On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > >>>> The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear >>>> that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned >>>> alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see >>>> in the night sky were other suns very very far away. >>>> >>> >>> >>>The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of >>> Theology >>> >> >> >> In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of >> theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and >> Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. >> > > > Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent > Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. > Medicine and science and Justice have improved since 1600 but as for religion....., well I suppose the Catholic Church has improved too, after all they did admit that they may have gone a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and that he may have had a point after all, they said this in the year 2000. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years, and I'm sure defending themselves from all those pedophile cases must be time consuming. > >> Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. >> > > > It did for many people. > http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ > Apparently you believe that Charles Darwin should be held accountable for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a letter he said " what a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it". But of course the personal virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't like his theory tended to like the man personally. > > I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is > bullshit, > Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. > > Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the > waters and whatnot > Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) produced something less grand and less complex (humans), but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. > >> Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he >> sells on TV actually exists. >> > > > Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. > Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to reach the very top. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
