Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 09-03-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

On the Dark Ages thread, Ray Moscow suggested that the church has held back medical science

That, of course, is absurd, because the church has never been in control of anything much in this world, and never will be. The medieval anti-church was of course in control of almost everything, or wanted to be- but it must be realised that this organisation was formed and maintained partly as the result of a very long economic recession in Europe due to reduced temperatures, for 600 years, in Northern Asia as well as in Europe itself. So there was no economic surplus in which to invest in science, and society, via the 'church', quashed any investigation that had no chance of practical development. The anti-church of the middle ages is truly culpable of a great deal, but this is hardly included.

Brother Daniel · 09-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

That, of course, is absurd, because the church has never been in control of anything much in this world, and never will be. The medieval anti-church was of course in control of almost everything, or wanted to be-....

It may be that you have a peculiar definition of "church" that differs from the usage of everyone else here. If so, I would urge you to use the majority language here, in order to facilitate communication.

Clouseau · 09-03-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

That, of course, is absurd, because the church has never been in control of anything much in this world, and never will be. The medieval anti-church was of course in control of almost everything, or wanted to be-....

It may be that you have a peculiar definition of "church" that differs from the usage of everyone else here. If so, I would urge you to use the majority language here, in order to facilitate communication.

You must be joking, surely. If you expect Christians to agree that the murderous scum that purported to be the church was as it claimed, you must be 'having a laugh'.

I really hope you are, anyway.

Brother Daniel · 09-03-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

You must be joking, surely.

I'm perfectly serious. I haven't ruled out the possibility that I have misunderstood you, however.

Clouseau · 09-03-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

You must be joking, surely.

I'm perfectly serious.

I suggest you find a seminary, then.

Boro Nut · 09-03-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

You must be joking, surely. If you expect Christians to agree that the murderous scum that purported to be the church was as it claimed, you must be 'having a laugh'.

Come again? What other church was there other than the church? It's a bit much to indulge in the 'One True Scotsman' fallacy in relation to a period when there was only one Scotsman, true or otherwise. But feel free to deny the trueness of the lone Scotsman from whom all other squabbling Scotsmen derive their disputed truthsomeness. I'd be more than happy to agree with you. And I'd expect Christians to agree that the murderous scum that purported to be the Chosen People of God weren't Scotsmen either.

By the same token Hitler was clearly not a proper Nazi. After all, modern Nazis don't go around invading Poland and gassing jews. They just want to be left to get on living their lives in peace and conducting experiments on twins.

Boro Nut

Lógos Sokratikós · 09-05-2007, 11:46 AM

It's the claim of more than one protestant denomination too (since herr Luther). According to this claim, the "real" church was under "babilonian domination" and the True Church™ survived (in some historically unprovable way). It's just a way to justify their pedigree, sort of like, "We're not the changers of religion, they are!!".

Though it still is a "No true Scot" fallacy, with respect to logic.

Pseudo-Deity · 09-05-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

It may be that you have a peculiar definition of "church" that differs from the usage of everyone else here. If so, I would urge you to use the majority language here, in order to facilitate communication.

You must be joking, surely. If you expect Christians to agree that the murderous scum that purported to be the church was as it claimed, you must be 'having a laugh'.

I really hope you are, anyway.

Dictionary.com gives a number of definitions of a church:

Quote:

church /tʃɜrtʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[church] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a building for public Christian worship.
2. public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4. (sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5. that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
6. a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.
7. ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state: separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.
8. the clergy and religious officials of a Christian denomination.
9. the Christian faith: a return of intellectuals to the church.
10. (initial capital letter) the Christian Church before the Reformation.
11. (initial capital letter) the Roman Catholic Church.
12. the clerical profession or calling: After much study and contemplation, he was prepared to enter the church.
13. a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
14. any non-Christian religious society, organization, or congregation: the Jewish church.
–verb (used with object)
15. to conduct or bring to church, esp. for special services.
16. South Midland and Southern U.S. to subject to church discipline.
17. to perform a church service of thanksgiving for (a woman after childbirth).

The Roman Catholic Church fits in with most of those definitions. In the context of James Hannam's post he is clearly using "11." as the definition, when he used the word Church. Your theology is irrelevant to the definition of the word "church" and if you think it a false church, it is still a church nonetheless.

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

09-05-2007, 11:46 AM	#7
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	It's the claim of more than one protestant denomination too (since herr Luther). According to this claim, the "real" church was under "babilonian domination" and the True Church™ survived (in some historically unprovable way). It's just a way to justify their pedigree, sort of like, "We're not the changers of religion, they are!!". Though it still is a "No true Scot" fallacy, with respect to logic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.