| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2004 05:53:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Inquisition |
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:33:15 -0500 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:17:33 -0500, DOC <DOC@idunno.net> wrote:
Indeed, the Inquisition WAS romanist-inspired.
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Despite their denials, the disgusting, horrible methods of torture used
against those poor, innocent people had their origins in Satan.
Poor, innocent people - you are a riot, doc.
You only approve of torturing the guilty? Oh, that's OK then. And
presumably you know they're guilty because they confess under torture
- and besides why would God have put suspicion into the minds of the
inquisitors *unless* they were guilty?
You know, you really are a total moral imbecile, either that or you're
perhaps trying to slope into Heaven by persuading God that you're one
of the "invincibly ignorant".
How ANYONE could possibly WILLINGLY remain in the clutches of that
accursed, blood-stained thing is beyond all comprehension.
Obviously, they choose spiritual death over eternity with the Lord.
To reply to that above by Doc (and I'll dupe it to that message), one
imagines it more that people have a great capacity to
compartmentalise. There were no doubt a number of people who, for
example, knew of the Nazi death camps, took no personal hand in them,
who were pleasant people, kind to animals and children and so forth,
but who never-the-less continued to support the Nazi government.
Or more recently, I've read a number of posts by people in my "home"
newsgroups that seek to justify and minimise what went on in Abu
Ghraib prison for reasons that, IMO, have more to do with a variation
of the "halo effect[1]" than any continent moral position.
What it comes down to is this: "the group I give my allegiance to did
this, so there has to be a good reason for it".
And then of course, the various Protestant Christian sects have their
own cases to answer which while not undertaken by bodies as formalised
as those of the RCC, more than made up for this by their enthusiasm.
And of course, they've had less time to get on with it before the rise
of secular society began to circumscribe to power of the various
Churches.
In some senses I think apologists for the Inquisition and it's
informal Protestant analogues miss the fundamental point of mainstream
Christianity - which is important *because* the apologists are almost
without exception adherents to one or other of those sects: confess
your sins and endeavour to sin no more.
But then, as I understand Christian theology, we are prone to deny the
most grievous of our sins and frequently do not see them as sins at
all. Which, one presumes explains Duke's attitude, to a degree.
If you want to read something interesting about this, that goes into
the whole socio-religious context behind being "put to the question",
you might take a look at:
"Trial by Fire and Water - The Medieval Judicial Ordeal"
Hardcover 192 pages (October 16, 1986)
Publisher: Oxford University Press Reprints distributed by Sandpiper
Books ISBN: 0198219733
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198219733
This is, IMO, very valuable if for no other reason than it goes to
some lengths to explain the social context where these things
happened.
[1]. This is worth looking up. It's a term used in psychology.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
07 Jun 2004 05:52:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:46 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
But I am the one that does.
So you say. You're free to believe yourself, I suppose.
Not only that. I'm right.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with revealed truth - it's a matter of
saying something else was revealed.
...or that the allegedly revealed truth was *not*.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
It still *is* a matter of disagreeing with the allegedly revealed truth.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
More precisely, it is a matter of disagreeing that such alleged truth
was in fact "revealed truth" in the first place.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
Galileo is a good example.
Correct. He disgreed with the *allegedly* "revealed truth." And was
punished for it.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
See, I told you that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Nope.
(See how easy that was?)
You still don't know what you're talking about.
Think Galileo.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
07 Jun 2004 09:48:23 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<k3i8c01ns7mihen49gqb0smh2ca06r8gt0@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:46 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
But I am the one that does.
So you say. You're free to believe yourself, I suppose.
Not only that. I'm right.
Fortunately, no.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with revealed truth - it's a matter of
saying something else was revealed.
...or that the allegedly revealed truth was *not*.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
Fortunately, no.
It still *is* a matter of disagreeing with the allegedly revealed truth.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
Fortunately, no.
More precisely, it is a matter of disagreeing that such alleged truth
was in fact "revealed truth" in the first place.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
Fortunately, no.
Galileo is a good example.
Correct. He disgreed with the *allegedly* "revealed truth." And was
punished for it.
Nope.
Yep.
(See how easy that was?)
You're still wrong.
Fortunately, no.
See, I told you that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Nope.
(See how easy that was?)
You still don't know what you're talking about.
You still haven't offered any scintilla of evidence supporting any of your claims.
