[Buddha-l] it's not about belief -= science & Christian religion

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, curt wrote:

> SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
> >Then it could well be the case that Curt was speaking of some perceived dominant attitude towards science.  That said, I wonder how much he has read in patristics or even mediaeval theology.  Many Church Fathers and later theologian utilized the science of their day in their theologizing, their exegesis, etc.  Basil the Great easily comes to mind, as does Aquinas.  So, even on this count, I judge that Curt's remarks were ultimately specious.
> >
> >
> >
> Its hard for me to understand how anyone can claim that its difficult to
> ascribe responsibility to "Christendom". Throughout most of its history,
> Christianity has been a highly centralized, tightly controlled
> institution. Between the 6th and 18th centuries there were no
> free-thinking individualist Christians just running around following
> their bliss - ask the Albigensians.

Curt,

Your claims here are simply fantastic.  Obviously your strengths do not
lie in the development of Catholic and Orthodox or even Protrestant
ecclesiologies.  Your reading of church history is at best anachronistic.
For instance, the papacy as we know it does not take shape until the 13th
century.  850 years does not constitute "most of the [Church's 2000-year]
history."  If you think there were hardly any free-thinking individualist
Christians prior to the 18th century, then you have little understanding
of what constitutes what many Christians deemed heresy.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro