What About Bruno? Did He Get What He Deserve?

[JDaniel]

The things you have mentioned (with the exception of HIV) are sins and against the teachings of the Church. They are wrong just like Bruno was wrong in 1600. Some things never change—you are right. Nice try, but NO.

What do you mean by “The Heretic stands at the door in shiort skirts shouting pedophile.”?

Abuse victims are not heretics and the Church has addressed that.
The Church continues to suffer for its ignoring of the Sex Abuse scandals, but now they have taken steps to remedy that. They will never ignore this again. You know this.

The Pope even apologized for the mistakes that were made and met with victims months ago and in Britain.

This is not a “hysteric reaction.” they are sins against the Catholic Church and God. To YOU they are Ok, but not to the Church and God.

And your attmeot to tie folks who engage in those kinds of behavior to be in the level of “Heroes” like you imply Bruno was is ludicrous and laughable.

Actually, for many, many years it was left to the Church to handle its own internal problems and people. During the last perhaps 50 - 70 years that began to change. The idea of gays molesting boys, remember, only about 5% of the boys were under the age of 13, when their acts became illegal, was not even given a second look by secular attorneys, until lots of money appeared on the horizon! Attorneys regularly got real pedophiles off the hook. So, the crime was really almost an irrelevancy. The legal system should be the entity on trial for all of these crimes!

The Church did handle their own problems, but, the penalties, back then, weren’t as severe as they are now. (No one ever puts this stuff in the perspective of history! ) Not even for secular society, where the number of real child molestations more than doubles anything done within the halls of the Church.

God bless,
jd

 

[fermat]

You haven’t understood a single thing I said.

One could say the same…

Interesting theorem in your signature. If you were to apply it, you would obviously reject many scientific theories. The probability that stars are created must be nearly zero because that phenomenon is almost impossible to observe. That’s a load off my mind.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Yes, but my reading of history indicates that the Church may, in fact, not have wanted him dead. No doubt, it wanted him shut up, and, perhaps, sequestered. By and large, the Vatican was opposed to capital punishment and, were it not for the Vatican, many more would have perished.

Perhaps there’s a real historian on board that can help us.

god bless,
jd

True enough. I would welcome a historian here.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Actually, for many, many years it was left to the Church to handle its own internal problems and people. During the last perhaps 50 - 70 years that began to change. The idea of gays molesting boys, remember, only about 5% of the boys were under the age of 13, when their acts became illegal, was not even given a second look by secular attorneys, until lots of money appeared on the horizon! Attorneys regularly got real pedophiles off the hook. So, the crime was really almost an irrelevancy. The legal system should be the entity on trial for all of these crimes!

The Church did handle their own problems, but, the penalties, back then, weren’t as severe as they are now. (No one ever puts this stuff in the perspective of history! ) Not even for secular society, where the number of real child molestations more than doubles anything done within the halls of the Church.

God bless,
jd

Thanks for that, JDaniel. You’re right. I was simply trying to answer what (to ME) was Moonstruck’s claim that the Church’s stand on Homosexuality, Abortion and so on is wrong as them convicting Bruno of Heresy. that is how interpreted his post to mean, at least. Now he says I “didn’t understand” him. OOOOOKKKKKKKKK.

And you are right that nobody puts this in the context of history. Not even me. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Moonstruck888]

One could say the same…

Interesting theorem in your signature. If you were to apply it, you would obviously reject many scientific theories. The probability that stars are created must be nearly zero because that phenomenon is almost impossible to observe. That’s a load off my mind.

Actually, it’s easy to observe. Stellar nurseries are being observed even as we speak. That’s why I believe those theories on stellar evolution

Superstrings, M-Theory, I consider at the present time to be pure science fiction, because they cannot be observed by any means, even in principle.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Actually, it’s easy to observe. Stellar nurseries are being observed even as we speak. That’s why I believe those theories on stellar evolution

Superstrings, M-Theory, I consider at the present time to be pure science fiction, because they cannot be observed by any means, even in principle.

Are you totally Materialistic, then? In the sense of Richard Dawkins?
“If I can’t see it or feel it, it does not exist.”

How about if one can prove something Mathematically but not Visually?

Just genuinely curious. And by the way, a good portion of the U.S. population is like that, also, so you are not alone.

 

[Leela]

The Pope was trying to stop the death penalty throughout that part of the realm he could get to.