Think Galileo.
Does that pass for an explanation of anything in your private little world?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
06 Jun 2004 07:48:31 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<bmn6c0pbsf4914sacg82r5q29oplqebh47@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:17:42 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
That's just because you have no idea what it says.
...or *you* don't.
But I am the one that does.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with revealed truth - it's a matter of saying
something else was revealed.
...or that the allegedly revealed truth was *not*.
Nope.
It still *is* a matter of disagreeing with the allegedly revealed truth.
Nope.
More precisely, it is a matter of disagreeing that such alleged truth
was in fact "revealed truth" in the first place.
Nope.
Galileo is a good example.
Correct. He disgreed with the *allegedly* "revealed truth." And was
punished for it.
Nope.
See, I told you that you didn't know what you were talking about.
It's amazing how you completely failed to offer even a fraction of an
explanation, and yet continue to pretend you've made any sort of
point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
07 Jun 2004 01:24:52 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<9v54c0lrfljcm41m22g5br85130jddvgr7@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:55:30 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
"Claiming a false revealed truth" is the same thing as disagreement.
It means the heretic is disagreeing with your idea of the truth.
Nominated quote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
This quote is simply amazing in its efficient stone-headedness.
That's just because you have no idea what it says.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with revealed truth- it's a matter of saying something
else was revealed.
Galileo is a good example.
Galileo? Revealed truth? Galileo did not claim to have a vision of
Jesus Christ who told him the pendulum equation. Mary did not visit
him in his sleep to tell him about the moons of Jupiter. The Archangel
Micheal did not suddenly command him one day to drop weights from a
tower to test Aristotelean dynamics. (Aristotle lost.)
No, Galileo looked for truth in Nature. Nature told him a different
story from the revealed truth of the Church. Galileo also did the math
and decided that the terrocentric universe idea was silly--flying in
the face of Church Tradition and thereby inciting their wrath.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
09 Jun 2004 05:35:10 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jun 2004 11:24:52 -0700, (Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
Galileo is a good example.
Galileo? Revealed truth? Galileo did not claim to have a vision of
Jesus Christ who told him the pendulum equation. Mary did not visit
him in his sleep to tell him about the moons of Jupiter. The Archangel
Micheal did not suddenly command him one day to drop weights from a
tower to test Aristotelean dynamics. (Aristotle lost.)
Wow, are you out of your league. You really don't know about Galileo?
No, Galileo looked for truth in Nature. Nature told him a different
story from the revealed truth of the Church. Galileo also did the math
and decided that the terrocentric universe idea was silly--flying in
the face of Church Tradition and thereby inciting their wrath.
-Hypatia
Sad, and you profess to be the atheist poster child?
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
09 Jun 2004 09:28:53 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<espdc09424tnj8tvtodgie013pde4mldif@4ax.com>...
On 7 Jun 2004 11:24:52 -0700, (Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
Galileo is a good example.
Galileo? Revealed truth? Galileo did not claim to have a vision of
Jesus Christ who told him the pendulum equation. Mary did not visit
him in his sleep to tell him about the moons of Jupiter. The Archangel
Micheal did not suddenly command him one day to drop weights from a
tower to test Aristotelean dynamics. (Aristotle lost.)
Wow, are you out of your league. You really don't know about Galileo?
Really? So all those things described above as not happening to
Galileo actually *did* happen to him? That's news.
No, Galileo looked for truth in Nature. Nature told him a different
story from the revealed truth of the Church. Galileo also did the math
and decided that the terrocentric universe idea was silly--flying in
the face of Church Tradition and thereby inciting their wrath.
-Hypatia
Sad, and you profess to be the atheist poster child?
Has anyone other than you made that claim? You appear to have finally
become completely detached from reality. It's a wonder you can
respond at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM NOMINATION [Re: The Inquisition] |
11 Jun 2004 03:26:03 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
It's not a matter of disagreeing with revealed truth- it's
a matter of saying something else was revealed.
"The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to
Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore,
two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe
in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and
Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's
doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of
heretics...The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the
Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves
to his own approval." -Thomas Aquinas
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 12:47:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:24:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 23:55:40 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
So you approve of the killing of people who disagree with the Church.
That would mean quite a blood-bath in the US. Are you looking forward
to it?
Disagreement has nothing to do with it. Claiming a false revealed truth does.
