if it wasn't for England..... (about Catholic Chruch)

[Raptor_Jesus]

seriously I'm thinking about this,if it was not for England way back in the 1500's to be exact the Catholic church would be so powerful that you might as well call it an empire with country's like Spain on its side etc.If the Crusades in the name of the pope would have been successful I think,no I know for a fact that we would all live to the vision of 1984 and the trilogy of Philip Pullman (Northern Lights) where the church controls everything and people would be to this day be burned at the stake fro free thinking. Do not be mistaken The Catholic church would do exactly that if it's power would have stayed the same.
Like Keenan says:

Consequences dictate
our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right.
It's only wrong if you get caught.

The Catholic church only admits that they were mistaken on issues like the planet being shaped like a ball,the sun being the center of the Solar system etc.... ONLY because of governments that have a separation of church and state and people grew smarter.While the power of the pope always depended on how stupid and gullible people were



your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Eh, maybe.

We're not the only ones who had protestantism - which we implemented, in the main, just as aggressively and oppressively as the Catholics did their doctrine. But it also at the same time led to theological and political revolution. I guess it's quite possible?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

How do you KNOW with 100% certainty?

Anyway, I dislike the catholic church because of the way they dance around sex as if its a smoldering hot iron, the arrogence of the bishops and the popes critism of science (apparently it can't be allowed to set the moral standard...from the great catholic church, with moral events like the crusades, inquisitions, slowing african development, etc.)

Plus, thinking about "What if history was different" makes my head hurt

 

[Sulkdodds]

Plus, thinking about "What if history was different" makes my head hurt

BUT WHAT IF YOU HAD NO HEAD

 

[Robbo]

BUT WHAT IF YOU HAD NO HEAD

Then he would be a member of the Catholic Church.

I doubt that we would be controlled by the church if England hadn't split from them. The more people learn from science the more they see religion for the joke it is, I think that it is inevitable that people will give up their religion..... I think I lost the point somewhere in there, oh well.

 

[Eejit]

What IF: Einstein travelled back in time and removed Hitler just after he was released from jail after the Munich Putsch? Eh?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

The Catholic church only admits that they were mistaken on issues like the planet being shaped like a ball,the sun being the center of the Solar system etc....

Actually the Catholic Church recognized that the earth was round way back in medieval times cause that was the general theory as far back as roman times. The idea that the Catholic Church considered it a sin to claim the Earth was not flat is a modern lie by an american author in the 1800s.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

Actually the Catholic Church recognized that the earth was round way back in medieval times cause that was the general theory as far back as roman times. The idea that the Catholic Church considered it a sin to claim the Earth was not flat is a modern lie by an american author in the 1800s.

what side are you on?


D:

 

[AJ Rimmer]

what side are you on?


D:

Hehe, we don't have to take sides, do we?


...FOR THE ALMIGHTY LORD WILL JUDGE US ALL!

 

[kupocake]

England's entry into Protestantism was just a matter of 'me too' in all honesty. Henry VIII only let it pass because he wanted to rotate wives every few years, he was supposedly quite reluctant to turn away from Catholicism. You could argue 'what if' on any side of this, but I find it hard to imagine a world where there is any kind of 'Catholic Empire'. Church and State were never so well intertwined that the Catholic nations considered themselves united, and their political interests on the same level. The English have warred with the other European nations throughout history regardless of who had a pope and who didn't. In that kind of world, a split from a centralized church was an inevitability for nations that were en-route to Imperialism. They had to reject the useful mind-controlling tools of Catholicism simply because it made them puppet nations to be controlled.

And don't forget that Protestants burnt plenty of Catholics at the stake as well. Free thinking is not prohibited among Catholics: if they were the dominant class in England, the process of Secularization would have been equally successful.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Indeed, it's not like the unbalancing forces of emerging capitalism, exploration, centralisation, printing and science were confined only to protestant nations.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Martin Luther was just one in a long line of heretics and defectors from catholicism but due to political reasons, that religious split gained support.

 

[Mr Stabby]

When protestantism first emerged it was in fact more zealous than catholicism. France was a catholic country and the enlightenment began in France.

 

[Higlac]

seriously I'm thinking about this,if it was not for England way back in the 1500's to be exact the Catholic church would be so powerful that you might as well call it an empire with country's like Spain on its side etc.If the Crusades in the name of the pope would have been successful I think,no I know for a fact that we would all live to the vision of 1984 and the trilogy of Philip Pullman (Northern Lights) where the church controls everything and people would be to this day be burned at the stake fro free thinking. Do not be mistaken The Catholic church would do exactly that if it's power would have stayed the same.
Like Keenan says:




The Catholic church only admits that they were mistaken on issues like the planet being shaped like a ball,the sun being the center of the Solar system etc.... ONLY because of governments that have a separation of church and state and people grew smarter.While the power of the pope always depended on how stupid and gullible people were



your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Restate using grammar, and I might consider refuting whatever it was that you just said.

