Religion has never been an important part of my life growing up. I don't have faith in a specific religion, but I have some of what one might call beliefs that are of religious nature. For instance, I believe in karma, I believe in destiny and I believe in natural order as some sort of higher power.
Then I grew up, and was told about the outline of some of the biggest religions of the world and some of its history. I know that religious people would hate me for it, but three of the major religions in the world come from the same thing. I cannot understand war between people with different religions, and I understand even less when it's between religions that ultimately have the same origin, and as far as I'm concerned, they are all man made. This is far beyond me. To me that is the same as killing someone because their favorite color is not the same as yours or because they think their mother is better than yours?! What the....?!
But, when I look at the state of current state of affairs, I can't help but think this is medieval. Maybe when civilization was at another stage of development it made sense to have religion to explain some things. But does it have to last this long? Do we not wish to progress and move forward?
Sudan/South Sudan was such an example.
Palestine/Israel still is.
ISIS is also.
Rohingya is another.
Not to mention others less covered by media, Chad, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo, Uganda. I'm sure there are more that I don't read about as often. But does it really make sense to fight each others differences? I don't consider myself as a pacifist, but wars about religion are ones I'll never understand. Maybe this is a sacrilege to some, but religion is man made! I will never understand religious grounds for armed conflict or opression. To me it's just ridiculous to fight over something made up.
Enlighten me if you believe otherwise.
37 comments:
"as far as I'm concerned, they are all man made."
If a Muslim and a Christian were agreeing with you, they would not be a Muslim and a Christian.
"because their favorite color is not the same as yours"
No, because they have ultimately different views of what is right or wrong. What man can do to himself or others.
"But, when I look at the state of current state of affairs, I can't help but think this is medieval."
What is wrong with the Middle Ages?
"Maybe when civilization was at another stage of development it made sense to have religion to explain some things."
What exactly do you mean by "stage of development"?
When and why did this case to make sense, according to you?
"But does it have to last this long? Do we not wish to progress and move forward?"
I don't know where you are implying we should move to.
"NOT KILLING FOR RELIGION" either implies not killing for ultimate convictions or not having religion as an ultimate conviction.
And this "not" is also not a positive state of society which it would make sense to move to, it is only a negative desideratum for some, like you, telling us where we should move away from. Perhaps the point is, some states of society have shown themselves very much sth to move away from, and people are disagreeing on where to move TO?
Also, wishing for progress and for moving forward won't make it happen. I'm adressing this in this story.
"as far as I'm concerned, they are all man made."
«If a Muslim and a Christian were agreeing with you, they would not be a Muslim and a Christian.»
- I know at least one christian that would agree with me. But you are correct, most wouldn't agree with me. And that' all right.
"because their favorite color is not the same as yours"
«No, because they have ultimately different views of what is right or wrong. What man can do to himself or others.»
- I can't really elaborate since I'm not that knowledgeable about religion, but from what my religious friends tell me about their religion, and what I've read so far "ultimately different views of what is right and wrong" does not apply, most of the values written in the religious texts are the same or very similar. There might be some differences, but not something I consider critical or major. Please give an example of what you consider as a big difference in as least two religions of your choice.
"But, when I look at the state of current state of affairs, I can't help but think this is medieval."
«What is wrong with the Middle Ages?»
- Ehmmm... many things? war, famine, dark ages of art and knowledge, witch hunt, the plague... We've learned and moved on from there, or at least I thought we did.
"Maybe when civilization was at another stage of development it made sense to have religion to explain some things."
«What exactly do you mean by "stage of development"?
When and why did this case to make sense, according to you?»
- As civilization we evolved from rudimentary to this complex society, and we started to fill our reality with different kinds of knowledge. What I feel like might have made sense is that back then, we one could not explain the causal relation between certain events, it made sense to have religion give those answers. Because we fear uncertainty, religion gives us a sense of security. I think that nowadays, religion is starting to lose its meaning. We can explain many of the inexplicable events back then.
"But does it have to last this long? Do we not wish to progress and move forward?"
«I don't know where you are implying we should move to.»
- What I mean is we seem to work hard toward the goal of achieving peace and understanding, and yet we take one step forward, two steps back... sometimes, it's frustrating.
«"NOT KILLING FOR RELIGION" either implies not killing for ultimate convictions or not having religion as an ultimate conviction.»
- Religion as an ultimate conviction, I think I can somehow deal with it, but killing for ultimate convictions, is probably something I can't deal with.
«And this "not" is also not a positive state of society which it would make sense to move to, it is only a negative desideratum for some, like you, telling us where we should move away from. Perhaps the point is, some states of society have shown themselves very much sth to move away from, and people are disagreeing on where to move TO?»
- I don't tell people what to do, that's not something I do, I just like to put somethings on the table for consideration. I want to hear other people's It makes sense that people are disagreeing on where to move to, and it's also a good thing that maybe they disagree, because that would mean they have given it thought. Also disagreeing means there are different ideas, and that is usually better than one. There is also something called compromise. Different ideas can become one.
«Also, wishing for progress and for moving forward won't make it happen. I'm adressing this in this story.»
- Yes, true. Wishing it won't make it happen. That's why we should work on it as a whole, isn't it? Any suggestions?
//"as far as I'm concerned, they are all man made."
«If a Muslim and a Christian were agreeing with you, they would not be a Muslim and a Christian.»
- I know at least one christian that would agree with me. But you are correct, most wouldn't agree with me. And that' all right.//
If he agrees with you Christianity is man made, he is not a CHristian. He may be a cultural Christian, he may be taking some moral advice from Christianity, but he's not a Christian.
//"because their favorite color is not the same as yours"
«No, because they have ultimately different views of what is right or wrong. What man can do to himself or others.»
- I can't really elaborate since I'm not that knowledgeable about religion, but from what my religious friends tell me about their religion, and what I've read so far "ultimately different views of what is right and wrong" does not apply, most of the values written in the religious texts are the same or very similar. There might be some differences, but not something I consider critical or major. Please give an example of what you consider as a big difference in as least two religions of your choice.//
Take Christianity and Islam. Three connected differences.
1) to Muslims, "if a large amount intoxicates, even a small amount is prohibited", to Christians moderate drinking of alcohol is clearly permitted and in some medical cases even recommended (against constipation and for heart)
2) to Muslims, you can enslave someone because he refuses to become a Muslim, which is largely what the Arabic slave hunt among black Africans was about (this means someone who refuses to give up moderate drinking is fair game), while to Christians, only grave crimes can justify any kind of enslavement (confer prison as penal slavery, with the fact that in Saudi Arabia a man can be whipped for drinking small amounts of alcohol)
3) to Muslims, divorce is allowed, and even a woman may divorce a non-Muslim husband to marry a Muslim - to Christians, non-Christian couples are sacred except when the remaining non-Christian partner makes life hard for a Christian wife or husband, and so the new Christian must usually remain faithful to the non-Christian partner.
//"But, when I look at the state of current state of affairs, I can't help but think this is medieval."
«What is wrong with the Middle Ages?»
- Ehmmm... many things? war, famine, dark ages of art and knowledge, witch hunt, the plague... We've learned and moved on from there, or at least I thought we did.//
Wars between 1200 and 1300 in Europe clearly took away a lesser percentage of European population than between 1900 and 2000.
Famine is happening now too.
Dark ages if art and knowledge is a myth.
Witch hunt was ongoing in Germany at the very end of the Middle Ages, and there seems to have actually been a serious witch cult, among other things culpable of providing abortion.
The Black Death was a plague in any European country in one or two of the three years from 1347 to 1349. In Romania it started in 1347 and in Ireland it ended in 1349. It did not last to 1349 in Romania and it did not begin in 1347 in Ireland. Middle Ages lasted from, for one count of them, from 4th of September 476 AD to 29th of May 1453 (fall of West Rome to fall of Constantinople). Black Death was 3 years out of 977:
1453
0476
0977
Other plagues involve the last plague in France, which was in Marseille 1720, under Louis XV, well after Middle Ages.
Also, since you mentioned art, Decamerone was written due to the plague in Florence (Black Death or other, not sure).
So, plague was neither typical of Middle Ages nor exclusive of them and certainly not without contradictions to your other criteria.
We've learned ... like what?
//"Maybe when civilization was at another stage of development it made sense to have religion to explain some things."
«What exactly do you mean by "stage of development"?
When and why did this case to make sense, according to you?»
- As civilization we evolved from rudimentary to this complex society, and we started to fill our reality with different kinds of knowledge. What I feel like might have made sense is that back then, we one could not explain the causal relation between certain events, it made sense to have religion give those answers. Because we fear uncertainty, religion gives us a sense of security. I think that nowadays, religion is starting to lose its meaning. We can explain many of the inexplicable events back then.//
You are:
* supposing people in Middle Ages had no knowledge?