"Claiming a false revealed truth" is the same thing as disagreement.
It means the heretic is disagreeing with your idea of the truth.
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
That is right. One or both sides may be wrong. Good boy Duke!
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 07:14:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:48 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
That is right. One or both sides may be wrong. Good boy Duke!
Nope, never the Church. The Holy Spirit sees to that.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 10:51:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 07:14:18 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:48 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
That is right. One or both sides may be wrong. Good boy Duke!
Nope, never the Church. The Holy Spirit sees to that.
That is your wager. The odds are terrible though.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 05:56:08 AM |
|
|
In article <urh6c05oiqav6u6l41ggjoqrv51t64pb0m@4ax.com>, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 07:14:18 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:48 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
That is right. One or both sides may be wrong. Good boy Duke!
Nope, never the Church. The Holy Spirit sees to that.
That is your wager. The odds are terrible though.
• Apparently, the Holy Spirit dropped the ball on the pedophile priest problem.
cheers, Thomas P.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<2ai3c09oa0ah0m05oid09kekd92t3d6j9f@4ax.com>...
On 4 Jun 2004 23:55:40 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
So you approve of the killing of people who disagree with the Church.
That would mean quite a blood-bath in the US. Are you looking forward
to it?
Disagreement has nothing to do with it. Claiming a false revealed truth does.
"Claiming a false revealed truth" is the same thing as disagreement.
It means the heretic is disagreeing with your idea of the truth.
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
And...? In what way does this contradict what I wrote? They
express and idea that is at odds with your idea of revealed truth.
And for that, they must die. A crime of conscience, a crime of
expression: and death is the penalty.
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct. What then? Perhaps you
can brook no doubt about your idea of what is True. That is,
I would suggest, the problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 04:42:09 PM |
|
|
In article <59b8bc96.0406051301.1c9e8b10@posting.google.com>,
ShrikeBack <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong,
That's a tall order for Ducky.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
"As long as half the world's population subsists on less than two dollars a
day, the US will not be secure.... A world populated by 'hostile have-nots' is
not one in which US leadership can be sustained without coercion" --Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 02:56:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 21:42:09 GMT, GlennGlenn
<dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
In article <59b8bc96.0406051301.1c9e8b10@posting.google.com>,
ShrikeBack <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong,
That's a tall order for Ducky.
It is an absolute impossibility He has even made declarations
contrary to his own Church's teaching, a church he insists is
infallible in matters of faith and morals (that part about morals is a
real knee-slapper considering the Church's history).
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 02:13:06 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2004 14:01:35 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
And...? In what way does this contradict what I wrote?
You're trying to make heresy nothing more than a disagreement. You don't know the
difference. Think Galileo.
They
express and idea that is at odds with your idea of revealed truth.
And for that, they must die.
Nope, to admit the mistake cures all.
A crime of conscience, a crime of
expression: and death is the penalty.
Nope. When are you going to reflect some real knowledge re the inquisition?
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct.
How?
What then? Perhaps you
can brook no doubt about your idea of what is True. That is,
I would suggest, the problem.
I've already pointed out to you that you don't understand what heresy is.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 04:11:23 PM |
|
|
In article <80r6c0d8lc94e43i4rplb3r8di3s2l7g8m@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 5 Jun 2004 14:01:35 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
And...? In what way does this contradict what I wrote?
You're trying to make heresy nothing more than a disagreement. You
don't know the difference. Think Galileo.
They >express and idea that is at odds with your idea of revealed
truth. >And for that, they must die.
Nope, to admit the mistake cures all.
What "mistake"?
[snip]
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct.
How?
I *knew* you couldn't.
What then? Perhaps you can brook no doubt about your idea of
what is True. That is, I would suggest, the problem.
I've already pointed out to you that you don't understand what heresy is.
What you've pointed out is your inability to even *suppose* for the
sake of argument that your view of things is incorrect.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
"As long as half the world's population subsists on less than two dollars a
day, the US will not be secure.... A world populated by 'hostile have-nots' is
not one in which US leadership can be sustained without coercion" --Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 05:51:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
You're trying to make heresy nothing more than a disagreement. You
don't know the difference. Think Galileo.
They >express and idea that is at odds with your idea of revealed
truth. >And for that, they must die.
Nope, to admit the mistake cures all.
What "mistake"?
Their heresy. Don't you get it yet?
