On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:50:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > 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 

No, that's why I used the comparison as an example of fallacious logic.

> 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. 

Newton was definitely a whack job, but I have no problem with either his 
theories or Darwin's - I'm just saying that they are part of the progress 
which began with spirituality and religion and continued to develop through 
theology, philosophy, and science. Of course, the key being that I am one 
of the many people who view the current phase of science as having passed 
its prime and will decay unless it can embrace larger and more scientific 

>> > 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.

I don't bullshit as far as I know. I have no reason to lie and I'm not very 
good at it. It's not because I have a moral aversion to it, I'm just too 
lazy to keep track of what I say, so it's simpler to tell the truth.

>> > Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing 
>> the waters and whatnot
> Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God)

Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I 
know. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, so how 
complex could it be?

> produced something less grand and less complex (humans), 

Less grand maybe, but not less complex. Isn't God just supposed to be "I am 
that I am."?

> 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.  

Probably several people contributed to writing Genesis, but while I think 
that the Bible has caused a lot of harm to the world, it's still 
responsible for driving much of the art and science of the Western world. 
Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing 
probably would not have caught on with the public.

>> >> 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.

I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology.


>   John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to