 

[CptStern]

oh please ..spain was staunchly catholic (home of the Inquisition) from pretty much the get go AND was occupied by muslims for 700 years and yet you can see full nudity on any beach, drink booze anywhere, smoke pot on the streets and pretty much do what you want (within reason)

sweeping generalisation ftl

 

[Higlac]

I had to edit this so I could read it. If I changed your statements' meaning because of fixes in grammar or issues with historical accuracy, please tell me.

Seriously, I've thinking about this. If it was not for England way back in the 1500's the Catholic church would be so powerful that you could call it an empire with many loyal Catholic countries like Spain. If the Crusades in the name of Jesus, (called by the Pope to regain the Holy Land from the Muslims) would have been successful (one was) I know for a fact that we would all live to the vision of 1984 and the trilogy of Philip Pullman (Northern Lights) where the Church controls everything and people would be to this day be burned at the stake for free thinking. Do not be mistaken. The Catholic Church would do exactly that if it retained its power.

England broke from the Catholic Church because King Henry VIII wanted an annulment from his wife, as she never bore him a male heir. He then declared himself the head of the Church of England, and subsequently, began the bloody persecution of Catholics in England.

The Spanish Inquisition, run by Spain not the Catholic Church, killed less than 1000 people, and was somewhat in response to the Catholic persecutions in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Hist?rico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all processes between 1560 and 1700. This material provides information about 49,092 judgements, the latter studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. These authors calculate that only 1.9% of those processed - approximately 933 - were burned at the stake.

The Catholic church only admits that they were mistaken on issues like the planet being shaped like a ball,the sun being the center of the Solar system etc.... ONLY because of governments that have a separation of church and state and people grew smarter. While the power of the Pope always depended on how stupid and gullible people were.



Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

The Catholic Church is fully modern with beliefs such as evolution and the big bang, but still, one has to ask: What caused the Bang?

The Church of England was not separated from state. It was started and run by the government for a governmental agenda. The Pope's religious power is based off of his succession from St. Peter. His political power was gained by his influence over the monarchs. Traditionally the Pope crowned the Kings of Europe, denoting that their power came from God, and not from man (divine right to rule). King Henry VIII's successor was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Watch V for Vendetta, It shows a description of England as run by the protestant Church of England. England's break from the Catholic Church caused more bloodshed than any of the Crusades did.

 

[el Chi]

We're not the only ones who had protestantism - which we implemented, in the main, just as aggressively and oppressively as the Catholics did their doctrine. But it also at the same time led to theological and political revolution. I guess it's quite possible?

Exactly. Christianity (of all denominations) at that point in its development was by and large horrifically brutal, oppressive and invasive.
Funnily enough, Islam is currently about as old as Christianity was at that time. Make of that what you will.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think the catholic church admits that evolution and the big bang are correct as well amirite?

 

[Polaris]

I think the catholic church admits that evolution and the big bang are correct as well amirite?

They only admits that idea of evolution is "more than a hypothesis". Of course, they still don't believe in abiogenesis, animal ancestor of man, etc.
(Richard Dawkins' - A Devil's Chaplain)
Their wrong interpretation of Big Bang theory is only justification of "let there be light" and world out of nothing with some physics. (Stephen Hawking's - A Brief History of Time)

I see the Church of England as most progressive from all major Christian churches. Catholic Church is a hypocritical, power-hungry organization and American evangelicals are totally insane idiots.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I see the Church of England as most progressive from all major Christian churches. Catholic Church is a hypocritical, power-hungry organization and American evangelicals are totally insane idiots.

This. 'Cept the church of england is falling into decline.

So that leaves us with the nutcases and the greedy guys? D:

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

oh please ..spain was staunchly catholic (home of the Inquisition) from pretty much the get go AND was occupied by muslims for 700 years and yet you can see full nudity on any beach, drink booze anywhere, smoke pot on the streets and pretty much do what you want (within reason)

sweeping generalisation ftl

well duh stern Im talking about if things havent changed like thye did 600 years ago,of course spain a nice play today.

 

[Higlac]

*snip

I finished my post, it's rather long, but I believe it should suffice to help clear any misunderstandings.

 

[Skaadi]

They only admits that idea of evolution is "more than a hypothesis".

