One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Christians – Not the Enlightenment – Invented Modern Science
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
May 24, 2019 07:10:08   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
By Chuck Colson | October 10, 2016

Chuck Colson on Columbus and the rise of science.

"Thank heaven that Columbus was able to convince the world that the earth was round?" Except, Columbus didn’t have to convince anyone.

The liberal media are terrified of the t***h, especially when it leads to uncomfortable questions about their own l*****t worldview.

For well over a century and a half, secular intellectuals have promulgated the myth that when it came to understanding the natural world, medieval and earlier Christians were superstitious simpletons. Sit back and listen to Chuck Colson as he debunks that pernicious fairy tale:

To paraphrase the opening of a popular ESPN show, these four things everyone knows are true:

1) Before Columbus's first voyage, people thought the world was flat.
2)When Copernicus wrote that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his conclusions came out of nowhere. 3) the "scientific revolution" of the seventeenth century invented science as we know it.
4), false beliefs and impediments to science are Christianity's fault.

There's just one problem: All four statements are false.

As Rodney Stark writes in his new book, "For the Glory of God," "every educated person" of Columbus's time, especially Christian clergy, "knew the earth was round." More than 800 years before Columbus's voyage, Bede, the church historian, taught this, as did Hildegard of Bingen and Thomas Aquinas. The title of the most popular medieval text on astronomy was Sphere, not exactly what you would call a book that said the earth was flat.

" By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is h*****g on nothing." Job 26:7

As for Copernicus's sudden flash of insight, Stark quotes the eminent historian L. Bernard Cohen, who called that idea "an invention of later historians." Copernicus "was taught the essential fundamentals leading to his model by his Scholastic professors"—that is, Christian scholars.

That model was "developed gradually by a succession of … Scholastic scientists over the previous two centuries." Building upon their work on orbital mechanics, Copernicus added the "implicit next step."

Thus, the idea that science was invented in the seventeenth century, "when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it," as it is said, is false. Long before the famed physicist Isaac Newton, clergy like John of Sacrobosco, the author of Sphere, were doing what can be only called science. The Scholastics — Christians — not the Enlightenment, invented modern science.

Three hundred years before Newton, a Scholastic cleric named Jean Buridan anticipated Newton's First Law of Motion, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise impeded. It was Buridan, not an Enlightenment luminary, who first proposed that the Earth turns on its axis.

In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy.

That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science."

So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I've mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit.

Well, it's up to us to set the record straight, and I think it's time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

Originally published by BreakPoint.

Reply
May 24, 2019 07:18:19   #
Hug
 
Good post. Thanks

Reply
May 24, 2019 08:19:10   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
https://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/tesla-4

Excerpt: "There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact." ---Nikola Tesla

It's a shame religion and science tend to be portrayed as always in contention with each other because, deconstructed, they can serve complementary purposes. Sure, religion is more rooted in the pursuit of t***h while science is a system of fact-based conjecture, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2019 09:51:51   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Zemirah wrote:
By Chuck Colson | October 10, 2016

Chuck Colson on Columbus and the rise of science.

"Thank heaven that Columbus was able to convince the world that the earth was round?" Except, Columbus didn’t have to convince anyone.

The liberal media are terrified of the t***h, especially when it leads to uncomfortable questions about their own l*****t worldview.

For well over a century and a half, secular intellectuals have promulgated the myth that when it came to understanding the natural world, medieval and earlier Christians were superstitious simpletons. Sit back and listen to Chuck Colson as he debunks that pernicious fairy tale:

To paraphrase the opening of a popular ESPN show, these four things everyone knows are true:

1) Before Columbus's first voyage, people thought the world was flat.
2)When Copernicus wrote that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his conclusions came out of nowhere. 3) the "scientific revolution" of the seventeenth century invented science as we know it.
4), false beliefs and impediments to science are Christianity's fault.

There's just one problem: All four statements are false.

As Rodney Stark writes in his new book, "For the Glory of God," "every educated person" of Columbus's time, especially Christian clergy, "knew the earth was round." More than 800 years before Columbus's voyage, Bede, the church historian, taught this, as did Hildegard of Bingen and Thomas Aquinas. The title of the most popular medieval text on astronomy was Sphere, not exactly what you would call a book that said the earth was flat.

" By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is h*****g on nothing." Job 26:7

As for Copernicus's sudden flash of insight, Stark quotes the eminent historian L. Bernard Cohen, who called that idea "an invention of later historians." Copernicus "was taught the essential fundamentals leading to his model by his Scholastic professors"—that is, Christian scholars.

That model was "developed gradually by a succession of … Scholastic scientists over the previous two centuries." Building upon their work on orbital mechanics, Copernicus added the "implicit next step."

Thus, the idea that science was invented in the seventeenth century, "when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it," as it is said, is false. Long before the famed physicist Isaac Newton, clergy like John of Sacrobosco, the author of Sphere, were doing what can be only called science. The Scholastics — Christians — not the Enlightenment, invented modern science.

Three hundred years before Newton, a Scholastic cleric named Jean Buridan anticipated Newton's First Law of Motion, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise impeded. It was Buridan, not an Enlightenment luminary, who first proposed that the Earth turns on its axis.

In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy.

That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science."

So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I've mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit.

Well, it's up to us to set the record straight, and I think it's time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

Originally published by BreakPoint.
By Chuck Colson | October 10, 2016 br br Chuck Co... (show quote)




A real accomplishment to find such an essay..

Let us read the post Slatts gave us..

Now, everyone knows that for centuries the home of education was in monasteries built by roman Catholics..

Other notes..

Columbus had a map,,

Columbus was the poorest excuse for a Christian you can find.. one of the cruelest and most self serving hustlers in world history..



Reply
May 24, 2019 11:53:27   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
I did not post this information with any intent of discussing evolution versus Creationism, however, I believe that your posted editorial of reference went straight to the heart of the matter. Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable.

Did you understand what that little bit of propaganda was espousing?

Surely, evolution is about the origin and development of life-forms on earth — what has this got to do with religion? Evolution is science, isn’t it?

Theological dogmas are and have always been presented as irrefutable universal t***hs, i.e., "facts," just as Tesla's recorded statement declares "science" to consist of "proven facts," (obviously they must be proven, otherwise, they could not be recognized as fact).

Why "science" would concern itself with religion's "facts" is a matter of concern, is it not?

Creationists are often accused of being unscientific or pseudoscientific, while at the same time those who promote evolution assume the mantle of “real scientist.”

To continue your referenced hypothesis at:

https://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/tesla-4

quote:"This is where it's important to try and form a distinction between the separate spiritual and dogmatic ideals of religion, as Tesla does in the quote above. Religion is, at its best, a set of values by which to live one's life. It tends to be at its worst when the dogmatic ideals underpinning those values go off the rails. While it's impossible to completely drive a wedge between spiritualism and dogma, it's very possible (and common) for believers to subdue the latter (dogma) enough so that reason can coexist with bits of faith here and there...

and it continues:

"For example, consider the belief that evolution and intelligent design are not automatically mutually exclusive. There's no factual basis for the latter (intelligent design), so scientifically it holds no water, but if someone wants to allow a balance of fact and faith in their personal worldview, more power to them. As long as they don't allow that faith to interfere with the pursuit (or teaching) of "science," or prioritize faith above incontrovertible facts, then there's no reason why a person can't be both a student of religion and science."End quote.

How very noble that one is allowed to be both scientist and religious, as long as one does not believe their own faith's "dogma."

After the initial rather bland statements you quoted, this article jumped in with both iron boot-clad feet to reference "evolution" as proven fact which must not be subjected to examination by any dogma of religion.

Are evolutionists so threatened by religious belief they must assume a protective posture proclaiming that all is proven, and no longer a theory, which is, of course, a complete lie - upon the mere mention of science and religion in the same sentence?

Your referenced website, after severely bashing the possibility of any validity of t***h within religion, has proclaimed science as irrefutable dogma, without pausing to recognize its own hypocrisy.

