16 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat you dont understand is that LH is far more to be pitied than you are. He sits and waits for an ex-Nazi Youth to tell him what his religion ought to be.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a tic. This was supposed to be about me and LH. Don't you dare try to turn this into a debate about something as historically petty as the Roman Catholic Church. Where is your sense of values, man?
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLH's constant pathetic attempts to semi-justify the atrocities committed by the medieval Church and his general brainwashedness makes him a clear winner in the "pitiful" category. Sorry; your ideas are pretty wacky, but at least they have some semblance of internal consistency rather than the jumbled mess of incoherency that is RCC doctrine.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a tic. This was supposed to be about me and LH. Don't you dare try to turn this into a debate about something as historically petty as the Roman Catholic Church. Where is your sense of values, man?
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're the one turning a mediaeval mystic with a passion for magic into a scientific visionary, a poster-boy for Church-bashing, using his death as a propaganda item - and I'm the one who's sick? Have you actually read his works? Have you actually read experts think about the scientific and philosophical value of his works?
You're sick. A man is murdered by your holy church and you don't even have the common decency to express any sympathy at all. Many of his ideas were far ahead of his time. Of course, his influence was cut down a bit by the RCC banning his books for about 300 years.
I'm sorry - "sympathy" does not equate to "glorify" in my dictionary. I have nothing but sympathy for the manner and reasons for which he was put to death; but that doesn't mean I'm about to turn him into something he was not. He was a mystic, not a mathematician. His attitude was magical, not scientific. He was an alchemist in the Egyptian/Hermetic tradition, not an astronomer. If you want to see the source of his ideas that you say were "far ahead of his time", you need to look at the Kabbalah, not Copernicus.
How many people have heard of Thomas Digges? He held pretty much all the cosmological views that people normally ascribe to Bruno - and he held them for all the right reasons. Only, Digges was not put to death - so there's no political currency to be had by bringing his name up.
And you call me sick.
16 Apr 06
Unsurprising that a stooge like LH would have contempt for a man who wrote these words:
He who desires to philosophise must first of all doubt all things. He must not assume a position in a debate before he has listened to the various opinions, and considered and compared the reasons for and against. He must never judge or take up a position on the evidence of what he has heard, on the opinion of the majority, the age, merits, or prestige of the speaker concerned, but he must proceed according to the persuasion of an organic doctrine which adheres to real things, and to a truth that can be understood by the light of reason."
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderLH's constant pathetic attempts to semi-justify the atrocities committed by the medieval Church
LH's constant pathetic attempts to semi-justify the atrocities committed by the medieval Church and his general brainwashedness makes him a clear winner in the "pitiful" category. Sorry; your ideas are pretty wacky, but at least they have some semblance of internal consistency rather than the jumbled mess of incoherency that is RCC doctrine.
Oh wow! When you point out that the Church "financially benefitted" from indulgences, that's just pointing out the facts, not taking shots at the Church. When I do the same (but from the other side, of course), I'm "semi-justifying the atrocities of the Church".
You want to tell me that's not double standards?
And then you call me "pitiful".
Sorry; your ideas are pretty wacky, but at least they have some semblance of internal consistency rather than the jumbled mess of incoherency that is RCC doctrine.
ROFL!
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've never actually seen you point out any facts. You parrot RCC propaganda lines and eventually these are revealed to be pathetic lies. Like the Inquistion legal procedures being an improvement over existing ones. Like Galileo having pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe. Now it's Bruno was merely a magician. What will your Church come up with next?
[b]LH's constant pathetic attempts to semi-justify the atrocities committed by the medieval Church
Oh wow! When you point out that the Church "financially benefitted" from indulgences, that's just pointing out the facts, not taking shots at the Church. When I do the same (but from the other side, of course), I'm "semi-justifying the atrocities istency rather than the jumbled mess of incoherency that is RCC doctrine.[/b]
ROFL![/b]
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerCharging to forgive a richmans menial sins is a tad different than burning someone at the stake for thinking.
[b]LH's constant pathetic attempts to semi-justify the atrocities committed by the medieval Church
Oh wow! When you point out that the Church "financially benefitted" from indulgences, that's just pointing out the facts, not taking shots at the Church. When I do the same (but from the other side, of course), I'm "semi-justifying the atrocities ...[text shortened]... istency rather than the jumbled mess of incoherency that is RCC doctrine.[/b]
ROFL![/b]
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Here's some magic for ya:
In The Ash Wednesday Supper Bruno was one of the first to argue for the existence of an infinite universe, which contained an infinite number of worlds similar to the Earth. In doing so, he rejected the limits of the Copernican system, which posited a finite universe limited by a fixed sphere of stars just beyond the solar system. He argued that the sun was not the centre of the universe, saying that if the sun were observed from any of the other stars it would appear no different from them. Bruno even speculated that the other worlds would be inhabited.
German philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained the significance of Bruno's conception of an infinite universe as follows: "This doctrine ... was the first and decisive step toward man's self-liberation. Man no longer lives in the world of a prisoner enclosed within the narrow walls of a finite physical universe. He can traverse the air and break through all the imaginary boundaries of the celestial spheres which have been erected by a false metaphysics and cosmology. The infinite universe sets no limits to human reason; on the contrary, it is the great incentive of human reason. The human intellect becomes aware of its own infinity through measuring its powers by the infinite universe."[6]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/brun-f16.shtml
Sounds pretty "visionary" to me.
16 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI wouldn't expect a brainwashed parrot like yourself to have any respect for a man who thought with some originality.
I wouldn't expect a brainwashed parrot like yourself to have any respect for a man who thought with some originality. Bruno was a precursor of the Enlightment which finally broke the stranglehold of superstition for much of humanity that had suffered under the reign of SOB's like Bellermaine and other murderers. You worship scum like him; the RCC made th ...[text shortened]... st. Some things never change.
EDIT: I noticed you edited out my second paragraph. Pathetic.
Cut out the name-calling. If you think your points are good enough, have the confidence to rely on them alone instead of juvenile barbs.
As for Bruno's "originality", might I refer you to Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Trapp & Yates. Routledge, 2002)?
Bruno was a precursor of the Enlightment which finally broke the stranglehold of superstition...
LOL! Have you actually read Bruno?
You say I don't have respect for original thinkers. I do respect thinkers like Bruno, but I don't turn them into something they never were.
EDIT: I noticed you edited out my second paragraph. Pathetic.
You assume I edited out a paragraph that you posted as an edit after I had posted my reply - and then appeal to the invisible jury ("See how dishonest this person is?" ).
Please.
16 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're a truly pathetic liar; I edited that second paragraph about 5 minutes after the original post. Your response was 51 minutes later.
[b]I wouldn't expect a brainwashed parrot like yourself to have any respect for a man who thought with some originality.
Cut out the name-calling. If you think your points are good enough, have the confidence to rely on them alone instead of juvenile barbs.
As for Bruno's "originality", might I refer you to [i/]Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic and then appeal to the invisible jury ("See how dishonest this person is?"😉.
Please.[/b]
16 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderLike the Inquistion legal procedures being an improvement over existing ones.
I've never actually seen you point out any facts. You parrot RCC propaganda lines and eventually these are revealed to be pathetic lies. Like the Inquistion legal procedures being an improvement over existing ones. Like Galileo having pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe. Now it's Bruno was merely a magician. What will your Church come up with next?
Do you want a certificate framed up so that you can parrot that in every thread I ever post in?
Like Galileo having pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe
It's not my fault you choose to reject virtually every historian who writes on the subject unless they bring you the original 16th century pamphlets and leave it on your table.
Now it's Bruno was merely a magician. What will your Church come up with next?
Of course. Historians who point out that the historical Bruno was nothing like the Enlightenment poster-boy must be on the Church payroll.
Neither Yates nor Trapp are Catholics, by the way. Not that it makes any difference to you, I suppose.
16 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour source on the Galileo having pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe was not a historian, but someone writing in a RCC rag. You could find no historian to substantiate that claim and withdrew it. Now it's back again.
[b]Like the Inquistion legal procedures being an improvement over existing ones.
Do you want a certificate framed up so that you can parrot that in every thread I ever post in?
Like Galileo having pamphlets handed out in Churches throughout Europe
It's not my fault you choose to reject virtually every historian who writes on the su Yates nor Trapp are Catholics, by the way. Not that it makes any difference to you, I suppose.[/b]
Perhaps you should read some Bruno. Are you allowed to or are his works still on the RCC's banned list?