Family Man

double post

Family Man

And on the matter of forced conversions, I forgot about the Inquisition -- the whole point of which was to make sure that those Jews forced to convert in 1492 were truly Christian. And then there was the Albigensian crusade, a case where some were put to the sword for adopting the wrong form of Christianity.

Oversimplifications, in historical analysis, will kill you.

demoninho

ooh.... and don't forget the baltic crusade.

Ojuice5001

That's not a myth either. That's an anecdote someone made up. The word you're looking for is "legend." Legends are about the physical world. Myths may or may not be about the physical world, but they are always about the spiritual world as well. Sorry to be picky, but I feel a need to save the word "myth," and especially "mythology," for use in referring to a genre of writings that gives truth about the supernatural world.

lpetrich

Bede:
9) That Christians have always taken the Bible literally.
1) That there has been a historical conflict between science and religion.

Although it is certainly true that Biblical literalism has not been universal, departures from it have often taken the form of "cafeteria theology", much of which appears to be little more than expediency -- "it's literal if I like it and allegorical if I don't."

And it must be said that Biblical literalism is a natural consequence of the idea that the Bible is Absolute Truth. Otherwise, it may justly be claimed that Bible does not really mean what it says.

And as to the conflict between science and religion, it depends on what sort of religion. A generalized theism, for example, would have a harder time having conflicts with science than sacred-book literalism. And "Christianity" has hardly been a unified front with complete agreement on every detail -- even "important" things have been much argued over.

Consider that both Galileo and his clerical opponents considered themselves good Catholics. However, Galileo was more of an allegoricalist than the Church; he even invented an early version of NOMA. So will the real Catholic here please stand up?

Bede

Family Man said:

"Bottom line is that your list is a trollish attempt to provoke, and little more."

A successful one though... actually been quite interested in the wide range of replies.

But you are right about the dangers of oversimplification. Was Dr Rick who you had in mind with the millions claim? He springs to mind right now but there have been others. You can't have been here much longer than me!

I must write something up on anatomy as I like to have the facts to hand. Interestingly enough, according to Alan Debus, it seems that the desire for post mortems from the Bologna law school in the 13th century had an effect in starting human dissection (which had previously hardly ever been permitted - Christian Europe was the first time it became an official part of the medical curriculum). Needless to say, the church didn't try and stop it although, as always, there were dissenters.

B

Amen-Moses

Or 1066! We certainly haven't forgotten it.

Amen-Moses

Family Man

And you want admiration for this?

Since you're the one oversimplifying (e.g. Hitler very well may have been a Christian -- so much for that "myth") you'd do better to follow your own advice.

I don't remember who it was, and I haven't seen others, and you haven't provided us with any evidence (been around since 1998, btw). At any rate, you knew full well that there are atheists that don't buy into that particular hyperbole.

Let's say I take a look at some of your sources for your no conflict with science claim (since it's an interest of mine) and see if what they say is a bit more nuanced than what you're letting on. It wouldn't surprised me if they said something along the lines of certain theories of conflict were overstated, but not that there were no conflict at all.

Sauron

Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to prove it, instead of merely asserting it in a loud voice?

Sauron

Exploring misconceptions?

Really?

So far all you've done is state your conclusion. You haven't explored anything.