[Fyron]

No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now."

I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible wasn't written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?

although old does not always equal false

I never said that. But, a lot of the old "scientific" beliefs that the Church clung to were indeed wrong. It is more of a coincidence than some sweeping statement about old beliefs = wrong beliefs.

Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"?

That was stated as an opinion, not a fact.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this.

Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

Actually, a lot of those "barbarians" (such as the Celts) were more civil and moral than the Romans were.

The "barbarians" had their own systems of moral values that, while not the same as those of Catholicism, were by no means inferior.

I say "barbarians" because they were not normally barbaric, esp. compared to the Romans. A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both.

They are only labeled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]