* and supposing they considered a lot of things inexplicable?
The fact is, what passes culturally for knowledge has changed and therefore explanations have changed.
//"But does it have to last this long? Do we not wish to progress and move forward?"
«I don't know where you are implying we should move to.»
- What I mean is we seem to work hard toward the goal of achieving peace and understanding, and yet we take one step forward, two steps back... sometimes, it's frustrating.//
We seems to work hard for global peace and understanding? Who is? People who make serious efforts to misunderstand all religious people?
// «"NOT KILLING FOR RELIGION" either implies not killing for ultimate convictions or not having religion as an ultimate conviction.»
- Religion as an ultimate conviction, I think I can somehow deal with it, but killing for ultimate convictions, is probably something I can't deal with.//
OK, so you can live with a Tommy killing Jerries for bombing London, but you can't live with a Tommy killing Jerries because he hates Nazis?
// «And this "not" is also not a positive state of society which it would make sense to move to, it is only a negative desideratum for some, like you, telling us where we should move away from. Perhaps the point is, some states of society have shown themselves very much sth to move away from, and people are disagreeing on where to move TO?»
- I don't tell people what to do, that's not something I do, I just like to put somethings on the table for consideration. I want to hear other people's It makes sense that people are disagreeing on where to move to, and it's also a good thing that maybe they disagree, because that would mean they have given it thought. Also disagreeing means there are different ideas, and that is usually better than one. There is also something called compromise. Different ideas can become one.//
What you express is partly a good general attitude, I say partly, but hardly something which atheism is in practise contributing to.
Also, how do you compromise about ultimates?
Churchill offers Hitler a compromise : "you can boycott Jewish business on Sundays, but not on Saturdays"
Hitler agrees, guess why?
// «Also, wishing for progress and for moving forward won't make it happen. I'm adressing this in this story.»
- Yes, true. Wishing it won't make it happen. That's why we should work on it as a whole, isn't it? Any suggestions? //
How about moving forward from atheism and misunderstanding religion and religious wars? Some of them might have been ended already, if not so misunderstood.
«If he agrees with you Christianity is man made, he is not a CHristian. He may be a cultural Christian, he may be taking some moral advice from Christianity, but he's not a Christian.»
- Alright, if that's what you consider a christian, then point taken.
«Take Christianity and Islam. Three connected differences.
1) to Muslims, "if a large amount intoxicates, even a small amount is prohibited", to Christians moderate drinking of alcohol is clearly permitted and in some medical cases even recommended (against constipation and for heart)
2) to Muslims, you can enslave someone because he refuses to become a Muslim, which is largely what the Arabic slave hunt among black Africans was about (this means someone who refuses to give up moderate drinking is fair game), while to Christians, only grave crimes can justify any kind of enslavement (confer prison as penal slavery, with the fact that in Saudi Arabia a man can be whipped for drinking small amounts of alcohol)
3) to Muslims, divorce is allowed, and even a woman may divorce a non-Muslim husband to marry a Muslim - to Christians, non-Christian couples are sacred except when the remaining non-Christian partner makes life hard for a Christian wife or husband, and so the new Christian must usually remain faithful to the non-Christian partner.»
- 1) Didn't know about that, but this would be one example of things I consider that made sense before, but not nowadays. Nowadays there is evidence that large amounts and small amounts of the same substance may have largely different effects. Holding the premise "if a large amount intoxicates, even a small amount is prohibited" doesn't make sense anymore. But yes, if that's true then it would be a difference between these two religions.
2) Is there a clear passage in the religious scriptures that states so? Many scriptures leave a lot to interpretation. Slavery was common practice in ancient history. Interpretation may be inclined towards that way. Aren't the texts regarding slavery equally vague and contradictory in both religions? So far, it seems to me that to both religions slave are only allowed if they are not from the ruling religion (Muslims can enslave non muslims and Christians can enslave non christians). But both religions also say something as to regard others as free men and equal to them. So, I wouldn't consider that as much of a difference.
3) It is possible to divorce for christians, though it looks a lot harder than it does for the muslims. But both religions regard marriage as something solemn and divorce should not be regarded lightly. There are more reasonable options for muslims to get a divorce than christians, from what I read so far though.
«Wars between 1200 and 1300 in Europe clearly took away a lesser percentage of European population than between 1900 and 2000.»
- Ok, maybe sadly we just escalated that part...
«Famine is happening now too.»
- Yes, but not as widespread as back then I think? Considering the many fold population has increased, I wouldn't expect famine to just disappear.
«Dark ages if art and knowledge is a myth.»
- Ok, so remarkable art and science works from early middle age are just as many as other time periods?
«Witch hunt was ongoing in Germany at the very end of the Middle Ages, and there seems to have actually been a serious witch cult, among other things culpable of providing abortion.»
-Thankfully we don't see widespread witch hunt now, cult or not.
«The Black Death was a plague in any European country in one or two of the three years from 1347 to 1349. In Romania it started in 1347 and in Ireland it ended in 1349. It did not last to 1349 in Romania and it did not begin in 1347 in Ireland. Middle Ages lasted from, for one count of them, from 4th of September 476 AD to 29th of May 1453 (fall of West Rome to fall of Constantinople). Black Death was 3 years out of 977:
1453
0476
0977
Other plagues involve the last plague in France, which was in Marseille 1720, under Louis XV, well after Middle Ages.
Also, since you mentioned art, Decamerone was written due to the plague in Florence (Black Death or other, not sure).
So, plague was neither typical of Middle Ages nor exclusive of them and certainly not without contradictions to your other criteria.»
- Yes, not exclusive certainly, but we are now better prepared to fight it off.
I've read and seen some art and literature from that time period but doesn't seem as well preserved or as many.
«We've learned ... like what?»
- Do you mean that we haven't learned anything from then to now? I think we've learned from the plagues and improved medicine. I think we learned from the world wars (I'm hoping we still remember those lessons, because we certainly don't look like we do.) We try harder to solve conflicts through negotiation. We learned that by helping others we help ourselves too (well, sort of.) The economy, societal system and political system, has become more developed and complex.
«You are:
* supposing people in Middle Ages had no knowledge?
* and supposing they considered a lot of things inexplicable?
The fact is, what passes culturally for knowledge has changed and therefore explanations have changed.»
- Precisely. A lot of religious explanations can be explained by other means now and a lots of scripture passages cannot be taken as literally. Otherwise, we would be exactly at the same spot as before.
«We seems to work hard for global peace and understanding? Who is? People who make serious efforts to misunderstand all religious people?»
- We, generally speaking as civilization. Do we not work for peace and understanding? Then what are we working for?
«OK, so you can live with a Tommy killing Jerries for bombing London, but you can't live with a Tommy killing Jerries because he hates Nazis?»
- The first, probably, the second, definitely.
«What you express is partly a good general attitude, I say partly, but hardly something which atheism is in practise contributing to.
Also, how do you compromise about ultimates?»
- Urgh, true, you don’t make a compromise on what you believe is absolute. I get that most people have something that they absolutely believe in and are not willing to compromise, but this is something that even if I get it, I can’t understand in the sense that I can’t put myself in the same place.
Can someone still believe in their ultimate believes if proven wrong?
«Churchill offers Hitler a compromise : "you can boycott Jewish business on Sundays, but not on Saturdays"
Hitler agrees, guess why?»
- Sorry, don’t understand what you are getting to.
«How about moving forward from atheism and misunderstanding religion and religious wars? Some of them might have been ended already, if not so misunderstood.»
- Maybe. I’m thinking more secularism, religion to religion, politics to politics. Don't you think that's possible?
Why would you think that some religious wars might have ended already if not misunderstood?
1) Didn't know about that, but this would be one example of things I consider that made sense before, but not nowadays. Nowadays there is evidence that large amounts and small amounts of the same substance may have largely different effects. Holding the premise "if a large amount intoxicates, even a small amount is prohibited" doesn't make sense anymore. But yes, if that's true then it would be a difference between these two religions."
It never made sense in the first place.
"2) Is there a clear passage in the religious scriptures that states so? Many scriptures leave a lot to interpretation. Slavery was common practice in ancient history. Interpretation may be inclined towards that way. Aren't the texts regarding slavery equally vague and contradictory in both religions? So far, it seems to me that to both religions slave are only allowed if they are not from the ruling religion (Muslims can enslave non muslims and Christians can enslave non christians). But both religions also say something as to regard others as free men and equal to them. So, I wouldn't consider that as much of a difference."