Is this your understanding as well?



slatten49 wrote:
https://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/tesla-4

Excerpt: "There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact." ---Nikola Tesla

"It's a shame religion and science tend to be portrayed as always in contention with each other because, deconstructed, they can serve complementary purposes. Sure, religion is more rooted in the pursuit of t***h while science is a system of fact-based conjecture, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive."
https://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/tesla-4 br b... (show quote)

Reply
May 24, 2019 12:13:55   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
I believe in this day and age, Permafrost, that anyone over two can do a similar search in five seconds.

There is no "accomplishment" involved.

On what, exactly, do you base your belief that, and I quote "Now, everyone knows that for centuries the home of education was in monasteries built by roman Catholics.."

I certainly did not know that. No one I know "knows" that, nor do I believe it is either fact, or relative to my topic.

I am impressed with your personal knowledge of the explorer Columbus, credited with officially making the most important discovery recorded in the history of mankind, second only to the revelation that God, in human form, had chosen to dwell among us, and effect our salvation, for those who are willing to accept.

To declare Christopher Coumbus so totally devoid of any humane qualities or virtues is remarkable. If only, he could speak, one can only surmise that his opinion on your life's accomplishments might be less harsh.

Again, that's all quite interesting, but irrelevant to my topic.


permafrost wrote:
A real accomplishment to find such an essay..

Let us read the post Slatts gave us..

Now, everyone knows that for centuries the home of education was in monasteries built by roman Catholics..

Other notes..

Columbus had a map,,

Columbus was the poorest excuse for a Christian you can find.. one of the cruelest and most self serving hustlers in world history..

Reply
May 24, 2019 12:22:43   #
bahmer
 
Zemirah wrote:
By Chuck Colson | October 10, 2016

Chuck Colson on Columbus and the rise of science.

"Thank heaven that Columbus was able to convince the world that the earth was round?" Except, Columbus didn’t have to convince anyone.

The liberal media are terrified of the t***h, especially when it leads to uncomfortable questions about their own l*****t worldview.

For well over a century and a half, secular intellectuals have promulgated the myth that when it came to understanding the natural world, medieval and earlier Christians were superstitious simpletons. Sit back and listen to Chuck Colson as he debunks that pernicious fairy tale:

To paraphrase the opening of a popular ESPN show, these four things everyone knows are true:

1) Before Columbus's first voyage, people thought the world was flat.
2)When Copernicus wrote that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his conclusions came out of nowhere. 3) the "scientific revolution" of the seventeenth century invented science as we know it.
4), false beliefs and impediments to science are Christianity's fault.

There's just one problem: All four statements are false.

As Rodney Stark writes in his new book, "For the Glory of God," "every educated person" of Columbus's time, especially Christian clergy, "knew the earth was round." More than 800 years before Columbus's voyage, Bede, the church historian, taught this, as did Hildegard of Bingen and Thomas Aquinas. The title of the most popular medieval text on astronomy was Sphere, not exactly what you would call a book that said the earth was flat.

" By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is h*****g on nothing." Job 26:7

As for Copernicus's sudden flash of insight, Stark quotes the eminent historian L. Bernard Cohen, who called that idea "an invention of later historians." Copernicus "was taught the essential fundamentals leading to his model by his Scholastic professors"—that is, Christian scholars.

That model was "developed gradually by a succession of … Scholastic scientists over the previous two centuries." Building upon their work on orbital mechanics, Copernicus added the "implicit next step."

Thus, the idea that science was invented in the seventeenth century, "when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it," as it is said, is false. Long before the famed physicist Isaac Newton, clergy like John of Sacrobosco, the author of Sphere, were doing what can be only called science. The Scholastics — Christians — not the Enlightenment, invented modern science.

Three hundred years before Newton, a Scholastic cleric named Jean Buridan anticipated Newton's First Law of Motion, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise impeded. It was Buridan, not an Enlightenment luminary, who first proposed that the Earth turns on its axis.

In Stark's words, "Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science." Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy.

