Greek Orthodox Christianity, let alone being burned at the stake.


Now, if anyone wants to have an honest fact based discussion about science repression, say the Scopes monkey trial or the efforts to block stem cell research, I am all ears.

and a key role in repressing the whole damn continent.

 

[Litmus]

Frantically Googling a topic you didn't know much about two minutes earlier runs the risk of leaving massive gaps in your understanding.

The Irish monks, and monks of the continent played a key role in keeping literacy alive during the early middle ages. Charlemagne is well-known for monastic reform and making education in the Trivium and Quadrivium subjects more widespread in European monasteries.

The claim put forward was that Christianity was burning scientists. The fact that the Byzantine Empire preserved, and even advanced knowledge inherited from the Greeks in math, medicine, physics, technology demonstrates that scholarship and natural philosophy were not repressed under Greek Orthodox Christianity, let alone being burned at the stake.


Now, if anyone wants to have an honest fact based discussion about science repression, say the Scopes monkey trial or the efforts to block stem cell research, I am all ears.

Catholics were burning scientists.

Eastern orthodox was done differently by the powers that be.

eastern orthodox had to deal with real Christians.



so out of the eastern orthodox, the Catholics and the protestatns, only Catholics, your favorite, burned scientists.


you're just a Catholic shill, by your own evidence, the worst implementation of Christianity.

 

[Cypress]

and a key role in repressing the whole damn continent.

What you've done is tried to tip-toe away from your original claim, which was that "Christianity" as a whole was burning scientists in the early Middle Ages -- and then tried to reframe, edit, modify your original claim into something nebulous and undefined about generalized "repression".

John Calvin was also burning people at the stakes in Geneva, so Protestantism in Europe was practicing intolerance and repression. I doubt the Salem witch trials would have happened without the influence of Puritan christians.

 

[Cypress]

Catholics were burning scientists.
Eastern orthodox was done differently by the powers that be. eastern orthodox had to deal with real Christians.

so out of the eastern orthodox, the Catholics and the protestatns, only Catholics, your favorite, burned scientists.

That's not what your original claim was.

You claimed "Christianity" was burning scientists.

I doubt you know anything, or even thought about Greek Orthodox Christianity or the Byzantine Empire before you started making overblown and generalized claims about Christianity

 

[Litmus]

What you've done is tried to tip-toe away from your original claim, which was that "Christianity" as a whole was burning scientists in the early Middle Ages -- and then tried to reframe, edit, modify your original claim into something nebulous and undefined about generalized "repression".

John Calvin was also burning people at the stakes in Geneva, so Protestantism in Europe was practicing intolerance and repression. I doubt the Salem witch trials would have happened without the influence of Puritan christians.

I said Catholics.

calvin was also awful.

he's very similar to Catholics in his zeal for stupid, and gaslighting others about what words mean.

a text centered approach is best for keeping the teachings free from the influence of corrupting influences.

 

[Yakuda]

and a key role in repressing the whole damn continent.

goofiness ^^^^^^

 

[Litmus]

Frantically Googling a topic you didn't know much about two minutes earlier runs the risk of leaving massive gaps in your understanding.

The Irish monks, and monks of the continent played a key role in keeping literacy alive during the early middle ages. Charlemagne is well-known for monastic reform and making education in the Trivium and Quadrivium subjects more widespread in European monasteries.

The claim put forward was that Christianity was burning scientists. The fact that the Byzantine Empire preserved, and even advanced knowledge inherited from the Greeks in math, medicine, physics, technology demonstrates that scholarship and natural philosophy were not repressed under Greek Orthodox Christianity, let alone being burned at the stake.


Now, if anyone wants to have an honest fact based discussion about science repression, say the Scopes monkey trial or the efforts to block stem cell research, I am all ears

goofiness ^^^^^^

goofiness ^^^^^^

you were wrong historically on the vulgate being forbidden until Luther.

you're wrong here.

 

[Cypress]

My own wild guess theory is that Jesus didn't die on the cross .

He was only mortally injured and comatose. Without modern scientific equipment, a weak heartbeat is difficult to detect. If he recovered some days later, and appeared to his disciples it would have seemed miraculous.

Because of the Sabbath and Passover, he was taken down early. It’s possible he survived the nailing and the stab in the side with a spear although I doubt he’d have been walking around much for six months. Everyone thought he died since he didn’t respond to the stab so if he turned up alive, even sitting on a litter, that would be a “miracle”. Oral stories passed around for 50 years would account for both the discrepancies and the growth of the legend.

I read something relevant today concerning death rituals in ancient Judaism. They would put the body in the tomb and check on it periodically for a few days to make sure he or she was really dead. When Mary Magdelene and her companions went to check on Jesus and annoint the body at the end of Sabbath, Jesus' body was gone. A rational explanation is that he was only mortally wounded and comatose from the crucifixion, but recovered enough to be able to walk away from the tomb.
Perhaps eventually succumbing to his injuries months later.

 

[Litmus]

wow.

so lost.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I read something relevant today concerning death rituals in ancient Judaism. They would put the body in the tomb and check on it periodically for a few days to make sure he or she was really dead. When Mary Magdelene and her companions went to check on Jesus and annoint the body at the end of Sabbath, Jesus' body was gone. A rational explanation is that he was only mortally wounded and comatose from the crucifixion, but recovered enough to be able to walk away from the tomb.
Perhaps eventually succumbing to his injuries months later.

Enough to weakly encounter Doubting Thomas? Which was only written about in John, IIRC.

Agreed that the circumstances lead to a good possibility Jesus survived his crucifixion and met some people then died of sepsis or his wounds. Maybe even skipped town with Mary to live a normal life. Jesus surviving, even for a short time, would explain a lot of stories and why the events that week in Jerusalem became a legend.

 

[Cypress]

Enough to weakly encounter Doubting Thomas? Which was only written about in John, IIRC.

Agreed that the circumstances lead to a good possibility Jesus survived his crucifixion and met some people then died of sepsis or his wounds. Maybe even skipped town with Mary to live a normal life. Jesus surviving, even for a short time, would explain a lot of stories and why the events that week in Jerusalem became a legend.

Rationally, it makes more sense to me than miracles, or a wide-ranging conspiracy by the apostles to fabricate the story of the resurrection.

LOL @ skipped town

 

[Litmus]

Enough to weakly encounter Doubting Thomas? Which was only written about in John, IIRC.

Agreed that the circumstances lead to a good possibility Jesus survived his crucifixion and met some people then died of sepsis or his wounds. Maybe even skipped town with Mary to live a normal life. Jesus surviving, even for a short time, would explain a lot of stories and why the events that week in Jerusalem became a legend.

that's not why Jesus is a legend.

he's a legend due to the genius of his moral teaching, and his direct confrontation of corrupt earthly authority figures.


you people miss the point on everything.