WishboneDawn

That's not the medieval church however. It seems to me, though I've not much to go on yet, that the medieval church was a different beast in regards to issues surrounding science then the later church. However, maybe that's because it simply could be. Science hadn't reached the point where it challenged the church so much it hadn't become so...(it's not a good word but) hidebound in regards to how scripture was to be interpretted?

Roger Pearse

...and I believe they extended the same courtesy to evangelicals.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I thought that the BBC was a reputable source. That series is described here.

Antipope Innocent II

We've been telling you for over ten pages now and if you'd pull your fingers out of your ears and opened your mind for a split second you might even begin to understand. They believed in the Earth according to Ptolemy and interpreted the Scriptures on this point figuratively.

Your insistence that they interpreted them literally on this point is based on nothing but your own assumption. Wrong assumptions usually lead to wrong conclusions. The reasons they interpreted (other) Scriptures literally when it came to Copernicus' theories were (i) those theories were new whereas the shape of the Earth had been well-established for scientists for centuries (despite a handful of early Christian literalists, who weren't scientists) and (ii) those theories still had some scientific problems.

Your problem is that you've taken the literal interpretation of Scripture in one case (Copernicus) and assumed this means Scripture must have been interpreted the same way in another (Ptolemy). Your assumption is wrong and that's why you have been totally unable to find any Medieval pronouncements on Scripture being interpreted literally in relation to the shape of the Earth, you've been unable to find any Medieval flat-earthers at all and you've been unable to explain all the Medieval spherical-earthers.

In other words, this is why you and your fellow muddled confusarian Jehanne have lost this debate in spectacular style and need to shuffle away now.

Speaking of whom ...

Congratulations on displaying your lack of reading comprehension yet again. Did I say the Church didn't burn any witches? Or that the Inquistion wasn't involved at all? Read what I wrote again. No wonder you and your fellow stumbler have been bumbling in ever decreasing circles of confusion for days now. Either the two of you genuinely can't understand what has been presented to you in this thread (which says one thing about you) or you're refusing to because it would mean admitting you were wrong (which says something else). Either way, this was not your finest hour.

Brother Daniel

Hmm.

Assumption 1: I am a walrus. Assumption 2: All walruses have blue eyes.

At least one of those assumptions is false, but they lead directly to a correct conclusion.

[/nitpick]

Brother Daniel

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a bit anachronistic to call the protestants of that period "evangelicals"?

Also, I'm under the impression that protestant princes in Germany were quite happy to return the favour to Catholics. (I'd also like to know if I'm wrong on that score.)

Antipope Innocent II

Fair enough - I've just amended my post so "always" now reads "usually".

Brother Daniel

No, you didn't.

This is an informal discussion board, for crying out loud. If you erred by passing on incorrect information as fact, then the proper response from someone with greater knowledge is to contradict you by presenting the real facts. Politely, one hopes. That's how civilised discussion is supposed to work.

And you were good enough to name your source, so that people can decide for themselves how much of a pinch of salt to add to the information. If you erred by trusting an untrustworthy source, then the proper response from someone with greater knowledge is simply to point out that the source is untrustworthy. Politely, one hopes. That's how civilised discussion is supposed to work.

Instead, you got the equivalent of "shut the fuck up, stupid peasant". From someone who won't even acknowledge the difference between dramatised history (which may, indeed, be erroneous) and drama (which one should expect to be fictional).

Wouldn't it be nice if we all had the luxury of being able to chase down all the scholarship for or against everything that we are tempted to believe? Or if it were psychologically possible to suspend judgement 100% of the time when you haven't chased down all the relevant scholarship?

You have the right to comment. And you have the right to make mistakes (if you did so), and to learn from the responses of those here with more expertise, without getting subjected to such unnecessary libel as the claim that you're "forming your worldview from TV".
Oh, but everything on TV is false, don'cha know?

If I learn anything about history from Hannam (as I sometimes do), I can't share any of my new knowledge with anyone who shares his attitude. They sneer at me, "You believe that, when you got it from the internet? You moron!"

aa5874

Your information is bogus. This is a quote from Severian, bishop of Gabala "The earth is flat..." This is blatant anti-Ptolemic

Again, bogus information. this is Copenicus in the 16th century to Pope Paul III in his book "On the Revolutions".... Therefore the earth is not flat.... it is completly round..."

Bogus again.

This is an excerpt of a letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini., April 4 1615 .."Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree on interpreting them literally as teaching the Sun is in the heavens and revolves around the earth with immense speed and that the earth is very distance from the heavens, at the center of the universe, and motionless

1 Samuel 2:8....."for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.."

Job 38:4.."Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?...

These literal interpretations are anti-Ptolemic and anti-Copernican.

Up to the 17th century All the Fathers believed in the fixed flat earth, set upon pillars with foundation, according to the literal interpretation of the sacred scriptures as stated by Bellarmine.

Antipope Innocent II

Here we go again ... :

What has a Fourth Century bishop in Syria got to do with Medieval Europe, pray tell?

Simply repeating your misunderstanding of what Copernicus was writing and why isn't going to help you. In fact, it's just compounding your public humiliation. Several people have explained to you the way writers in this period summarised their predicative arguments, which is what Copernicus was doing there. Unless, of course, you think he felt he could convince the (supposedly flat-earther Pope) of the sphericity of the Earth in a mere 342 words.

When are you going to get tired of humiliating yourself?

Yes, which is why you've been able to produce so many medieval references to this belief. Oh, hang on ... you haven't. You've produced precisely NONE.

Zero.

Nada.

Zip.

Why is that? Please explain.

Bye bye. :wave: