Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
All of them since around 1200 to about 1900 (or the present--if you were not fooled by the name change).
So then what scientists who were christians are we talking about then? Modern ones?
And then there is the Protestant take on the faith: the stake burnings there (unless you were seemingly a witch) seem to have added up to exactly one (Servetus, at the hands of Calvin).
The hundred years war depopulated Northern Europe, over the question of which church a local community might be allowed to attend. Christianity and winning philosophical arguments at gunpoint were hard philosophies to disentangle for over 1000 years. You can't just pretend that away.
And even one was one too many, but hardly the threat you enunciate.
Hmm, likewise, the reign of terror, say, hardly killed anyone compared to the overall population of France. Clearly, you would have been free to express sympathy for the monarchy throughout the French revolution.
You don't appear to have a fight in you, so it's a non-issue.
Now, they have brought the office of Inquisition back. What do you think of that?
Well, if you have a pursuit, that when it encounters the eye of a needle and the hump of a camel, to infinity tries to get that camel crammed through that eye by very principle, I say "I won't argue with foolishness anymore." I am throwing no Powerball-winning parties. At some point, unless one's mind is wired to an infinite loop, the world we see quite well justifies stepping back and saying "gee, this does look like it was exquisitely set up and didn't just wander into its current state." A belief in a participation of the freewill of created beings that can in some wise influence the course of the world sets up the case even more strongly -- why didn't that derail the Mindless Evolution? if it was a Mindless Evolution? Doesn't it take a Mind to accommodate everything that another Mind can do?
Happy Parsing.
It's a pale shadow of its former self, powerless when it comes to doing anything of more consequence than scolding some Catholics and kicking the resolutely unfaithful out of the Roman Catholic Church. (Whereupon they can now go to just about any other church on earth.) A Pope Benedict XVI "Inquisition" -- fooey. Calvin was nastier.
Well this new Pope has expressed a reversed Catholic view of evolution. Using the office, he has effectively silenced Catholic opposition and rebellion all over the globe. Maybe he will be a positive influence, but not one science-minded folk will like. After all, tyranny is tyranny, no matter what nice cultural revolution sounding name you dress it up in.
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
PatrickHenry says: Permit me to offer a different formulation of the issue ... As I see it, the central hypothesis of ID is the assertion that there are features of living organisms which -- in principle -- cannot be explained by evolution.
Well, at this juncture, the only thing we're doing is defining our terms. It would seem to me that what you're describing, although typical of ID, is not a necessary attribute of ID (in other words, one may hypothesize that a feature is the product of intelligent design even though it can be explained by evolution). My expectation is that the matter will become relevant once we turn to the actual questions we're gearing up for, but is not requisite for the definition of ID itself.
If you do think that the above definition requires further modification, then the best way to proceed would be for you to take that definition and post an accordingly modified form so that we may consider it. For now, it seems to me that the definition is adequate for our purposes, which is to determine whether or not "panspermia" and/or "collective consciousness" are ID hypotheses.
So he's sticking up for some form of ID philosophy -- good. The bible demands it. The bible would be wrong if the heavens and earth didn't "declare the glory of God" which includes His explicit participation as creation commenced. I don't think you will meet this Pope giving a testimony in any Kenneth Ham 6-24-hour-day-YEC presentations anytime soon, however. He sounds more like he leans to the OEC views of, say, (Protestant) Hugh Ross. And even that as "ordinary teaching" (he's not going to make it an ex cathedra, infallible doctrine over which people get kicked out of the RCC).
Well I think he has shouted to his church "Wake Up! This and This and This are non negotiable doctrines! If you don't like it, here's the door." Now his audience has to choose: will they be Roman Catholics? Or will they be something else, perhaps another flavor of Christian? I am not claiming the Pope is right about all this stuff, by the way. Even the "infallible" stuff. But I just don't see him touching evolutionism in any meaningful sense other than a general bully pulpit. Any more than I see the Pope joining a Southern Baptist Church.
Say whaaa?
I say "I won't argue with foolishness anymore."
Okay.
I am throwing no Powerball-winning parties.
Okay.
At some point, unless one's mind is wired to an infinite loop, the world we see quite well justifies stepping back and saying "gee, this does look like it was exquisitely set up and didn't just wander into its current state."
Until recently, that's been the way the world always looked at things. To some, those were the good old days. But then science got going and explained quite a few previously inexplicable phenomena. Bummer.
A belief in a participation of the freewill of created beings that can in some wise influence the course of the world sets up the case even more strongly -- why didn't that derail the Mindless Evolution? if it was a Mindless Evolution? Doesn't it take a Mind to accommodate everything that another Mind can do?
Say whaaa?
You can believe THAT the whole document is true without having a certitude about WHAT every single part of it means. The bible itself says that being a Christian is not that brittle. It says that a Christian can have incomplete knowledge, he can even have incorrect beliefs about some things, and yet he can still be a Christian, and he can trust that some day he will know the truth perfectly.
He wants the Southern Baptists to join him, and from the praise the Pope now gets from so-called evangelicals, it won't be long.
It's a non-bummer until it claims to have become a perpetual motion machine. The patent on that is God's.
Yes, but if you are going to put your faith in a religious leader, as opposed to sola scriptura, it seems to me that a higher standard of the leader, is required. I don't like to work for a man who knows less about the job than I do.
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.I would modify it as follows:
Intelligent Design: A[n] hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life that are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.And I think you would prefer something like this:
Intelligent Design: A[n] hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life whether or not they are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
It's no secret that the RCC has held the view that it's the true center and sought out home of Christianity, and that all Christendom will someday reunite upon itself. If it ever ceased to do so, it would change its name to something like First Church of Rome (no more of that all-embracing "Catholic" stuff). It wants Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Disciples of Christ, you name it non-RCC Christians to become Roman Catholics as a non negotiable step for the salvation of their souls. And Pope Benedict XVI has said this countless times. Well surprise, the Pope is Roman Catholic.
And no, he won't be giving testimonies with Billy Graham even though they are both well into the senior set.
1600?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.