I am talking about historical Islam, just as I am defending historical Catholicism. This means, we are not just dealing with texts when dealing with religions, we are dealing with historical interpretations taken by many believers of either as fairly good indications on what the texts mean. I don't dig into the Quran, but I do know what was the motivation for Arab slave hunting (a heretiage from before Mohammed) in Black Africa. Read Coke in Stock, if you want details, the story as such is fiction, but the situation type was alas not invented.
Christianity condones keeping slaves already such, if you treat them well. It condones forcing a Pagan slave to become Christian, even, or at least to abandon idolatry, if he is already a slave. It does not condone chasing someone down who has been free, and enslaving him, just because of idolatry.
"Aren't the texts regarding slavery equally vague and contradictory in both religions?"
No. The Christian texts are very clear it is a good thing to liberate a slave. It is a way for a master to get people to pray for him when he died, so fear of Hell and of pains in Purgatory literally freed slave after slave under century after century, counting from conversion of Roman Empire (a clear slave state, heritage from paganism) to a France which offered any slave on French metropolitan soil who claimed his freedom this freedom as claimed (Jefferson was warned he should bring a slave not knowing French and unlikely to apply for it, when visiting France).
One Muslim text, not sure if in Qoran or a Hadith, says "the first man to enter paradise is a slave obeying his master". In other words, in Islam, hopes of Heaven and fears of Hell really are making slavery more strict.
"(Muslims can enslave non muslims and Christians can enslave non christians)"
False. A Muslim according to his religion can enslave a non-Muslim for refusing to either become Muslim, or, if Christian or Jew, pay the tax to become a Dhimi.
A Christian according to his can only enslave a clear criminal, like putting Al Capone in prison was not illegal slave hunt, despite depriving him of liberties usually belonging to man, because he committed crimes. I am here speaking of the Catholic view, some Protestants may have taken a more Muslim like view historically.
"But both religions also say something as to regard others as free men and equal to them."
Can you document that for Muslims, from their texts? Or is it just something you have heard?
"3) It is possible to divorce for christians, though it looks a lot harder than it does for the muslims. But both religions regard marriage as something solemn and divorce should not be regarded lightly. There are more reasonable options for muslims to get a divorce than christians, from what I read so far though."
For a Catholic, divorce and remarriage is not possible. Exception, if a non-Catholic and never baptised couple has one person converting, and the other person harassing, the purely natural, non-sacramental, marriage can be dissolved.
If you discover you accidentally married your own brother, you don't end marriage by "divorce" before marrying someone else, you end a pretended marriaged by annulment. Because (generations later than sons and daughters of Adam and Eve) sex between siblings is incest and excludes real marriage.
"- Ok, maybe sadly we just escalated that part..."
Yes.
"- Yes, but not as widespread as back then I think? Considering the many fold population has increased, I wouldn't expect famine to just disappear."
Not as widespread? In the Middle Ages, you had a little famine there and a little famine there and another little famine some other place, and relief came fairly quickly, because the next place where crops were good was not that far off.
In the 20th C, famines have arguably been much more intense and killed lots more, as did also the Potato famine in Ireland, where the tenants who grew potato against growing wheat for their landlords were not given any wheat. Next great famine was in Ukraine, under Communism.
"- Ok, so remarkable art and science works from early middle age are just as many as other time periods?"
Art works, yes.
Science as speculative science, perhaps less so, but some everyday technology was given priority : ploughs with iron bills, riding with stirrups, a few like that.
"-Thankfully we don't see widespread witch hunt now, cult or not."
Cults providing abortions and promising to manipulate people for "falling in love" or for impotence do deserve some hunting by justice.
"- Yes, not exclusive certainly, but we are now better prepared to fight it off."
No, since more intense travel makes for easier pandemia. If plague per se has abated, we have seen other diseases take its place.
"I've read and seen some art and literature from that time period but doesn't seem as well preserved or as many."
Well preserved is a matter of what happened after that time period, and that involves how much of it survives as well. You have LOTS more from European Middle Ages, even Early Middle Ages, than from Ancient Egypt.
At least literature.
"- Do you mean that we haven't learned anything from then to now?"
Changes in knowledge involve both learning and forgetting. We have done both. I meant which learnings are so precious that they merit a prefernce of this century over Middle Ages? Btw, glad you didn't say "Evolution" or "Heliocentrism". Thanks. Some would have.
"I think we've learned from the plagues and improved medicine."
Any new challenge improves medicine, and fighting plagues between Black Death and last plague of Marseille was quite a well studied art.
As modern medicine depends largely on synthetic pharmaceutics, I am afraid some of the natural (herbal, dietic) cures may have been lost.
"I think we learned from the world wars (I'm hoping we still remember those lessons, because we certainly don't look like we do.)"
I actually trust the look of it. In the Middle Ages, people were better at avoiding protracted and widespread conflict than now, especially between Christian Europeans, but even between Europeans and Muslims.
"We try harder to solve conflicts through negotiation."
Harder than in the Middle Ages? Look up herald and Treuga Dei, will you! Oh, I just found there was no English article on wiki, though German and French ones.
"We learned that by helping others we help ourselves too (well, sort of.)"
No, we do that less now than in the Middle Ages. Look up alms. See where hospitals got their doctors from and who could enter.
20th C, NYC somewhere : "no, we can't take you, you don't have a health insurance"
13th C, Paris Hôtel Dieu : "no, we can't take you, you are too rich, go home, we'll send you a doctor when he's free, and you'll pay him, stingy rich man, right now he's occupied with some paupers who have a right to be here!"
"- Precisely. A lot of religious explanations can be explained by other means now ..."
Supposing these other means are actually explaining what they pretend to explain, and supposing they are correct explanations.
"and a lots of scripture passages cannot be taken as literally."
Not a single one. Name one taken literally then and which "we cannot" take literally now. Are you fine with me linking to a blogpost on my own blogs where I answered, so we can have the general discussion here?
"Otherwise, we would be exactly at the same spot as before."
We are. It is a tiny spot, some places at least somewhat dirty, in the middle of the Universe. It is called Earth.
"- We, generally speaking as civilization. Do we not work for peace and understanding? Then what are we working for?"
If civilisation is run by Illuminati, it is in practise working for the disasters it pretends to work against. If it isn't, the nincompoops are doing a great work pretending to be smart conspiracies, just by being stupid. You are aware World Trade Centre was built so high in the 70's, by one Nelson Rockefeller's orders, in a world which already had airplanes?
"- The first, probably, the second, definitely."
Oh, you can't live with his killing Nazis, sorry, I thought you could - in that case you would have examplified understanding for killing over world views. Sorry if I misunderstood you - or did I?
"- Urgh, true, you don’t make a compromise on what you believe is absolute. I get that most people have something that they absolutely believe in and are not willing to compromise, but this is something that even if I get it, I can’t understand in the sense that I can’t put myself in the same place. Can someone still believe in their ultimate believes if proven wrong?"
How many Evolutionists have changed because they have been proven wrong by Creationists?
"- Sorry, don’t understand what you are getting to."
I was examplifying compromise on ultimates. I was also spoofing in saying "you can't boycott Jewish business on Saturdays" - it's the day when Jews can't do business if observant.
"- Maybe. I’m thinking more secularism, religion to religion, politics to politics. Don't you think that's possible?"
I think it is an idea which is much more attractive to atheists than to either Christians or Muslims. It is therefore not a solution to conflicts between Christians and Muslims, it is a third party to the conflict instead.
"Why would you think that some religious wars might have ended already if not misunderstood? "
1) Palestinian conflict would have been better resolved if some politicians had got that being pro-Palestinian is not just a case of being pro-Muslim, and if they had got that, though the Jew in Israel just might approve of a Christian Palestinian as an ally against Muslims at present, he traditionally is not in favour of Christians.
2) Afghanistan conflict would have been better resolved if Bush had issued a Crusade to protect Christians a month before 9-11 rather than a Crusade for Democracy after 9-11.
3) France has been targetting "fundie Muslims" as "potential terrorists" that some have become terrorists, and has also targetted at least one fundie Christian as a hazard, namely me, whose blogs have not been very printed or compositions very played, meaning I still live in the street. Do some people really seriously think that a person of roughly speaking fundie Muslim loyalties will be friendlier to France if his wife and daughters are not allowed to wear a veil? Or if his son in school is heavily bombarded by Evolutionist material, while Creationist material is treated like the Plague?
«It never made sense in the first place.»
It did, if something is poisonous you avoid it, it’s natural instinct written down. But that knowledge evolved, and now we know different, and so it doesn’t make sense anymore.
«I am talking about historical Islam, just as I am defending historical Catholicism. This means, we are not just dealing with texts when dealing with religions, we are dealing with historical interpretations taken by many believers of either as fairly good indications on what the texts mean. I don't dig into the Quran, but I do know what was the motivation for Arab slave hunting (a heretiage from before Mohammed) in Black Africa. Read Coke in Stock, if you want details, the story as such is fiction, but the situation type was alas not invented.
Christianity condones keeping slaves already such, if you treat them well. It condones forcing a Pagan slave to become Christian, even, or at least to abandon idolatry, if he is already a slave. It does not condone chasing someone down who has been free, and enslaving him, just because of idolatry.»
Crusades.
«No. The Christian texts are very clear it is a good thing to liberate a slave. It is a way for a master to get people to pray for him when he died, so fear of Hell and of pains in Purgatory literally freed slave after slave under century after century, counting from conversion of Roman Empire (a clear slave state, heritage from paganism) to a France which offered any slave on French metropolitan soil who claimed his freedom this freedom as claimed (Jefferson was warned he should bring a slave not knowing French and unlikely to apply for it, when visiting France).
One Muslim text, not sure if in Qoran or a Hadith, says "the first man to enter paradise is a slave obeying his master". In other words, in Islam, hopes of Heaven and fears of Hell really are making slavery more strict.»
Are you sure that’s what the verse means?
“And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.” From Quran
Slave being a word highly contested in translations, where many prefer servant or those the right hand owns. Since I can’t read Arabic, it’s quite a problem for me to understand this.
«False. A Muslim according to his religion can enslave a non-Muslim for refusing to either become Muslim, or, if Christian or Jew, pay the tax to become a Dhimi.
A Christian according to his can only enslave a clear criminal, like putting Al Capone in prison was not illegal slave hunt, despite depriving him of liberties usually belonging to man, because he committed crimes. I am here speaking of the Catholic view, some Protestants may have taken a more Muslim like view historically.»
That might be the catholic view at a certain point, but since you mentioned historical Catholicism before, catholic church is as guilty regarding slavery. Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex.
«Can you document that for Muslims, from their texts? Or is it just something you have heard?»
“Show kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess.” From Quran
“righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer (...) these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).” From Quran
«For a Catholic, divorce and remarriage is not possible. Exception, if a non-Catholic and never baptised couple has one person converting, and the other person harassing, the purely natural, non-sacramental, marriage can be dissolved.
If you discover you accidentally married your own brother, you don't end marriage by "divorce" before marrying someone else, you end a pretended marriaged by annulment. Because (generations later than sons and daughters of Adam and Eve) sex between siblings is incest and excludes real marriage.»
I’m pretty sure this has no precedent, but if you qualify for an annulment, wouldn’t you be able to marry again?
«Not as widespread? In the Middle Ages, you had a little famine there and a little famine there and another little famine some other place, and relief came fairly quickly, because the next place where crops were good was not that far off.
In the 20th C, famines have arguably been much more intense and killed lots more, as did also the Potato famine in Ireland, where the tenants who grew potato against growing wheat for their landlords were not given any wheat. Next great famine was in Ukraine, under Communism.»
And in terms of time span and percentage of world population?
«Art works, yes.
Science as speculative science, perhaps less so, but some everyday technology was given priority : ploughs with iron bills, riding with stirrups, a few like that.»
Ok.
«Cults providing abortions and promising to manipulate people for "falling in love" or for impotence do deserve some hunting by justice.»
Might require reform of some sort, does not justify a witch hunt, which is what I consider prosecution with grounds on rumors or more like nothing.
«No, since more intense travel makes for easier pandemia. If plague per se has abated, we have seen other diseases take its place.»
And yet, pandemic hasn’t taken out a good percentage of world population as some plagues in history did. (well, maybe except the Spanish flu, not sure how many did that one take) We are better prepared to respond, otherwise Ebola, SARS and avian influenza would have taken out half the world.
«Well preserved is a matter of what happened after that time period, and that involves how much of it survives as well. You have LOTS more from European Middle Ages, even Early Middle Ages, than from Ancient Egypt.
At least literature.»
Yeah, sure, but ancient Egypt is way over a thousand years older than the middle ages. What I’m comparing is postclassical with the ‘classical’ greek and roman. But then again, maybe greek and roman are just better promoted than middle ages. Your take?
«Changes in knowledge involve both learning and forgetting. We have done both. I meant which learnings are so precious that they merit a prefernce of this century over Middle Ages? Btw, glad you didn't say "Evolution" or "Heliocentrism". Thanks. Some would have.»
Because they are built on the knowledge from Middle Ages. That’s why they are ‘so precious’
«Any new challenge improves medicine, and fighting plagues between Black Death and last plague of Marseille was quite a well studied art.
As modern medicine depends largely on synthetic pharmaceutics, I am afraid some of the natural (herbal, dietic) cures may have been lost.»
We are trying not to lose them, but it’s hard with the current paradigm shifting towards mainstream medicine, though not impossible. Efforts are being made.
«I actually trust the look of it. In the Middle Ages, people were better at avoiding protracted and widespread conflict than now, especially between Christian Europeans, but even between Europeans and Muslims.»
Blame globalization, large scale conflict as it is possible now, wasn’t a possibility then.
«Harder than in the Middle Ages? Look up herald and Treuga Dei, will you! Oh, I just found there was no English article on wiki, though German and French ones.»
Right, and results? Right now, NPT isn’t looking good, but I’d say it was still a big step so far. It wasn’t even a possibility in the Middle Ages, I admit, but now, having the possibility and putting it aside sounds to me like a good effort.
«No, we do that less now than in the Middle Ages. Look up alms. See where hospitals got their doctors from and who could enter.
20th C, NYC somewhere : "no, we can't take you, you don't have a health insurance"
13th C, Paris Hôtel Dieu : "no, we can't take you, you are too rich, go home, we'll send you a doctor when he's free, and you'll pay him, stingy rich man, right now he's occupied with some paupers who have a right to be here!»
13th century is middle ages… and about health insurance? There is social security, which in many countries is quite consolidated. There are too many examples of kindness to even count.
«Supposing these other means are actually explaining what they pretend to explain, and supposing they are correct explanations.»
Of course. In the current paradigm, they are true. If in the future, the paradigm shifts, then they might become false, but not until then.
«Not a single one. Name one taken literally then and which "we cannot" take literally now. Are you fine with me linking to a blogpost on my own blogs where I answered, so we can have the general discussion here?»
Link?
«We are. It is a tiny spot, some places at least somewhat dirty, in the middle of the Universe. It is called Earth.»
Not what I meant, but yes that’s true.
«If civilisation is run by Illuminati, it is in practise working for the disasters it pretends to work against. If it isn't, the nincompoops are doing a great work pretending to be smart conspiracies, just by being stupid. You are aware World Trade Centre was built so high in the 70's, by one Nelson Rockefeller's orders, in a world which already had airplanes?»
Your point being?
«Oh, you can't live with his killing Nazis, sorry, I thought you could - in that case you would have examplified understanding for killing over world views. Sorry if I misunderstood you - or did I?»
Killing over world views? No, I can’t understand that.
«How many Evolutionists have changed because they have been proven wrong by Creationists?»
How many?
«I was examplifying compromise on ultimates. I was also spoofing in saying "you can't boycott Jewish business on Saturdays" - it's the day when Jews can't do business if observant.»
Ok, so you’re saying that they won’t compromise unless it’s irrelevant. My frustration precisely.
«I think it is an idea which is much more attractive to atheists than to either Christians or Muslims. It is therefore not a solution to conflicts between Christians and Muslims, it is a third party to the conflict instead.»
Why is it not attractive to either Christians or muslims?
«1) Palestinian conflict would have been better resolved if some politicians had got that being pro-Palestinian is not just a case of being pro-Muslim, and if they had got that, though the Jew in Israel just might approve of a Christian Palestinian as an ally against Muslims at present, he traditionally is not in favour of Christians.
2) Afghanistan conflict would have been better resolved if Bush had issued a Crusade to protect Christians a month before 9-11 rather than a Crusade for Democracy after 9-11.
3) France has been targetting "fundie Muslims" as "potential terrorists" that some have become terrorists, and has also targetted at least one fundie Christian as a hazard, namely me, whose blogs have not been very printed or compositions very played, meaning I still live in the street. Do some people really seriously think that a person of roughly speaking fundie Muslim loyalties will be friendlier to France if his wife and daughters are not allowed to wear a veil? Or if his son in school is heavily bombarded by Evolutionist material, while Creationist material is treated like the Plague?»