That's because Christianity depicted God as a "rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being" who created a universe with a "rational, lawful, stable" structure. These beliefs uniquely led to "faith in the possibility of science."

So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, "the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith." Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I've mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as "liberators" of the human mind and spirit.

Well, it's up to us to set the record straight, and I think it's time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

Originally published by BreakPoint.
By Chuck Colson | October 10, 2016 br br Chuck Co... (show quote)


Amen and Amen excellent post thanks very much for this Zemirah.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2019 12:40:08   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Thanks very much for your support, bahmer.

Just a little t***h telling about the greatness of our Triune God, Father, Son - Jesus, and Holy Spirit, feels so good.


bahmer wrote:
Amen and Amen excellent post thanks very much for this Zemirah.

Reply
May 24, 2019 12:56:26   #
bahmer
 
Zemirah wrote:
Thanks very much for your support, bahmer.

Just a little t***h telling about the greatness of our Triune God, Father, Son - Jesus, and Holy Spirit, feels so good.


Amen and Amen

Reply
May 24, 2019 13:42:42   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Zemirah, [quote] "Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable."


It was amusing to read from one as smug, arrogant and condescending as you appear at times accusing another of being the same. Notwithstanding your comment, my post was simply a link followed by a cut'n paste excerpt from it. Your sensitivity to expressed beliefs that stray from your own is evident. Personally, I realize there are various Faiths from which to choose in showing respect, without buying necessarily into any or all of them.

BTW, please, in my quote of you above: "Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable," what was your predicate to be for subject 'Slatten' in your failed attempt at a complete sentence

Lastly, Zemirah, neither the link nor the excerpt consisted of my words, but Tesla's. And, despite what you may think or believe, the intent of my post was to show that religion and science can/do co-exist.

Reply
May 24, 2019 14:15:37   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Zemirah wrote:
I believe in this day and age, Permafrost, that anyone over two can do a similar search in five seconds.

There is no "accomplishment" involved.

On what, exactly, do you base your belief that, and I quote "Now, everyone knows that for centuries the home of education was in monasteries built by roman Catholics.."

I certainly did not know that. No one I know "knows" that, nor do I believe it is either fact, or relative to my topic.

I am impressed with your personal knowledge of the explorer Columbus, credited with officially making the most important discovery recorded in the history of mankind, second only to the revelation that God, in human form, had chosen to dwell among us, and effect our salvation, for those who are willing to accept.

To declare Christopher Coumbus so totally devoid of any humane qualities or virtues is remarkable. If only, he could speak, one can only surmise that his opinion on your life's accomplishments might be less harsh.

Again, that's all quite interesting, but irrelevant to my topic.
I believe in this day and age, Permafrost, that an... (show quote)



maybe it is indeed irrelevant to you topic.. what ever that was..

If you feel that Monasteries and the church were not the home of education and the scientific research for the 13 to 17th centuries, where do you thing it took place?

At least one settlement of vikings and possably Chinese were in North America 3 hundred years before
Columbus sailed the ocean blue..

Columbus had word of mouth reports, people had found Eskimo bodies in the north Atlantic and a report that Columbus had a map..

Columbus also made s***es of the natives on the Caribbean island and this k**led the overwhelming majority of these natives..

But I digress and you say i am off topic, so proceed with you post and my apologies for the diversion..



Reply
 
 
May 24, 2019 17:17:53   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Slatten,

By posting only the 2nd half of my written thought, you neglected to include the entire first half of what was intended to be one sentence... I inadvertently hit the period rather than comma, however reading through this:

"I did not post this information with any intent of discussing evolution versus Creationism, however, I believe that [b]your posted editorial of reference;/b] went straight to the heart of the matter. Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable."

By quoting only my last phrase (whether to be devious, deceitful and duplicitous), or because you failed to recognize a complete thought, you have created the impression that my intended sentence was incomplete?

Why would you do that?

By omitting my beginning, you also availed yourself of the privilege of concealing my obvious understanding that the paragraphs I found demeaning were not of your composition, as I would expect nothing original of you once you meander outside the slapstick comedy of "chit-chat."