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct.
How?
I *knew* you couldn't.
You're talking outside the definitions and limits of heresy. I told you that you just
don't understand. Think Galileo.
What then? Perhaps you can brook no doubt about your idea of
what is True. That is, I would suggest, the problem.
I've already pointed out to you that you don't understand what heresy is.
What you've pointed out is your inability to even *suppose* for the
sake of argument that your view of things is incorrect.
Dogma is beyond question. It therefore cannot be found in error.
I'll give you an example. The Church as revealed by the Holy Spirit states that there is
one almighty God in 3 persons. The Church demands this acceptance by Christians because
it is a revealed truth from God. A heretic would come along and demand that God revealed
to him instead that Jesus was not the son of God. That would be heresy, not because he
disagreed with the Trinity, but because he said that this was revealed by God.
The inquisition was all about heresy. And people 500-1000 years ago didn't take kindly to
that type of garbage. Confession of the heresy cured all. To refuse to recant such a
thing got one invited to the cookoff.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 06:34:32 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hnr9c0d82ld5sjf4vl9rloaq2gp6ee1tdk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, GlennGlenn
<dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
<snip>
The inquisition was all about heresy. And people 500-1000 years ago
didn't take kindly to
that type of garbage. Confession of the heresy cured all. To refuse to
recant such a
thing got one invited to the cookoff.
Once accused the alleged heretic usually ended up dead *even* if the accuser
recanted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "galia" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 08:45:21 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hnr9c0d82ld5sjf4vl9rloaq2gp6ee1tdk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, GlennGlenn
<dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
I'll give you an example. The Church as revealed by the Holy Spirit
states that there is
one almighty God in 3 persons. The Church demands this acceptance by
Christians because
it is a revealed truth from God. A heretic would come along and demand
that God revealed
to him instead that Jesus was not the son of God. That would be heresy,
not because he
disagreed with the Trinity, but because he said that this was revealed by
God.
Either you are a point blank liar or you are deluting yourself.
The inquisition started in the 12th century with Pope Gregory IX, who
appointed secular rulers to prosecute every person who opposed catholic
teachings and were labeled heretics.
Those who confessed and repented during or after excruciating torture where
given life imprisonment and who persisted capital punishment.
So, are you saying Pope Gregory IX was a bad man, or was he
the infallible Holy Father of the 12th century?
The inquisition was all about heresy.
The inquisition was a crime against mankind, instigated
by the catholic church....
And people 500-1000 years ago
didn't take kindly to
that type of garbage.
No, Pope Gregory IX was not a kind person...
he was a murderer.....face it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "galia" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 08:45:21 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hnr9c0d82ld5sjf4vl9rloaq2gp6ee1tdk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, GlennGlenn
<dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
I'll give you an example. The Church as revealed by the Holy Spirit
states that there is
one almighty God in 3 persons. The Church demands this acceptance by
Christians because
it is a revealed truth from God. A heretic would come along and demand
that God revealed
to him instead that Jesus was not the son of God. That would be heresy,
not because he
disagreed with the Trinity, but because he said that this was revealed by
God.
Either you are a point blank liar or you are deluting yourself.
The inquisition started in the 12th century with Pope Gregory IX, who
appointed secular rulers to prosecute every person who opposed catholic
teachings and were labeled heretics.
Those who confessed and repented during or after excruciating torture where
given life imprisonment and who persisted capital punishment.
So, are you saying Pope Gregory IX was a bad man, or was he
the infallible Holy Father of the 12th century?
The inquisition was all about heresy.
The inquisition was a crime against mankind, instigated
by the catholic church....
And people 500-1000 years ago
didn't take kindly to
that type of garbage.
No, Pope Gregory IX was not a kind person...
he was a murderer.....face it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 08:39:37 PM |
|
|
In article <hnr9c0d82ld5sjf4vl9rloaq2gp6ee1tdk@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:11:23 GMT, GlennGlenn
< > wrote:
You're trying to make heresy nothing more than a disagreement. You
don't know the difference. Think Galileo.
They express an idea that is at odds with your idea of
revealed truth. And for that, they must die.
Nope, to admit the mistake cures all.
What "mistake"?
Their heresy. Don't you get it yet?
What makes "heresy" a mistake? Perhaps what you mean is that it was a
*political* mistake, given the murderuous, repressive behavior of the
enforcers of orthodoxy.
