Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Antipope Innocent II · 08-26-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

I'm a little suspicious of your absolutist claim that absolutely zero Islamic texts reached Europe via the crusades. There appear to have been a small number. The contribution of Byzantium should also not be overlooked.

Stephen of Antioch made a copy of a medical textbook that had already found its way into Latin via Sicily. That's about it.

Quote:

Of course, this may all be a point of confusion. Even if zero texts did get transmitted, that is not to say that other kinds of information didn't get transferred from the Islamic lands to Europe via the crusades: scientific, astronomical, mercantile, etc.

Lots of merchandise and lots of mercantile information definitely found its way to Europe and information flowed both ways about technology etc (windmills seem to have made their way from Europe to the Middle East via the Crusaders for example). But the conversation earlier in this thread was about texts. And the point about the old "Muslim texts via the Crusades" idea was a side-issue anyway.

Sauron · 08-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

I'm a little suspicious of your absolutist claim that absolutely zero Islamic texts reached Europe via the crusades. There appear to have been a small number. The contribution of Byzantium should also not be overlooked.

Stephen of Antioch made a copy of a medical textbook that had already found its way into Latin via Sicily. That's about it.

As I said, I'm suspicious of any absolutist claim. The link I gave mentioned Stephen of Antioch. You would be misreading that article, however, if you were to assume that his text was the only text that was transmitted back to Europe via the crusades. It was not. As one might suspect, military texts made it back as well:

Quote:

In the mixing pot of the Middle East, the Xuanfeng had joined a distinguished lineup of Middle Eastern Mangonels and Ballistas, after the fall of the Roman empire via Byzantium. There, knowledge of Roman siege technology was kept alive throughout the European "Dark Ages" which except for a few notable exceptions, was an era dominated by strict religious fundamentalist dogma. The widespread reintroduction of these lost arts of making siege engines back into Europe was to come only later when Christian Crusaders began marching into the Middle East to reclaim the Christian "Holy Land" that was Jerusalem.
[..]
Feverishly copying Islamic texts and ideas, the knowledge the Crusading armies of Europe brought back to their homes revitalised the European world, seeding the way for the blossoming of new ideas and innovation not just in the field of siegecraft but permeating every strata of society.

I don't dispute the primary importance of Spain and Sicily. But cultural transmission is rarely an airtight process; there are always more exchanges than you think there are, especially where you least expect it.

aa5874 · 08-26-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Medieval Chuch taught the Scriptures. The teachings of Scriptures are contrary to the findings of Copernicus and Galileo.

From the Holy Congregation, ..."We say and pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters advanced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, and having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures.....

I don't understand why your scripture quotes prove anything. They're devoid of the historical context in which they were read and a modern sense of literalism is implied.

Heliocentrism wasn't rejected simply because scripture contradicted it. That's modern fundamentalist thinking. It was rejected because that model ran counter to what had been revealed in scripture and no, that's not at all the same thing.

I can't understand why a flat earth would even enter a discussion about Galileo. This after 600 years under the influence of Aristotle. Aristotle who asserted the earth was round. There wasn't a natural philosopher worth his salt that would claim the earth was flat. And since most natural philosphers were often the theologians too and Aristotle was generally a happy fit with christian ideas of the time I can't understand how someone could thnk it was even an issue with the church.

As an aside, I'd like a discussion about Galileo's condemnation with those who know more about it (not sure where to put that thread?). Copernicus managed to tread heliocentric ground that got Galileo in trouble...Hints at interesting politics.

Please read the sacred and divine Scriptures. I have refered you to Genesis 1.6-10, this is part of the teachings of the Medieval Church. The Creation story gives a fundamental description of the Earth and the Heavens, and it was the source used by the Medieval Church to arrest, charge and condemn Galileo.

A careful reading of the sacred and divine scriptures may reveal a drum shaped, cylindrical, bowl-shaped, hollow or cone-shaped Earth, take your pick.

You just cannot grasp the backwardness of the Medieval Church, and the present Church is just the same, they all hold as true Genesis 1.

Antipope Innocent II · 08-26-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

{*Usual assertions snipped*}.

You forgot to detail how you've managed to show every historian of science in the Middle Ages to be wrong and how you've demonstrated that the medieval Ptolemaic System was centred on a flat Earth rather than a spherical one.

We await the details of your amazing new discoveries and your references to the primary source material that supports these astounding developments with great anticipation.

It's strange that you keep forgetting to give us these details. When are you going to back your assertions on this subject up with evidence, since what you are saying is contrary to every single historian in the field? Your claims are remarkable and require some heavy hitting evidence.