Again, I did not accuse you of being smug, arrogant and condescending, though you may very well be;

I accessed the link you provided, and my remarks were aimed at your referenced post, AS I SAID.

What a completely ignorant discussion to be having.

I've spent forty years in Comparative Religion, Slatten, and have studied the doctrines and founders of most of the world's major religions and cults.

I never condemn individuals, only doctrines. Those who are trapped by false religious leaders, and their cultic dogmas and doctrines are to be prayed for.

There is a profound difference.

I will never understand why so many can not separate the individual from their professed beliefs. Anyone can change their beliefs at will,if given the background, and motivation of it's founder.

The subject phrase of the sentence was within the two phrases above which you neglected to post. The ending phrase which you managed to post "solo" was the predicate phrase.

Really, that is your artificially created concern?

FYI, within my extended family, is a native of Kodiak Island off the Alaskan coast who participates in rituals deifying the Earth Goddess. There are Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and those who abstain.

I have, thus far, managed not to stone any of them.

I believe we have a mutual failure to communicate.

I have no animosity toward you, though I believe you just did a little twisting of facts to facilitate accusing me of a failure in punctuation.

Irritating I may be, stupid I am not.

Let me add a final thought; I don't give a rat's posterior about Grammar 101. There are far more important things to consider.

(Added by Edit)

My son-in-law, whom I love dearly, was raised Catholic, his parents are still Catholic.

He does not attend the Catholic church, but attends a mainline Protestant church with my daughter and grandchildren.

I reiterate, I oppose anti-Biblical doctrines, and not people.


[quote=slatten49]Zemirah,
Quote:
"Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable."

It was amusing to read from one as smug, arrogant and condescending as you appear at times accusing another of being the same. Notwithstanding your comment, my post was simply a link followed by a cut'n paste excerpt from it. Your sensitivity to expressed beliefs that stray from your own is evident. Personally, I realize there are various Faiths from which to choose in showing respect, without buying necessarily into any or all of them.

BTW, please, in my quote of you above: "Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior t***h twisting imaginable," what was your predicate to be for subject 'Slatten' in your failed attempt at a complete sentence

Lastly, Zemirah, neither the link nor the excerpt consisted of my words, but Tesla's. And, despite what you may think or believe, the intent of my post was to show that religion and science can/do co-exist.
"Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescen... (show quote)

Reply
May 24, 2019 18:53:02   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
My topic was on modern science having been made possible by the mindset and worldview of believing Christian scientists.

Why are you specifically interested in the 13th to 17th century? How about the 1st to the 21st century?

monastery (n.) "place of residence occupied in common by persons seeking religious seclusion from the world,"

Jesus instructed His followers to let their "light" shine as an inspiration before men. One cannot do that from a monastery. It is a selfish pursuit. Nowhere throughout the Bible do God's people live in monasteries. They lived in families.

The traditional account of Christian monasticism begins with St Paul of Thebes retreating to a cave in the Egyptian desert in AD 250 to avoid the persecution initiated by Decius. St Paul himself is probably a mythical figure, but there may well have been Egyptian hermits at this time. At the other end of the north African coast the bishop of Carthage, St Cyprian, goes into hiding in the same year and for the same reason.

There are Christian hermits in Egypt by the early 4th century. The best known of them is St Anthony, whose Famous temptations take lurid and often sexual forms which later prove irresistible to generations of painters.

Early in the 4th century, perhaps in response to the new favour shown to Christianity by Emperor Constantine, Anthony organizes other hermits, living nearby in the desert, into a partly shared existence. For most of the week they maintain their solitary life. But on Sundays they come together for worship and a communal meal.

In this there is the beginning of a monastic community. One of the world's oldest monasteries, named after St Anthony and established soon after his death, still survives in the desert near the Red Sea - below the mountain cave in which the saint spent his last years.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ejo#ixzz5oshnymJm

None of that did anything to spread Christianity.

I know there are ancient Viking ruins on the East Coast in the U.S., and the red anchors of the ancient Chinese ships have been found in the waters off California. What is the point?