1) That conflict is not being resolved regardless of misunderstanding
2) ok
3) Targeting fundamentalists is not misunderstanding religion. It might create a self fulfilling prophecy, but fundamentalist with an inclination towards violent action, tend to move toward ‘potential terrorist’. You can be a religious person and not be a fundamentalist. Surely France does not target all religious people? Evolutionist material vs Creationist material is a matter of science. If current science can prove creationism to be correct, I’m pretty sure schools will start teaching that instead of evolution.
"It did, if something is poisonous you avoid it, it’s natural instinct written down. But that knowledge evolved, and now we know different, and so it doesn’t make sense anymore."
No, the effects of alcohol were known very well long before Mohammed.
It's not "now" we know different, it is already back then.
And he was not pretending even a small amount could be "poisonous", he was pretending it was horribly sinful to get just a little tipsy.
"Crusades."
What exact crusade enslaved any person just for idolatry?
"Are you sure that’s what the verse means?"
I am not even sure it is a verse of the Quran. I do know, that in Christianity, the first man promised Paradise was a robber dying on a cross beside Jesus Christ, not an obedient slave.
I also know, historically, Islam has been more slavehunting. Unless you can show me one Crusade which hunted slaves for the sole crime of idolatry.
“ 'And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.' From Quran
"Slave being a word highly contested in translations, where many prefer servant or those the right hand owns. Since I can’t read Arabic, it’s quite a problem for me to understand this."
The phrase "those the right hand owns" implies slaves. In the case of female slaves with Christian husbands, it also involves the "right" to force them to sexual services. Note that "if you find any good in them" would perhaps not totally per se mean, but usually (at least in some versions) be considered as, if they become Muslims.
Here is an ex-Fundie Muslim who testifies he could find no better explanation about women "the right hand owns":
I Left & Rejected Islam & Muhammad Because of One Verse in the Quran - Testimony
The Endless Love of Jesus Ministries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at8i1tB60Yk
"That might be the catholic view at a certain point, but since you mentioned historical Catholicism before, catholic church is as guilty regarding slavery. Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex."
Looking up. Here is an English text:
Dum Diversas (English Translation)
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.fr/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html
And the context is a population which had not just been killing missionaries, but enslaving Christians too.
It has been abused beyond the Saracen territories in Africa, but note that it is meant to apply to Saracens. I e, Muslims fighting a bitter and sometimes dirty fight against Christians, out of hatred to the Gospel.
Not to, for instance, an Animist in Kalahari or even necessarily someone sacrificing humans among the Ashanti.
The Bull Romanus Pontifex is longer, will you check this link and see if you find anything different?
The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455.
https://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html
Key, the slaves here to be taken are not innocent peaceful Pagans, like Buddhists in Tibet, they are people who have done something to Christians and the two Popes are endorsing retaliation.
The crime of slave hunt (of which the Muslim communities seen by the Portuguese were guilty) is one for which slavery is a correct punishment - whether the offender be African or Arab. Then again, our relations to Arabs during Crusades were somewhat more courteous, it was more often us getting taken as slaves by them, but I think retaliation did come - for those who were identified as carrying weapons to reduce us to slavery.
Note well, there was a Christian population in Palestine which Crusaders were trying to liberate from the Muslim lordship, which had become even more oppressive under Seldjuks than under Arabs.
“Show kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess.” From Quran
“righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer (...) these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).” From Quran
It very certainly means he should regard fellow Muslims as free men.
It is less sure it ever meant, and sure it was not always taken as regarding non-Muslims as free men.
If it meant that, there are other verses in the Quran contradicting it, since Islamic slave hunt was justified by Muslim "theologians".
"I’m pretty sure this has no precedent, but if you qualify for an annulment, wouldn’t you be able to marry again?"
Yes, if you qualify for annulment, like finding out you "married" your brother, you will be able to marry for real after that. But it would be the first marriage, not really again.
And if a husband (or wife) dies, you are able to marry again.
"And in terms of time span and percentage of world population?"
I think the famines in Ukraine were longer than any in the Middle Ages. And involved more death where it happened.
Percentage of world population, you may have a point. But the merchants who are most often keeping famine out from certain countries now, are also destroying independence, and sometimes possibility of getting independent food supply back.
"Might require reform of some sort, does not justify a witch hunt, which is what I consider prosecution with grounds on rumors or more like nothing."
Joining a non-Catholic cult was not legal in the first place. The book which included methods likely to condemn innocent - Hexenhammer - was also criticised by other theologians, I don't think it became the number one rule of research in witches in Catholic Middle Ages (outside Germany, at least).
In Spain research was much better than provided by that book, and after some burnings, an Inquisitor (but this was after Middle Ages) concluded the communication with Satan was in their case purely imaginary.
"And yet, pandemic hasn’t taken out a good percentage of world population as some plagues in history did. (well, maybe except the Spanish flu, not sure how many did that one take) We are better prepared to respond, otherwise Ebola, SARS and avian influenza would have taken out half the world."
The Plague did not take out half Europe.
And thanks for mentioning Spanish flu.
"Yeah, sure, but ancient Egypt is way over a thousand years older than the middle ages. What I’m comparing is postclassical with the ‘classical’ greek and roman. But then again, maybe greek and roman are just better promoted than middle ages. Your take?"
Some art techniques (like portrait realism) went down, but it is because they went out of fashion. You know how in the seventies, a photo was usually a photo? Now, in forty decades later, a digital photo is fairly often (maybe up to 10 - 15 % of cases, maybe just five, but they are conspicuous) remade to look like a comic book illustration, less realistic.
So, realism can go out of fashion and arguably did, and arguably was doing so already in late Antiquity.
Also, nude portraits went heavily out of fashion. For a fairly obvious reason, connected as much to Platonism as to Christianity.
On the pro side, enamels were being discovered. Early Middle Ages, oh boy what enamels!
"Because they are built on the knowledge from Middle Ages. That’s why they are ‘so precious’"
Some are indeed so. Optics, electricity and music are all better studied than back then. All of them (even magnetic part of electromagnetism) were getting better studied in the Middle Ages than before.
"We are trying not to lose them, but it’s hard with the current paradigm shifting towards mainstream medicine, though not impossible. Efforts are being made."
And depend rather much on Hippocrates, Galen, later text books from Middle Ages.
"Blame globalization, large scale conflict as it is possible now, wasn’t a possibility then."
Exactly.
"Right, and results?"
Peace was always breaking out all the time.
"Right now, NPT isn’t looking good, but I’d say it was still a big step so far."
Looking up NPT ... non-proliferation treaty about nukes?
Well, nukes were fortunately not a possibility in the Middle Ages. Perhaps they had been in pre-Flood times, but after, technology acquired some Medieval sobriety it stayed with (via some stone age centuries between Flood and Babel) up to very recently.
"It wasn’t even a possibility in the Middle Ages, I admit, but now, having the possibility and putting it aside sounds to me like a good effort."
Efforts are good, but so far have not resulted in the goal.
The NP after pre-Flood nuke wars came with the Flood, not with a treaty.
"13th century is middle ages…
Yes, precisely. In the Middle Ages, typically, taking care of a poor man who was sick was considered a help in getting to heaven.
"and about health insurance? There is social security, which in many countries is quite consolidated. There are too many examples of kindness to even count."
Social security is sold off as kind. In France I have had trouble getting help with caries and scabies.
"Of course. In the current paradigm, they are true. If in the future, the paradigm shifts, then they might become false, but not until then."
What is true and is false does NOT depend on which paradigm is current.
"Link?"
Yes, an appropriate one for each Biblical passage you think we can "no longer" take literally.
"Your point being?"
That civilisation seems to be run by either idiots or crooks at present. In the Middle Ages, they were avoiding Aquaeducts which are less dangerous, after two events had shown they were too easy military targets.
And that tower in London which burned, 80 dead, not even terrorism, just an accident.
Not like we were organising for either safety or peace.
"Killing over world views? No, I can’t understand that."
OK, sorry.
"How many?"
Some have - but too few to show present media and education give very good room for rationality.
"Ok, so you’re saying that they won’t compromise unless it’s irrelevant. My frustration precisely."
You think human lives and freedoms being sacred (when the people are innocent of crimes) is something one should compromise on?
"Why is it not attractive to either Christians or muslims?"
Both Islam and Christianity do make claims on governments.
Both will view governments not at all living up to their claims (like a Christian with a government allowing abortions) as bad.
Also, recall that governments now often include school boards. This means that a secular government is acting like dictators over Christian parents' children and also Muslim parents' children.