No, I assure you that most Catholics have accepted evolution over creationism . Despite what most people think the Catholic Church has started to grow up a bit. However I'm speaking more in terms of the Catholic Church in Australia, I can't really say much for any other country.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

No, I assure you that most Catholics have accepted evolution over creationism . Despite what most people think the Catholic Church has started to grow up a bit. However I'm speaking more in terms of the Catholic Church in Australia, I can't really say much for any other country.

Are you allowed to use condoms yet?

 

[Dan]

Before you can argue what if situations, you first have to make the argument for causation. Most physicists would agree, is impossible for things to have happened differently.

 

[el Chi]

Most physicists haven't met Short Recoil.

 

[Eejit]

They only admits that idea of evolution is "more than a hypothesis". Of course, they still don't believe in abiogenesis, animal ancestor of man, etc.

Wrong. They church heirarchy fully accepts evolution of man's body, they just believe that God intervened at some point to give us a divine soul.
I don't have a problem with that tbh, it's not like it's hurting anyone. Hell, senior members of the Catholic church have even condemned teaching ID as science which get's them a little credit in my book.

(Richard Dawkins' - A Devil's Chaplain)
Their wrong interpretation of Big Bang theory is only justification of "let there be light" and world out of nothing with some physics. (Stephen Hawking's - A Brief History of Time)

He's rabid.
The whole point is that science can't say the Catholic interpretation of the Big Bang is wrong, because it cannot be scientifically proven or unproven.
As long as they make clear that it's a religious interpretation of science and don't pretend it is actual science they're doing no harm in trying to provide a "Why", while science provides a "How" of the creation of the universe.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The theory of the big bang was proposed by a catholic priest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

[Solaris]

The theory of the big bang was proposed by a catholic priest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

No, it was proposed by a physicist

 

[Eejit]

-.-

A mathematician might describe him better, but he was a mathematician, an astronomer, a physicist AND a catholic priest.

So by saying "No, it was proposed by a physicist" you're incorrect, he was indeed a catholic priest - which is relevant to the topic we are discussing.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

The theory of the big bang was proposed by a catholic priest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

230 years earlier he would be burnt alive for being a heretic.

 

[Eejit]

Wait, what is this revolutionary concept you're trying to explain Raptor?


could it be.... Progress?!?

Tell me more, please.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

progress only because the loss of power and influence.

 

[Skaadi]

Are you allowed to use condoms yet?

No but that's not what we're discussing.

 

[Eejit]

progress only because the loss of power and influence.

Evidence?

The whole world has progressed in 230 years. Is all of that due to the Catholic Church losing power and influence?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Progress was due to the enlightenment and the emergence of liberalism, which began in catholic France.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The whole point is that science can't say the Catholic interpretation of the Big Bang is wrong, because it cannot be scientifically proven or unproven.

That's silly. Something which cannot be proven or disproven cannot be taken as true. A question that can't be answered ceases to become a question; something infalsifiable might as well be false.

Why believe something without the evidence for it? Until there is some evidence, that thing, not yet proven, not yet 'disproven', must remain in the murky realm beyond evidence that, provisionally, we call 'untrue'.

In that realm is also the statement "Eijit is Queen Elizabeth II", and though I can't prove that either way, I will, having no reason to believe it, regard it, for now, as untrue.

 

[Eejit]

Religion isn't science. Aside from some nuts, it doesn't pretend to be.

It's about faith and belief in things without (necessarily) anything to do with science.

I have no problem with people believing things that can't be empirically proven or disproven as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs over scientific evidence.
If the two things are kept seperate, who's it hurting when religion attempts to provide the answer to Why, which science never can?

Might not make sense to you to believe things that can't be proven, but that's your personal world view, for many people that isn't enough. And if both groups leave each other alone I'll be happy.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's all true enough. But doesn't that whole idea of believing something without reason lend itself very well to abuses? Doesn't it lend itself very well to causing problems?

I certainly don't have any problem with people believing in things per se, but I think there's an undeniable link between that kind of belief and its imposition on others.

If you believe that God created the universe and commands all things, and you believe that unquestionably with faith, then not only are you establishing a certain order of the universe, but you are also establishing that evidence doesn't matter. By doing so, you are far more likely to be inclined to push your beliefs over evidence; after all, your God rules the universe, and science is wrong.

I mean I was initially merely responding to your claim about 'proven and disproven'; I think you're wrong about the nature of what 'disproven' means.

But now I guess I'm saying that faith-thought - which can be secular too (cf. racism, Godwin's Law) really has some pretty fundamental problems and it's no accident that it so frequently tries to impose itself on everybody else, heedless of conditions or philosophical untenability.

 

[Higlac]

Relativity hasn't been proven or disproved, it has just worked in every scenario witnessed. Newton's theories worked in many situations, until we gained the means to observe in greater detail. Then a better theory, that works in more situations will arise.