From that perspective it *could* be seen as a mistake. Any time
someone takes a risk, regardless the outcome, there are those who would
see things that way.
On the other hand, it is the ones who are willing to get themselves in
trouble while challenging orthodoxy who are often revered as heroes in
their own times and beyond.
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct.
How?
I *knew* you couldn't.
You're talking outside the definitions and limits of heresy.
No, I'm just saying that you are unable to consider yourself incorrect
about the allegedly revealed truth. That is all.
I told you that you just don't understand.
I told you that you can't even suppose yourself incorrect. That is all
I was saying there. *You* don't understand.
Think Galileo.
Okay: "Galileo"
<pregnant pause>
What now?
What then? Perhaps you can brook no doubt about your idea of
what is True. That is, I would suggest, the problem.
I've already pointed out to you that you don't understand what heresy is.
What you've pointed out is your inability to even *suppose* for the
sake of argument that your view of things is incorrect.
Dogma is beyond question.
Only among those who share the dogma.
The rest see such dogma as highly questionable.
It therefore cannot be found in error.
Thanks for sharing.
I'll give you an example.
This should be fun...
The Church as revealed by the Holy Spirit states that there is one
almighty God in 3 persons. The Church demands this acceptance by
Christians because it is a revealed truth from God.
Okayyyy...
A heretic would come along and demand that God revealed to him
instead that Jesus was not the son of God.
Or a heretic would come along and demand that Zeus revealed to him
instead that the whole God/Jesus matrix was a fabric of lies.
That would be heresy, not because he disagreed with the Trinity, but
because he said that this was revealed by God.
Or Zeus, right?
So *your* definition of heresy *must* include an opposing revelation by
a *specific* god?
You don't think that someone in that era who publicly challenged the
very existence of "God" wouldn't be deemed a heretic and brought before
the inquisition?
Thanks for clarifying your limited perspective.
The fact is, heresy is not defined by common usage in such narrow
terms.
Live with it, Church-boy.
The inquisition was all about heresy.
The inquisition was all about the preservation of the power of a
vicious body who justified its existence by invoking its favorite
deity.
And people 500-1000 years ago didn't take kindly to that type of garbage.
It was the Inquisition that was spewing garbage and enforcing same with
brutality.
Confession of the heresy cured all.
That's nice. Thought crimes are "cured" by publicly admitting your
thought crime and recanting your thinking... or at least pretending to
do so.
To refuse to recant such a thing got one invited to the cookoff.
How bloody vile.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
"As long as half the world's population subsists on less than two dollars a
day, the US will not be secure.... A world populated by 'hostile have-nots' is
not one in which US leadership can be sustained without coercion" --Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
10 Jun 2004 06:41:07 PM |
|
|
Puke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ufr9c05mpebtrktie9t288meok0o7829j9@4ax.com>...
On 6 Jun 2004 20:35:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Actually you're demonstrated nothing. My 5 evidences are
based on observed fact.
They were not evidence.
Of course they were evidence. The details are unquestioned
fact.
No they're not. They are simply statements of what **YOU BELIEVE** or
descriptions of some aspect or other of this universe.
Statements of what you personally believe, if unsupported by actually
evidence, do not, of themselves, constitute evidence, as I will
demonstrate (again) below.
Simplistic descriptions of some aspect or other of the unvierse, in
the absence of supporting argument and evidence, cannot be considered
to be evidence for the existence of any god, because those same
descriptions unmodified can be used euqally to make the same claims
for a non-intelligent origin of the universe, as I shall demonstrate
(again) below.
- nowhere have you offered evidence.
That represents the evidence to me
that demands the existence of God.
Well that's evidence of how clueless you are, but it's not evidence of
any god, and the sad bottom line is that, once again **YOU HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION**!
If **YOU** think they're evidence, then explain why it is that **YOU**
think they're evidence: highlight which specific part of each of those
five points **YOU** think constitutes the actual evidence.
Let me give you an example, using your second point regarding the
so-called "Big Bang":
Here is your exact quote from http://tinyurl.com/3xo82 :
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass,
no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point
of infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before,
and then it exploded outward to form our universe, including
"time" and all "outer space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge
to the universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into? "
Now what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes evidence for
the existence of any god **IN YOUR OPINION**?
