Easter Is Coming in 8 Weeks

Quote: FrGamble

To hold this ridiculous notion you cannot explain the history of science or some of our greatest scientists.

You seem to think because some early
science people were Christians, that
has something to do with the science.

It doesn't. They achieved something
in spite of the religion, not because
of it.

What could possibly make you say this?

Quote: Evenbob

The Church invented the word 'propaganda'.

This is from the Online Etymology Dictionary:
"propaganda (n.), "committee of cardinals in charge of Catholic missionary work," short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," a committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare (see propagation). Hence, "any movement to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." is from 1929."

Quote: FrGamble

First of all you do realize that to call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages is something serious historians no longer do,

Some serious historians.

One of the university courses I listened to made a very strong point of this. Yet when the lecturer described the era, it was dark, dark, dark. Particularly when compared to the preceding periods under Rome.

Oh, there were bright spots here and there. No history is all good or all bad. There was the Carolingian Renaissance, for example. But overall the Dark Ages were very well named. And the retrogression in personal hygiene persisted well into the XVIII Century at least.

Quote:

it betrays your bias and that of the author of the article you quoted.

There is a bias in every position.

Quote:

There was much good that occurred during these times between the 5th and 15th centuries.

There was much good that took place during WWII (advances in medicine, the jet engine, nuclear power). History is not all of one piece. It was still a terrible time for the world.


[..]and many of the cathedrals built during this time simply could not be built today even with our best technologies.

Quote: FrGamble

Here is a smattering of quotes from well-respected historians and theologians:

So you're saying none of this is true? Be
careful, I already looked some of it up.

Quote:

In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by ‘soldiers of the Church military’ (Diderot’s Encyclopedia, 1759). In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, ‘to be spoken of with detestation’, passed another Decree ‘that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue’. By the 14th Century, possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake.

Did you look it up from your normal reputable sources?!? Absolutely none of it is true if you think the Catholic Church was trying to keep the Bible and what it says from the people. You can take history out of context just like you can verses from the Bible itself, but if you truly looked it up you already knew that.

Quote: Nareed

That's a load of BS, if I may be brutally frank. We may not be able to figure out how it was done then, but for sure we could build exact replicas now. same as with the pyramids. Hell, the Luxor in Las Vegas outdoes all other pyramids in Egypt.

You are right that we often marvel and how they did it back then. If you take away our computers and such we would be completely helpless to build anything remotely close to the cathedrals of the middle ages, that goes without saying. However, I do think that much of skills seen in the masonry, stone work, and art is lost today.

Quote:

Religion has nothing to contribute to science. That's not derisive, merely true. Science has nothing to contribute to religion, either.

They do contribute and help one another. Science helps religion to understand the natural world and what it has to teach us about the universe. Through what we learn we wonder and marvel at creation. Since they are both different disciplines seeking for truth they can never truly contradict one another. Religion helps science to pursue its experiments in ethical and moral ways. Religion inspires science and increases our thirst to be curious about the universe we live in.

Quote: FrGamble

Religion inspires science and increases our thirst to be curious about the universe we live in.

Don't you find it odd then, that the holy spirit
lead the church to ban scientific curiosity in
the middle ages. Or was that just superstitious
old men pretending they were guided by
the holy spirit. How is one to tell the difference,
really..

The Church never banned scientific curiosity in the middle ages or in any age.

Ok, I've been away from DT for a while, and found this discussion too large to catch up with in all details. (disclaimer). Someone else may have already taken this position in the discussion, but I didn't see it skimming the thread.

In light of what we now know about the body, its capabilities, and its healing resources, it seems entirely plausible that Jesus was crucified, wounded in the abdomen, died by all indications of that time, was placed in the tomb, and yet lived and walked the earth again. Crucifixion places unnatural pressure on the diaphragm and lungs, and he could have near-suffocated or become unconscious, even comatose, been body-dead by their medical standards, and yet recovered and woken in the tomb. He would have had all the stigmata to prove the event, healed or not.

I was taught that "40 days and 40 nights" in the Bible means "nobody really tracked how long it was, but it was a period of time", which is why Noah's voyage, Jesus in the desert, Jonah in the whale, other references use that number. So, again, Jesus being seen by thousands, living and preaching after the resurrection, then eventually ascending into heaven, is except for the last entirely plausible. As to the last, it seems either a poetic exaggeration or an urban legend to me. I can see him walking uphill into the mountain mists and not returning becoming ascending bodily into heaven as the tale is told thru millenia, for example.

In that time and place, those events would be miraculous. They had all seen, with their own eyes, the wounding and crucifixion. It was a very real miracle that Christ returned from that torture. And a very real victory over those who would physically harm him or condemn him for his beliefs that he returned, then departed in his own time, by his own choice. So in that sense, it's possible to celebrate his victory in furthering a moral system of thought and deed without having to feel delusional about the mythology. And follow his teachings about living as a Christian with rational acceptance.

So I can be a good Christian and a bad Catholic at the same time (except I was baptized Episcopalian). lol... There is a lot of merit in the parables and the moral structure, so why not live by that wisdom regardless of the trappings?