Can you support your assertion with any evidence?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Are you totally Materialistic, then? In the sense of Richard Dawkins?
“If I can’t see it or feel it, it does not exist.”

Yes, and to quote B.A. Baraccus, I pity the fool who isn’t.

How about if one can prove something Mathematically but not Visually?

Don’t you mean empirically? Blind people can still understand scientific results.

Just genuinely curious. And by the way, a good portion of the U.S. population is like that, also, so you are not alone.

The more intelligent portion, I’d imagine…

You cannot prove String Theory, or to be more correct in nomenclature, The String Hypothesis, with mathematics. All you can prove is that the Mathematics looks pretty.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Thanks for that, JDaniel. You’re right. I was simply trying to answer what (to ME) was Moonstruck’s claim that the Church’s stand on Homosexuality, Abortion and so on is wrong as them convicting Bruno of Heresy. that is how interpreted his post to mean, at least. Now he says I “didn’t understand” him. OOOOOKKKKKKKKK.

And you are right that nobody puts this in the context of history. Not even me. Thanks for the reminder.

You were totally wrong. My point is that both sides of the debate spend too much time screaming hysterical names at each other and not enough time listening.

I have to say though, if some of the more fundamentalist people on this thread, John Damien for example, were running the civil authorities in the present day, I would be condemened to die as Bruno did. I am very glad you are not, and will continue to fight tooth and claw to make sure you never do.

 

[JohnDamian]

You were totally wrong. My point is that both sides of the debate spend too much time screaming hysterical names at each other and not enough time listening.

I have to say though, if some of the more fundamentalist people on this thread, John Damien for example, were running the civil authorities in the present day, I would be condemened to die as Bruno did. I am very glad you are not, and will continue to fight tooth and claw to make sure you never do.

I think it’s a rather brave thing to imply that “people like me” would have condemn people to die. It is particularily because I am a “fundementalist” as you put it that I am a pacifist – I don’t believe in the death penalty in the same way as I don’t believe in (moral) relativism such as the “Just War Theory”; they both justify heinous and villanous sins.

The more intelligent portion, I’d imagine…

That more intelligent portion would be undermining scientific method; which cannot ever be justified with sensory evidence; that’s right – it relies upon inductive reasoning; which incidentally is not empirical. Thus that “more intelligent portion” would by agreeing with total empiricism; have committed a contradiction in terms; which wouldn’t be “more intelligent” at all.

 

[Leela]

…I don’t believe in the death penalty in the same way as I don’t believe in (moral) relativism such as the “Just War Theory”; they both justify heinous and villanous sins.

Do you think that Catholic Church is wrong about Just War Theory?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I think it’s a rather brave thing to imply that “people like me” would have condemn people to die. It is particularily because I am a “fundementalist” as you put it that I am a pacifist – I don’t believe in the death penalty in the same way as I don’t believe in (moral) relativism such as the “Just War Theory”; they both justify heinous and villanous sins.

You told me that Giordano Bruno brought it on himself. You said that he could have saved himself at any time so it was his fault.

You approve of what happened to Bruno. If the Church could still do the same things today, they would. I would undoubtedly be one of their victims and given a choice between death and living a lie. You condone this.

Why don’t you simply condemn what the Church law and the civil authorities did if you do not?

As for your interpretation of the scientific method. That is something no scientist would ever concern himself with nor take seriously. If they did, we’d be living in the antiquity again within a human lifetime.

How you can sit at a computer, a product of multiple scientific disciplines, and say that science doesn’t work is beyond me.

 

[JohnDamian]

Moonstruck888:

You told me that Giordano Bruno brought it on himself. You said that he could have saved himself at any time so it was his fault.

I maintain that he did bring it on himself; although his punishment with death was excessive.

You approve of what happened to Bruno. If the Church could still do the same things today, they would. I would undoubtedly be one of their victims and given a choice between death and living a lie. You condone this.

I approve of Bruno being declared a heretic by the Church; but — I do not approve of the excessive punishment by the Civil Authorities for his crime.

Moonstruck888:

Why don’t you simply condemn what the Church law and the civil authorities did if you do not?

I find murder of any kind loathesome and unchristian. The Church did not slay him; ergo they are not responsible. We could suppose that the Church should have lied about him being a heretic to save his life; but lying is a sin against the ten commandments; and condoning it amounts to little more than relativism.