So please explain:
(i) Where this flat-earth centred Ptolemaic model is described in any medieval text.
(ii) Why this model has been overlooked by every historian in the field until your amazing discovery of it and
(iii) Why Martianus Capella, Bede, John Scottus Eriugena, Raban Maur, Giles of Rome, Roger Bacon, John Sacrobosco, Jean Buridan and Nicolas Oresme all taught that the universe was centred on a spherical Earth without censure.

It's weird that you keep forgetting to post this. It's almost as though you haven't actually made these amazing discoveries at all and are just making up some muddled nonsense as you're going along, without any understanding of medieval cosmology other than what fits with your prejudices.

lee_merrill · 08-26-2007, 06:24 PM

Just give it up, A-I-II, is what I recommend to you...

WishboneDawn · 08-26-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please read the sacred and divine Scriptures. I have refered you to Genesis 1.6-10, this is part of the teachings of the Medieval Church. The Creation story gives a fundamental description of the Earth and the Heavens, and it was the source used by the Medieval Church to arrest, charge and condemn Galileo.

By this reasoning you could make the case that they arrested, charged and condemned him for masturbation since there's that story of Onan in the scriptures.

Where are the threads that connect your assertions to any reality? Where is it recorded that he was condemned for claiming the earth was spherical?

This claim is so out-there that I'm wondering if you're serious. I think I may wander off.

GakuseiDon · 08-26-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Origen may have thought that the World was round. Irenaeus, on the other hand, clearly saw that it was flat. In any case, both were writing over a century after the composition of Matthew. In any case, the author of Revelation certainly believed in a flat-earth, as I have already posted:

"1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, 2 holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree." (Revelation 7:1)

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/re...evelation7.htm

Footnote 2:

2 [1] The four corners of the earth: the earth is seen as a table or rectangular surface.

QED

You may be right, or it may be that the Revelation author was using figurative language as well. Such terms like "corners of the globe", "sunrise", "sunset" exist today. Why not back then, too? How do we tell?

It doesn't worry me one way or the other. I'm just interested in trying to understand what they thought then, rather than on whether it validates or discredits the Bible.

aa5874 · 08-26-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please read the sacred and divine Scriptures. I have refered you to Genesis 1.6-10, this is part of the teachings of the Medieval Church. The Creation story gives a fundamental description of the Earth and the Heavens, and it was the source used by the Medieval Church to arrest, charge and condemn Galileo.

By this reasoning you could make the case that they arrested, charged and condemned him for masturbation since there's that story of Onan in the scriptures.

Where are the threads that connect your assertions to any reality? Where is it recorded that he was condemned for claiming the earth was spherical?

This claim is so out-there that I'm wondering if you're serious. I think I may wander off.

It appears you have not been following. The issue is the Medieval Church with respect to a flat earth. It has been observed that although there were those who thought the earth was completely round, the Medieval Church still used scripture as their guide with respect to astronomy. And anyone who contravened the scriptures were condemned as heretics, even up to the 17th century.

It is my view, after research, that the Medieval Church thought the earth was flat, whether cylindrical, hollow, bowl-shaped or conical, and that it was fixed and immovable.

What is your view?

Toto · 08-26-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
It appears you have not been following. The issue is the Medieval Church with respect to a flat earth. It has been observed that although there were those who thought the earth was completely round, the Medieval Church still used scripture as their guide with respect to astronomy. And anyone who contravened the scriptures were condemned as heretics, even up to the 17th century.

It is my view, after research, that the Medieval Church thought the earth was flat, whether cylindrical, hollow, bowl-shaped or conical, and that it was fixed and immovable.

What is your view?

aa - you are the one who is not following. You are assuming that the Medieval Church used a literalist fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, but they did not. The basis for being condemned for heresy was a bit more complicated, something that modern people have trouble wrapping their minds around. This is not to say that the church of the time was much better than modern fundamentalists, but you are not doing yourself any credit by confusing the issues.

Amaleq13 · 08-26-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have refered you to Genesis 1.6-10, this is part of the teachings of the Medieval Church.

What you've been asked to provide (numerous times) but have yet to produce are quotes from specific representatives of the "Medieval Church" either proclaiming a spherical earth to be heretical or asserting a flat earth to be orthodoxy.

This is what you need to support your assertions.

Quote:

The Creation story gives a fundamental description of the Earth and the Heavens, and it was the source used by the Medieval Church to arrest, charge and condemn Galileo.

Please stop suggesting that the arrest and condemnation of Galileo had anything to do with a flat earth. The ignorance involved in such a notion gives me a headache. :banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-26-2007, 06:24 PM	#165
lee_merrill Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,074	Just give it up, A-I-II, is what I recommend to you...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.