The reason I ask is that I could repeat (and indeed have done so)
those two paragraphs WORD FOR WORD and claim it as evidence for a
non-intelligent origin for the universe. Where would we be then?
If I did that, what criterion/criteria would **YOU** use to choose
between them? Go ahead and answer this. I've been asking this same
question of you repeatedly for weeks and every single time you've run
away from it. Don't you think it's time you put up or shut up shop?
The fact is that your second point does NOT in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence for any god! All you did was give a simplistic
description of how this universe began according to the best
**SCIENCE** we have. How does a simple description of what science
understands to be the start of this universe constitute evidence for
god? Which part of your description speaks about **A GOD** causing it
all? Which part of your description indicates that **A GOD** is the
best explanation for the Big Bang? Which part? If you cannot answer
these questions then you, yourself, are admitting what I've stated all
along: that this is not evidence for any god.
I'll re-examine your other four points at the end of this message
I told you. What I presented for the origin of the universe
is equal to and in most cases better than anything you
yourself can suggest.
Your description of the Big Bang theory is not what *I* suggested, but
what science has determined by looking at the facts! Nowhere in that
science is there any suggestion that any god had anything to do with
it! So, once again, with regard to that second point of yours, what
is it in that two-paragraph description that indicates any god had
anything to do with it? What is it that indicates that it was *not*
of non-intelligent origin? Again, if you cannot competently answer
these questions, **YOU** are admitting that it is not evidence for any
god.
2. How your personal opinion is, of itself, with no argument or
support, evidence of any god.
Evidence is that which convinces one to draw a conclusion.
Don't tell me we have to go through this horseshit all over again.
Why is it that you repeatedly avoid the difficult questions with a
non-sequitur? Hasn't it occurred to you that you are calling yourself
a fraud and a liar when you duck these simple questions?
Your response in no way addresses the point that I made. Your
**UNSUPPORTED PERSONAL OPINION** is *NOT* evidence. Even if you were
a professional cosmologist your unsupported opinion, while it might
carry a tad more weight than it actually does, would *NOT* constitute
evidence! You could not get your personal opinion published as a
scientific advance in any peer-reviewed magazine. You would have to
be able to point to **ACTUAL EVIDENCE** that *supported* your opinion
or to logical deduction that supported your opinion and which was
based on *actual evidence*.
A simplistic description of the Big Bang is not evidence one way or
the other since it could be used in precisely the same way you used it
to support the exact opposite conclusion to that which you insist it
leads. Cleary you are completely wrong, and I'm sorry you do not have
the wherewithal to see that.
Now evidence is that which convinces one to draw **WHAT** conclusion?
That it's proven? That it's disproven? That it's inconclusive? Can
you not see that if you cannot even define the terms, then you cannot
possibly know what it is you're talking about, which is what I've
maintained all along?
Unequivocal **PROOF** will force an honest person to draw a conclusion
- that it's true or that it's false, that a person's innocent or that
they're guilty. Evidence as such cannot force this unless it is
overwhelming. If it is weak evidence, how can it "convince one to
draw a conclusion"? It cannot force a conclusion on you at all -
unless it's the conclusion that you need more evidence. Get it now?
Now let's **ONCE AGAIN** look at your other four "evidences". Here is
the first one:
"Evidence of God (Rev1)- duke32, circa 2002AD
1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined."
[other three paragraphs snipped]
The **FACT** is that you are claiming here that *your own personal
belief* is equal to the massive weight of refereed journal-published
science from the last 200 years. Your arrogance is quite startling.
Please do explain to the world exactly how it is that your own,
personal, unsupported blind faith belief is of the same value as 200
years of solid scientific investigation, which has found no evidence
of any god anywhere it has looked, but found, instead, that everything
we see in this universe is apparently, as far as we can possibly
determine scientifically, of non-intelligent origin.
Here is your third one:
"3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect
a "design with purpose". It consists of a central computer
(brain) supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced
along by a pump (heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and
intestines), a waste disposal system, an oxygen transfer system
(lungs) that is required to transfer necessary oxygen to the brain
and to the body parts, maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder,
etc), and a body salinity (same as ocean water) exactly correct
as necessary for transfer of minute electrical signals to/from
the brain to operate and control the body."
This is merely a (very) simplistic description of the basic functions
of the **HUMAN** body. It addresses **ONLY** the human body, out of
the literally millions of species of organisms that live on Earth.