"3) Targeting fundamentalists is not misunderstanding religion. It might create a self fulfilling prophecy, but fundamentalist with an inclination towards violent action, tend to move toward ‘potential terrorist’. You can be a religious person and not be a fundamentalist. Surely France does not target all religious people? Evolutionist material vs Creationist material is a matter of science. If current science can prove creationism to be correct, I’m pretty sure schools will start teaching that instead of evolution."
Yes, it is misunderstaning religion. No, I can prove several claims of evolution wrong with current science, and far from getting evolution banned from French schools, it is more like French schools abuse their positions to warn both pupils and their parents against my blogs.
Sorry about the late reply, RL got in the way I guess.
«No, the effects of alcohol were known very well long before Mohammed.
It's not "now" we know different, it is already back then.
And he was not pretending even a small amount could be "poisonous", he was pretending it was horribly sinful to get just a little tipsy.»
-So now, it is implied that the holy texts are man made and not divine. As long as we hold them not as holy text, but something man made, what it says can be tested and proven right or wrong.
«What exact crusade enslaved any person just for idolatry?»
- Albigensian Crusade, as one example. Christianity isn’t all roses.
«I am not even sure it is a verse of the Quran. I do know, that in Christianity, the first man promised Paradise was a robber dying on a cross beside Jesus Christ, not an obedient slave.»
- In Islam the first man promised Paradise was initially Jewish. I do not think slave has the connotation people seem to give it since apparently, Muhammad is regarded as His slave and messenger. And we do know that Muhammad was not a slave in the current sense of the word.
«I also know, historically, Islam has been more slavehunting. Unless you can show me one Crusade which hunted slaves for the sole crime of idolatry.»
- You and I read very different things. Are you being biased? Like above written, Albigensian Crusade, as one example.
«The phrase "those the right hand owns" implies slaves. In the case of female slaves with Christian husbands, it also involves the "right" to force them to sexual services. Note that "if you find any good in them" would perhaps not totally per se mean, but usually (at least in some versions) be considered as, if they become Muslims.
Here is an ex-Fundie Muslim who testifies he could find no better explanation about women "the right hand owns"»
- Believing in this person who seem to have done some research on it, I can accept that those the right hand owns means indeed, slave. Nonetheless, I still think there is something to be discussed about the forced sexual services. I’ve quoted this one before: ‘But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.' From Quran
«Looking up. Here is an English text:
(…) And the context is a population which had not just been killing missionaries, but enslaving Christians too.
It has been abused beyond the Saracen territories in Africa, but note that it is meant to apply to Saracens. I e, Muslims fighting a bitter and sometimes dirty fight against Christians, out of hatred to the Gospel.
Not to, for instance, an Animist in Kalahari or even necessarily someone sacrificing humans among the Ashanti.
The Bull Romanus Pontifex is longer, will you check this link and see if you find anything different?
(…)
Key, the slaves here to be taken are not innocent peaceful Pagans, like Buddhists in Tibet, they are people who have done something to Christians and the two Popes are endorsing retaliation.
The crime of slave hunt (of which the Muslim communities seen by the Portuguese were guilty) is one for which slavery is a correct punishment - whether the offender be African or Arab. Then again, our relations to Arabs during Crusades were somewhat more courteous, it was more often us getting taken as slaves by them, but I think retaliation did come - for those who were identified as carrying weapons to reduce us to slavery.
Note well, there was a Christian population in Palestine which Crusaders were trying to liberate from the Muslim lordship, which had become even more oppressive under Seldjuks than under Arabs.»
The texts we read might be the same, but I see we have largely different interpretations of it. Point being, while you highlight the Saracens, I read infidels every time Saracens are mentioned and many more. I don’t see their crimes.
«It very certainly means he should regard fellow Muslims as free men.
It is less sure it ever meant, and sure it was not always taken as regarding non-Muslims as free men.
If it meant that, there are other verses in the Quran contradicting it, since Islamic slave hunt was justified by Muslim "theologians".»
- Same thing could be said about Christian texts.
«Yes, if you qualify for annulment, like finding out you "married" your brother, you will be able to marry for real after that. But it would be the first marriage, not really again.
And if a husband (or wife) dies, you are able to marry again.»
Ok, I concede that this might be a difference between Christian and Islamic religions.
«I think the famines in Ukraine were longer than any in the Middle Ages. And involved more death where it happened.
Percentage of world population, you may have a point. But the merchants who are most often keeping famine out from certain countries now, are also destroying independence, and sometimes possibility of getting independent food supply back.»
- There are way more people to feed now. Feeding the population back in Middle Ages with our current resources would most likely not be a problem. There is however, much to be done about the global distribution of goods which leaves much to be desired.
«Joining a non-Catholic cult was not legal in the first place. The book which included methods likely to condemn innocent - Hexenhammer - was also criticised by other theologians, I don't think it became the number one rule of research in witches in Catholic Middle Ages (outside Germany, at least).
In Spain research was much better than provided by that book, and after some burnings, an Inquisitor (but this was after Middle Ages) concluded the communication with Satan was in their case purely imaginary.»
- You are backing my point. We have a bigger measure of freedom than in Middle Ages, which to an extent I consider an improvement. And in Spain, since communication with Satan was concluded to be imaginary, why the burning. We now don’t condemn a person to death because they imagined something (In most places anyway.)
«The Plague did not take out half Europe.
And thanks for mentioning Spanish flu.»
- The plague was one the early lessons in medicine, but not the only one along the way. If we haven’t learned anything, the avian flu, which is one of the most deadly flu viruses in existence, would have wiped out even more population that the Spanish flu.
«Some art techniques (like portrait realism) went down, but it is because they went out of fashion. You know how in the seventies, a photo was usually a photo? Now, in forty decades later, a digital photo is fairly often (maybe up to 10 - 15 % of cases, maybe just five, but they are conspicuous) remade to look like a comic book illustration, less realistic.
So, realism can go out of fashion and arguably did, and arguably was doing so already in late Antiquity.
Also, nude portraits went heavily out of fashion. For a fairly obvious reason, connected as much to Platonism as to Christianity.
On the pro side, enamels were being discovered. Early Middle Ages, oh boy what enamels!»
- Nice to know there are still good art of middle ages being digged up.
«And depend rather much on Hippocrates, Galen, later text books from Middle Ages.»
- No, I meant knowledge much earlier than that. Those books too are valuable, there are many others more valuable.
«Peace was always breaking out all the time.»
- Unfortunately, that really hasn’t changed a bit.
«Looking up NPT ... non-proliferation treaty about nukes?
Well, nukes were fortunately not a possibility in the Middle Ages. Perhaps they had been in pre-Flood times, but after, technology acquired some Medieval sobriety it stayed with (via some stone age centuries between Flood and Babel) up to very recently.
Efforts are good, but so far have not resulted in the goal.
The NP after pre-Flood nuke wars came with the Flood, not with a treaty.- What makes you believe in the Flood and pre-Flood times?»
- What makes you believe in the Flood and pre-Flood times?
«Social security is sold off as kind. In France I have had trouble getting help with caries and scabies.»
- There are different kinds of help, and different kinds of needs. The system is designed to address the social/health problems affecting most people, not one in particular, and helps more people in need than those who have other resources, It is not always fair, but in some countries it is a bottom line safety net.
«What is true and is false does NOT depend on which paradigm is current.»
- What we perceive as true or false does change depending on the current paradigm. What is ultimately true or false, I don’t think we’ll find out anytime soon.
«Yes, an appropriate one for each Biblical passage you think we can "no longer" take literally.»
- Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Deuteromnomy 22:9
But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5
«That civilisation seems to be run by either idiots or crooks at present. In the Middle Ages, they were avoiding Aquaeducts which are less dangerous, after two events had shown they were too easy military targets.
And that tower in London which burned, 80 dead, not even terrorism, just an accident.
Not like we were organising for either safety or peace.»
- And meanwhile, you chose to ignore the instances accidents and targeted attacks did not happen? In these cases, the good cases are not reported giving the impression that what happens is always bad. Take the World Trade Centre, it isn’t even the highest building in the most populous city in the world, Burj Khalifa is still standing high.
«Some have - but too few to show present media and education give very good room for rationality.»
- The other way to see it is that rationality is what keeps people from converting.
«You think human lives and freedoms being sacred (when the people are innocent of crimes) is something one should compromise on?»
- I won’t say should or shouldn’t that is for each one to decide on their own. I definitely could. What defines a crime is very relative, too much so. What you hold as innocent of a crime, to me may be a crime that justifies killing. Also, I also don’t hold freedom as sacred as you might hold, since someone’s freedom may impose or oppress mine. So, I can, in certain circumstances compromise on both.
«Both Islam and Christianity do make claims on governments.
Both will view governments not at all living up to their claims (like a Christian with a government allowing abortions) as bad.