Moonstruck888:

How you can sit at a computer, a product of multiple scientific disciplines, and say that science doesn’t work is beyond me.

Science does work. Total empiricism does not work. You yourself admit:

“That is something no scientist would ever concern himself with nor take seriously. If they did, we’d be living in the antiquity again within a human lifetime.”

Only a fool would believe in total empiricism; how can you believe that Empiricism **alone **is a sign of intelligence; when you clearly recognise that it produces absurd results?

Leela:

Do you think that Catholic Church is wrong about Just War Theory?

I am very much torn on the issue; part of me believes totally in pacifism; and the other part of me can understand Augustinian Just War theory (not Thomistic) – such is my lack of certitude that I see it fitting to remain a pacifist. The Doctrine of the theory is not binding in the same way as Dogmas of the Church.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I approve of Bruno being declared a heretic by the Church; but — I do not approve of the excessive punishment by the Civil Authorities for his crime.

And do you approve of anyone who disagrees with Church Doctrine being declared a heretic and punished?

Science does work. Total empiricism does not work. You yourself admit:

What I meant was that if scientists start dabbling in philosophy instead of practicing science, we’ll be in the most serious situation our civilization has faced since the fall of Rome.

 

[Leela]

The Doctrine of the theory is not binding in the same way as Dogmas of the Church.

Is the doctrine of opposing abortion binding?

Is the doctrine of opposing gay marriage binding?

 

[JohnDamian]

And do you approve of anyone who disagrees with Church Doctrine being declared a heretic and punished?

No.

Firstly; not everyone who disagrees with Church Doctrine is a heretic; even Catholics may dispute certain Doctrines. Furthermore; people of other faiths or no faith are not regarded as heretics; it is only Catholics teaching false or incorrect Catholic Theology.

Secondly; punative means are neither a sensible nor a practical deterrant or solution to a problem that is best solved by discussion and teaching. Also; punative means are unchristian; this is why things such as excommunication are (should) not be used as soley punatative measures.

Moonstruck888:

What I meant was that if scientists start dabbling in philosophy instead of practicing science, we’ll be in the most serious situation our civilization has faced since the fall of Rome.

I don’t dismiss Science; I merely assert Science rests upon Philosophy (philosophy of Science; ie; empiricism).

A Scientist does not have to understand or train in philosophy to know that his field is supported by another. A Scientist also does not have to have extensive knowlege of mathematics; although for some fields of Science this is useful (ie; Physics as aversed to Biology). Nor does a Scientist need to understand linguistics; but all these things help and support Science.

Leela:

is the doctrine of opposing abortion binding?,
Is the doctrine of opposing gay marriage binding?

Yes; because these are supported by the Ten Commandments, wheras Just War theory is a much more debated/debateable issue.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think it’s a rather brave thing to imply that “people like me” would have condemn people to die. It is particularily because I am a “fundementalist” as you put it that I am a pacifist – I don’t believe in the death penalty in the same way as I don’t believe in (moral) relativism such as the “Just War Theory”; they both justify heinous and villanous sins.

That more intelligent portion would be undermining scientific method; which cannot ever be justified with sensory evidence; that’s right – it relies upon inductive reasoning; which incidentally is not empirical. Thus that “more intelligent portion” would by agreeing with total empiricism; have committed a contradiction in terms; which wouldn’t be “more intelligent” at all.

Good one.

I don’t think even Hume would be as Empirical as Moonstruck is…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

And do you approve of anyone who disagrees with Church Doctrine being declared a heretic and punished?

What I meant was that if scientists start dabbling in philosophy instead of practicing science, we’ll be in the most serious situation our civilization has faced since the fall of Rome.

In that case, Blaise Pascal was one of the most dangerous, harmful human beings that ever lived and should not be taught in Schools and Universities.

Same goes for Einstein.
And Roger Bacon.
And Descartes.
And Francis Bacon.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Good one.

I don’t think even Hume would be as Empirical as Moonstruck is…

Why, thank you…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Good one.

I don’t think even Hume would be as Empirical as Moonstruck is…

In that case, Blaise Pascal was one of the most dangerous, harmful human beings that ever lived and should not be taught in Schools and Universities.

Same goes for Einstein.
And Roger Bacon.
And Descartes.
And Francis Bacon.

The only thing that saddens me about Blaise Pascal is that there isn’t acutally a hell for him to burn in.

As for the old quote mining of Einstein strawman, I’m not going to rise to the bait.