You claim that it demonstrates "design with purpose", but nowhere have
you been able to argue from your basic description to how it actually
**SHOWS** design with purpose. All you do is describe and then
somehow expect others to follow your own blind faith into the
miraculous.
What, precisely, in the description you've given above, is it that
shows the work of any god? What? I ask because I could (and indeed
have done so) use the **EXACT SAME DESCRIPTION** you've given and
insist it is evidence of a non-intelligent origin. If I did that,
what criterion/criteria would **YOU** use to determine which is the
best answer? What, from your description above, "convinces one to
draw a conclusion" that god did it rather than that evolution,
undirected by intelligence, did it?
Here is your fourth one:
"4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is
divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female. We
only mix the chemicals. Of special interest is the
fact that the male and female organs are of complimentary
shape in mammals. These two facts are especially
conducive to support planned design."
You fail to define precisely how this claimed "fit" argues for the
existence of a god rather than for the non-intelligent work of
evolution over millions of years, therefore this does not constitute
evidence for any god!
I could argue with equal force and using only your "evidence" above
that this fit actually disproves god since a god would ahve made sex
work without a fit to show his glory, and that, therefore, a fit
proves evolution.
Nowhere have you addressed non-sexually reproducing species which are
the majority of species on Earth! If you claim the "fit" of sexually
reproducing species is evidence of some god, then I can easily
out-argue you by descending to your primitive level and claiming that
the majority of species do *not* reproduce sexually, so there is no
fit, and therefore this forces us to the conclusion that this is *NOT*
the work of any intelligence!
Why have you addressed *only* mammals, which order is not the largest
amongst living things? Did your god design only mammals, the rest of
the living world coming about through non-intelligent evolution? If
you have to be so specific and cannot expand your little scheme to all
living things, then clearly your argument breaks down and doesn't work
even if it actually *did* constitute evidence for some god.
Nowhere have you defined precisely what it is that **YOU** mean by
this "divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female". Do you mean in
terms of DNA contributed? In terms of the size/shape/whatever of sex
organs? In terms of the size of sex cells? In terms of the
contribution to parenthood each sex makes? What, exactly, do **YOU**
mean by this fifty-fifty split?
Here is your fifth one:
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
[Rest snipped]
Nowhere have you even begun to explain how this **unsupported claim**
of yours (that there is a hierarchy) constitutes evidence for any god.
All you've done is describe your belief that there is a hierarchy and
that's it! How does this hierarchy evidence some god rather than
evolution? In fact, starting with your unsupported assumption of a
hierarchy, I could argue that this is evidence for evolution, because
non-intelligent evolution would equally "create" a rather hierarchical
pattern.
In other words, as I've repeatedly argued and demonstrated (yet again
here), not a single one of your five "evidences" actually constitutes
evidence even remotely.
You lose.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 12:02:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:13:06 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 5 Jun 2004 14:01:35 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
No, the heretic is pushing an alternative idea as revealed truth.
And...? In what way does this contradict what I wrote?
You're trying to make heresy nothing more than a disagreement. You don't know the
difference. Think Galileo.
They
express and idea that is at odds with your idea of revealed truth.
And for that, they must die.
Nope, to admit the mistake cures all.
Just like the early martyrs. All they had to do was worship the Roman
gods, and all was well.
A crime of conscience, a crime of
expression: and death is the penalty.
Nope. When are you going to reflect some real knowledge re the inquisition?
That was, in fact, the penalty - unless the victim violated his own
conscious and lied.
Supposing, just for an instant, that your idea of revealed truth
is wrong, and the heretics is correct.
How?
Apparently Duke is suffering from Schizophrenia.
What then? Perhaps you
can brook no doubt about your idea of what is True. That is,
I would suggest, the problem.
I've already pointed out to you that you don't understand what heresy is.
You have pointed out your incredible intolerance and narrow-minded
point of view.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 12:30:42 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:ilh0c0l65l5n7ofli6icpulgjhlf2lttn9@4ax.com:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:33:26 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Power, greed, sadism and religious intolerance.
Nope, religious heresy.
One of the evil excuses for covering greed, sadism and religious
intolerance.
"Nope" doesn't belong in your sentence.
Of course it does.
No it doesn't.
Heresy is sin against the Holy Spirit.