Also, recall that governments now often include school boards. This means that a secular government is acting like dictators over Christian parents' children and also Muslim parents' children.»
- As far as I know, there are also religious schools, religions classes and catechesis for those who wish to follow a more religious directed aducations. Unfortunately, sometimes the options are narrowed to the main local religion due to lack of demand for other ones. But still, although the government is secular, I think precisely because of it, it is possible to have religion classes of your choosing, in case available. There are governments which a more Christian inclination and governments with a more Islamic inclination, but I think is that a secular might be middle ground, or common ground.
«Yes, it is misunderstaning religion. No, I can prove several claims of evolution wrong with current science, and far from getting evolution banned from French schools, it is more like French schools abuse their positions to warn both pupils and their parents against my blogs.»
Please provide your proof since I’d surely like to see it. Also, if you really want to prove that your claims are correct, get more people to back you up, get peer review and publish. A blog is not the most accountable, reliable or credible way to make your information or your point to go through.
«-So now, it is implied that the holy texts are man made and not divine. As long as we hold them not as holy text, but something man made, what it says can be tested and proven right or wrong»
I am definitely saying Quran is man made.
There is no such thing in the Bible.
«Albigensian Crusade, as one example. Christianity isn’t all roses.»
False. Albigensians were not charged with being a Pagan population which committed idolatry, but with being baptised persons apostasising from baptism - a much worse crime than remaining an idolater when never having been a Christian.
«In Islam the first man promised Paradise was initially Jewish. I do not think slave has the connotation people seem to give it since apparently, Muhammad is regarded as His slave and messenger. And we do know that Muhammad was not a slave in the current sense of the word.»
I am not speaking of Mohammed. He said that - someone else - the first man to enter paradise will be a slave obeying his master.
«You and I read very different things. Are you being biased? Like above written, Albigensian Crusade, as one example.»
Albigensian crusade was not against simple idolaters. As answered above.
«The texts we read might be the same, but I see we have largely different interpretations of it. Point being, while you highlight the Saracens, I read infidels every time Saracens are mentioned and many more. I don’t see their crimes.»
You don't see their crimes, because you don't know the history behind.
«Same thing could be said about Christian texts.»
Oh, which ones?
«Ok, I concede that this might be a difference between Christian and Islamic religions.»
Thank you.
«There are way more people to feed now.»
You know that how?
«Feeding the population back in Middle Ages with our current resources would most likely not be a problem. There is however, much to be done about the global distribution of goods which leaves much to be desired.»
Supposing a certain reading of how many people were around back then.
«You are backing my point. We have a bigger measure of freedom than in Middle Ages, which to an extent I consider an improvement. And in Spain, since communication with Satan was concluded to be imaginary, why the burning.»
The point is, once the inquisitor had concluded that, he did not only not burn them, but give them a fairly lenient penance.
Like walking to Santiago.
«We now don’t condemn a person to death because they imagined something (In most places anyway.)»
Neither did they.
«The plague was one the early lessons in medicine, but not the only one along the way.»
It wasn't a lesson. In Madagascar it is not wiped out and if it was in France wiped out, medicine made use of Nazi like means to put it out, shooting people trying to escape from quarantine.
«If we haven’t learned anything, the avian flu, which is one of the most deadly flu viruses in existence, would have wiped out even more population that the Spanish flu.»
It is not as if medicine was a bunch of ignorance in the Middle Ages either.
«Nice to know there are still good art of middle ages being digged up.»
Enjoy!
«No, I meant knowledge much earlier than that. Those books too are valuable, there are many others more valuable.»
If you mean from Middle Ages, how about noting I actually did note "later text books from Middle Ages".
«Unfortunately, that really hasn’t changed a bit.»
Oh yes, it has!
Communists and anti-Communists have been at war from 1930's to 1990, and peace was not breaking out all the time.
«What makes you believe in the Flood and pre-Flood times?»
The Bible. Which does, by the way, not state that getting a little tipsy is a mortal sin.
«There are different kinds of help, and different kinds of needs. The system is designed to address the social/health problems affecting most people, not one in particular, and helps more people in need than those who have other resources, It is not always fair, but in some countries it is a bottom line safety net.»
As I am not having other resources, it is not functioning like you pretend it should do.
I am homeless.
«And meanwhile, you chose to ignore the instances accidents and targeted attacks did not happen? In these cases, the good cases are not reported giving the impression that what happens is always bad. Take the World Trade Centre, it isn’t even the highest building in the most populous city in the world, Burj Khalifa is still standing high.»
Burj Khalifa is in an Islamic country, right? And Christians aren’t engaging in wholesale terrorism on civilians, most of them, right?
The point is, the buildings of such a proportion make for very great disasters whenever such a building is hit by a disaster.
«The other way to see it is that rationality is what keeps people from converting.»
Except it is not true.
«I won’t say should or shouldn’t that is for each one to decide on their own. I definitely could. What defines a crime is very relative, too much so. What you hold as innocent of a crime, to me may be a crime that justifies killing. Also, I also don’t hold freedom as sacred as you might hold, since someone’s freedom may impose or oppress mine. So, I can, in certain circumstances compromise on both.»
OK, so you can compromise on unborn people getting killed without having committed any crime?
You can compromise on getting tipsy from two glasses of wine with too little food as something a Muslim would whip you for?
You can compromise on Camps for people who were simply born in Jewish or Gipsy families?
Nice to know where I have you!
«As far as I know, there are also religious schools, religions classes and catechesis for those who wish to follow a more religious directed aducations. Unfortunately, sometimes the options are narrowed to the main local religion due to lack of demand for other ones.»
AND a certain amendment was interpreted as if only secular schools could get government subsidies.
«But still, although the government is secular, I think precisely because of it, it is possible to have religion classes of your choosing, in case available. There are governments which a more Christian inclination and governments with a more Islamic inclination, but I think is that a secular might be middle ground, or common ground.»
I don't think so. Christian schools are not a very available option in either France or England, and there are reasons for that.
«Please provide your proof since I’d surely like to see it.»
You can look up for instance what I am doing on carbon dating on my blog creavsevolu.blogspot.com
Or, same blog, on geologic column.
«Also, if you really want to prove that your claims are correct, get more people to back you up, get peer review and publish.»
You are very welcome to be one more to back me up. As I am homeless, I have a bit few of them.
«A blog is not the most accountable, reliable or credible way to make your information or your point to go through.»
A blog is however free to me, while getting published in Nature demands THEIR cooperation.
As to accountability, I prefer being accountable to the public over being so to a few select group of Evolution biassed editors.
For specifics on my creationist blog, ask which one you like to know most of.
«I am definitely saying Quran is man made.
There is no such thing in the Bible.»
Unfortunately that is something I cannot reason with you unless you try to let go of your preconceived paradigm.
«False. Albigensians were not charged with being a Pagan population which committed idolatry, but with being baptised persons apostasising from baptism - a much worse crime than remaining an idolater when never having been a Christian.»
«Albigensian crusade was not against simple idolaters. As answered above.»
Apparently we read different things.
«I am not speaking of Mohammed. He said that - someone else - the first man to enter paradise will be a slave obeying his master.»
Which probably meant something less literal than you are interpreting.
«You don't see their crimes, because you don't know the history behind.»
And how accurate and unbiased is the history you are reading or hearing from?
«Oh, which ones?»
Doesn’t have to be one in specific, when you read free men or fellow men in Christian texts they could be interpreted the same as in Islamic texts.
«You know that how?»
Data shows continued global population growth.
«Supposing a certain reading of how many people were around back then.»
Yes, of course. If our current resources are enough to feed our current population, then it certainly is more than enough to feed the population back then.
«The point is, once the inquisitor had concluded that, he did not only not burn them, but give them a fairly lenient penance.
Like walking to Santiago.»
That’s funny, because if not guilty, why even lenient penance? By the way, what kind of proof would they require to know it was or was not witchcraft?
«Neither did they.»
Quite honestly, I think they did.
«It wasn't a lesson. In Madagascar it is not wiped out and if it was in France wiped out, medicine made use of Nazi like means to put it out, shooting people trying to escape from quarantine.»
Regarding the shooting, I think it quite justified if you try to escape quarantine, you put all the community in danger, not ideal, but still needed as emergency measure. And it was a lesson, modern medicine got a wake up cal from that. Great disasters work as wake up calls, unfortunately as we were not proactive enough back then (still are not, but slightly more) to combat pathogenic agentes with potential for pandemic.
«It is not as if medicine was a bunch of ignorance in the Middle Ages either.»
No, it was not, and some of the recipes passed down from then still do their work. But we built on that.