I believe you missed it.

The ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion",however, certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in literature in the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" (from the studies of "natural philosophy") and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries - partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization.

The term "scientist" was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.

The vast majority of the natives on the Caribbean islands, just as those in the U.S., died after exposure to another culture's bacteria and v***ses because they had no immunity.

I know you have no interest in my topic, so, "never mind."

You furry friend suits you.

I too have a little buddy, a fat, frisky red fox squirrel who romps across my back deck railing almost every morning.



permafrost wrote:
maybe it is indeed irrelevant to you topic.. what ever that was..

If you feel that Monasteries and the church were not the home of education and the scientific research for the 13 to 17th centuries, where do you thing it took place?

At least one settlement of vikings and possably Chinese were in North America 3 hundred years before
Columbus sailed the ocean blue..

Columbus had word of mouth reports, people had found Eskimo bodies in the north Atlantic and a report that Columbus had a map..

Columbus also made s***es of the natives on the Caribbean island and this k**led the overwhelming majority of these natives..

But I digress and you say i am off topic, so proceed with you post and my apologies for the diversion..
maybe it is indeed irrelevant to you topic.. what ... (show quote)

photo taken from my kitchen window
photo taken from my kitchen window...

Reply
May 24, 2019 19:09:30   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Zemirah wrote:
My topic was on modern science having been made possible by the mindset and worldview of believing Christian scientists.

Why are you specifically interested in the 13th to 17th century? How about the 1st to the 21st century?

monastery (n.) "place of residence occupied in common by persons seeking religious seclusion from the world,"

Jesus instructed His followers to let their "light" shine as an inspiration before men. One cannot do that from a monastery. It is a selfish pursuit. Nowhere throughout the Bible do God's people live in monasteries. They lived in families.

The traditional account of Christian monasticism begins with St Paul of Thebes retreating to a cave in the Egyptian desert in AD 250 to avoid the persecution initiated by Decius. St Paul himself is probably a mythical figure, but there may well have been Egyptian hermits at this time. At the other end of the north African coast the bishop of Carthage, St Cyprian, goes into hiding in the same year and for the same reason.

There are Christian hermits in Egypt by the early 4th century. The best known of them is St Anthony, whose Famous temptations take lurid and often sexual forms which later prove irresistible to generations of painters.

Early in the 4th century, perhaps in response to the new favour shown to Christianity by Emperor Constantine, Anthony organizes other hermits, living nearby in the desert, into a partly shared existence. For most of the week they maintain their solitary life. But on Sundays they come together for worship and a communal meal.

In this there is the beginning of a monastic community. One of the world's oldest monasteries, named after St Anthony and established soon after his death, still survives in the desert near the Red Sea - below the mountain cave in which the saint spent his last years.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ejo#ixzz5oshnymJm

None of that did anything to spread Christianity.

I know there are ancient Viking ruins on the East Coast in the U.S., and the red anchors of the ancient Chinese ships have been found in the waters off California. What is the point?

I believe you missed it.

The ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion",however, certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in literature in the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" (from the studies of "natural philosophy") and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries - partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization.

The term "scientist" was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.

The vast majority of the natives on the Caribbean islands, just as those in the U.S., died after exposure to another culture's bacteria and v***ses because they had no immunity.

I know you have no interest in my topic, so, "never mind."

You furry friend suits you.

I too have a little buddy, a fat, frisky red fox squirrel who romps across my back deck railing almost every morning.
My topic was on modern science having been made po... (show quote)




Truly a nice companion on your Picture.. very nice..

My use of the time line I put in was very arbitrary and by no means meant to be accurate.. only that at the general time of the middle ages, the monasteries were the center of education..

Visits to caves... I can not resist,, do you consider Muhammad s visit to the cave to get the word of God from Jesus as part of these cave assemblies?

Interesting post.. I enjoyed it.. thanks... have a nice evening..



Reply
May 24, 2019 19:29:40   #
Hug
 
Great conversation! I learn by reading the posts. Thank you.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.