What a funny term for, "Worshipping the right god the wrong way."
That's the
reason the Inquisition occurred.
Someone had a slightly different take on mythology, so of course they had
to be tortured to death.
And all their property confiscated.
I note that this Holy Spirit thing never actually showed up with a
grievance, but a whole lot of Church officials got a lot wealthier.
Of course it became laced with bad actors.
It started with officially-sanctioned brutish thugs, murderers and
thieves.
And still has stupid apologists trying to excuse brutality, murder and
theft.
But the intent and cause was heresy.
Such as being Jewish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 10:38:56 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ilh0c0l65l5n7ofli6icpulgjhlf2lttn9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:33:26 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
Power, greed, sadism and religious intolerance.
Nope, religious heresy.
One of the evil excuses for covering greed, sadism and religious
intolerance.
"Nope" doesn't belong in your sentence.
Of course it does. Heresy is sin against the Holy Spirit. That's the reason the
Inquisition occurred. Of course it became laced with bad actors. But the intent and
cause was heresy.
duke
And a heretic is the same thing as a dissident. Well, not to you
of course, because they are dissidents against the Real Truth(TM).
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 01:12:11 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 08:38:56 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
Of course it does. Heresy is sin against the Holy Spirit. That's the reason the
Inquisition occurred. Of course it became laced with bad actors. But the intent and
cause was heresy.
duke
And a heretic is the same thing as a dissident.
Uhhhhh, nooooooooo. A heretic professes a total untruth against God.
Well, not to you
of course, because they are dissidents against the Real Truth(TM).
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 03:42:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:12:11 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 4 Jun 2004 08:38:56 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
Of course it does. Heresy is sin against the Holy Spirit. That's the reason the
Inquisition occurred. Of course it became laced with bad actors. But the intent and
cause was heresy.
duke
And a heretic is the same thing as a dissident.
Uhhhhh, nooooooooo. A heretic professes a total untruth against God.
No, against your concept of god. A heretic is a dissident. Of course
many of them would have been just as blood-thirsty as the Church was
if they had the chance. They would call all those loyal to your
Church heretics (and did). That is loving Christianity for you, and
you approve. Your only possible excuse is insanity, which seems to be
quite likely.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 05:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:12 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
And a heretic is the same thing as a dissident.
Uhhhhh, nooooooooo. A heretic professes a total untruth against God.
No, against your concept of god. A heretic is a dissident.
Noooooooo, a heretic is one that pushes a blasphemous idea, like denying the Holy Trinity
as revealed truth, for instance.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 09:19:37 PM |
|
|
In article <g8u1c01bm8juc2hlu8j5jlcavafodskndt@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:12 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
And a heretic is the same thing as a dissident.
Uhhhhh, nooooooooo. A heretic professes a total untruth against God.
No, against your concept of god. A heretic is a dissident.
Noooooooo, a heretic is one that pushes a blasphemous idea, like denying the
Holy Trinity
as revealed truth, for instance.
Ahem.
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
dissident
adj 1: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or
standards [syn: heretical, heterodox]
2: disagreeing, especially with a majority [syn: dissentient,
dissenting(a)]
n : a person who dissents from some established policy [syn:
dissenter, protester, objector, contestant]
A "heretic" is one who disagrees with the alleged "truth" about "God."
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
"As long as half the world's population subsists on less than two dollars a
day, the US will not be secure.... A world populated by 'hostile have-nots' is
not one in which US leadership can be sustained without coercion" --Howard Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 08:18:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:19:37 GMT, GlennGlenn <dipthotdipthot@yahoo.yahoo.com.com> wrote:
No, against your concept of god. A heretic is a dissident.
Noooooooo, a heretic is one that pushes a blasphemous idea, like denying the
Holy Trinity as revealed truth, for instance.
Ahem.
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
dissident
adj 1: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or
standards [syn: heretical, heterodox]
2: disagreeing, especially with a majority [syn: dissentient,
dissenting(a)]
n : a person who dissents from some established policy [syn:
dissenter, protester, objector, contestant]
Ahem:
Main Entry:her£e£sy
Pronunciation:*her-*-s*, *he-r*-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural -sies
Etymology:Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late
Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
Date:13th century
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed
truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine
contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion,
doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
A "heretic" is one who disagrees with the alleged "truth" about "God."
That's right.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