«Oh yes, it has!
Communists and anti-Communists have been at war from 1930's to 1990, and peace was not breaking out all the time.»
You are contradicting yourself, but ok. And communists and anti-communists are still at war. I don’t think it ever ended. And we don’t have peace right now, do we? Syria is proof of that. And North-Korea is another one waiting to happen.
«The Bible. Which does, by the way, not state that getting a little tipsy is a mortal sin.»
Is that your only source? Or is it the only source that you need?
«As I am not having other resources, it is not functioning like you pretend it should do.
I am homeless.»
Apparently by choice. You are homeless and you have internet? I don’t know how you reply my comments this quickly. If I were you I’d be doing something else more important to me, such as trying not to be homeless. Since getting out of your situation doesn’t seem to be a priority to you, I can only assume you are in it by choice.
«Burj Khalifa is in an Islamic country, right? And Christians aren’t engaging in wholesale terrorism on civilians, most of them, right?
The point is, the buildings of such a proportion make for very great disasters whenever such a building is hit by a disaster.»
Ok, Maybe Burj Khalifa was not the best example, but it was the tallest building. It’s true that big buildings are a beacon for disaster, but they are also built for a reason. Taipei 101, Tokyo Skytree, Toronto CN Tower, Shanghai tower, Petronas Towers are all still standing. And Tokyo and Taipei are quite disaster prone areas to add to that.
«Except it is not true.»
A matter of you say, I say.
«OK, so you can compromise on unborn people getting killed without having committed any crime?
You can compromise on getting tipsy from two glasses of wine with too little food as something a Muslim would whip you for?
You can compromise on Camps for people who were simply born in Jewish or Gipsy families?
Nice to know where I have you!»
First one, yes, because to me it’s better to never have been born than live awfully.
Second, not under current circumstances, no. But if properly grounded in sound arguments, I might.
Third, in normal circumstances, no, but I can understand their point. And depending on what the trade-off is, I might.
«AND a certain amendment was interpreted as if only secular schools could get government subsidies.»
Not sure about that.
«I don't think so. Christian schools are not a very available option in either France or England, and there are reasons for that.»
Not necessarily global truth. But I guess, they are less in number compared to secular schools. But also, I think the demand is also not as much.
«You can look up for instance what I am doing on carbon dating on my blog creavsevolu.blogspot.com
Or, same blog, on geologic column.»
Couldn’t find it, do provide the exact link?
«You are very welcome to be one more to back me up. As I am homeless, I have a bit few of them.»
Currently not looking to back you up, since we seem to have fundamentally different views.
«A blog is however free to me, while getting published in Nature demands THEIR cooperation.»
True. I wonder if you have tried though, to challenge their preconceived concepts. If you succeed I will congratulate you with all my heart.
«As to accountability, I prefer being accountable to the public over being so to a few select group of Evolution biassed editors.»
If you’d rather be accountable to your public, your choice. Also, the public usually doesn’t have specific education in each area to know whether your claims are well grounded in proof. A friend of mine told me about this community of people that provided proof that Earth was actually flat. The arguments sounded plausible at first and yet, if I thought about it a bit more and the math of it, it came apart quite easily. So, peer review.
"Unfortunately that is something I cannot reason with you unless you try to let go of your preconceived paradigm."
You are welcome to try. Reasoning is not just about reasoning someone "out of" sth anyway.
"Apparently we read different things."
Where exactly do you see Albigensian crusade being concerned with idolaters?
"Which probably meant something less literal than you are interpreting."
Not considering his track record of slave trade. And it can be looked up in Muslim sources, it is not a "Christian charge" against him, like the charge of faking revelations.
"And how accurate and unbiased is the history you are reading or hearing from?"
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy Paperback – January 15, 2012
by Emmet Scott (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemagne-Revisited-History-Controversy/dp/0578094185/
"In Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited historian Emmet Scott reviews the evidence put forward by Hodges and Whitehouse, as well as the more recent findings of archaeology, and comes to a rather different conclusion. For him, the evidence shows that classical civilization was not dead in Europe at the start of the seventh century, but was actually experiencing something of a revival. ... For Scott, archaeology demonstrated that the Arabs did indeed blockade the Mediterranean through piracy and slave-raiding, precisely as Pirenne had claimed, and he argues that the disappearance of papyrus from Europe was an infallible proof of this. Whatever classical learning survived after this time, says Scott, was due almost entirely to the efforts of Christian monks."
I found this, thanks to first finding this article, by same author:
"In The Impact of Islam (2014) I showed that whilst slavery as an institution had been abolished in Christian Europe by the tenth century, it was revived in later centuries first and foremost by contact with the Islamic world. ... By the middle of the fifteenth century Portuguese caravels had pushed south of the Saharan coast and established a trading post at Arguin in modern Mauretania. Slaves were among the first commodities purchased by the Europeans, but it should be remembered that the latter were only now participating in a commerce that had been pursued by the Arabs of North Africa for centuries. Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages Christian Spaniards and Portuguese had become familiar with the sight of black slaves in the possession of the Muslim inhabitants of Andalusia (Islamic southern Spain) and Morocco, and there is absolutely no question that in procuring African slaves the Christians were merely imitating the example of their Muslim neighbours. This is not to make excuses for the Christians, but it is something that needs to be said, for it is a fact that is routinely ignored in academic and popular publications."
NER : The African Slave Trade: The Islamic Connection
by Emmet Scott (September 2016)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Emmet_Scott/The_African_Slave_Trade:_The_Islamic_Connection/
In other words, it is accurate and not too biassed to the extent of being shared by a historian. Emmett Scott is one.
"Doesn’t have to be one in specific, when you read free men or fellow men in Christian texts they could be interpreted the same as in Islamic texts."
No, since there simply is no such thing in Christianity as enslaving anyone for idolatry and liberating him on becoming a Christian.
"Data shows continued global population growth."
Global population data for before 1800 are contested and mainly worthless.
"That’s funny, because if not guilty, why even lenient penance? By the way, what kind of proof would they require to know it was or was not witchcraft?"
The Inquisitor had concluded that they could not be guilty of actually getting powers from Satan : they had claimed phenomenal powers he did not think Satan himself was able to provide. If a witch claimed to have been able to put a hex on cows so they died from a very quick killing disease, Satan could have given her the opportunity of saying a hex on cows, then taken bacteria there and then done everything by exterior influence possible to weaken immune system of the cows. But if the witch claimed to be able to turn cows into frogs, Satan could NOT have given her such powers.
But while not guilty of actually getting powers from Satan, they were guilty of trying to and of imagining these. Which is a sin against the faith.
"Quite honestly, I think they did."
You mean you think actual case was, they were imagining things, but case taken juridically was they were really witches.
That could have happened, there had been some witches executed before that Inquisitor stepped in between 1620 and 1630. It would have been the witches killed in 1610, of Zugarramurdi, by Inquisitors' court in Logroño. Or could have been.
Now, the Witch Sabbath may have been imaginary - but clinging to it is still a sin against the faith. The ones burned in 1610 were refusing to repent of the Witch Sabbath. Most in 1610 repented and were given a penance, like going to Santiago.
Then came the Inquisitor in 1620-30, and saw a real tendency of hysteric women to make false confessions, because they believed getting burned would be the only way to make up for sins of the flesh. He, in his turn considered, if it was all imaginary, perhaps it was best to burn no one. This was leading to the Jesuit Friedrich Spree publishing Cautio Criminalis, and abolishing burning for witchcraft in many places.
Note, most witch trials were during the 16th and 17th C.
"Regarding the shooting, I think it quite justified if you try to escape quarantine, you put all the community in danger, not ideal, but still needed as emergency measure."
Not really. Escaping the quarantine while still healthy and not in contact with a sick man was hardly putting anyone at risk, only escaping risk yourself. Getting rid of the plague is good, but not quite at such a price.
"And it was a lesson, modern medicine got a wake up cal from that. Great disasters work as wake up calls, unfortunately as we were not proactive enough back then (still are not, but slightly more) to combat pathogenic agentes with potential for pandemic."
Oh, it did ... you show me how modern medicine did that, give me names or so of doctors really "getting" the wake up call ...
"No, it was not, and some of the recipes passed down from then still do their work. But we built on that."
That is true. I have met people more ignorant than you on this matter.
"You are contradicting yourself, but ok. And communists and anti-communists are still at war. I don’t think it ever ended. And we don’t have peace right now, do we? Syria is proof of that. And North-Korea is another one waiting to happen."
My point is, in the Middle Ages, peace was being made very often, "breaking out all the time". Every war between Christians, certain week days were off war, all feast days etc. Recall the first Christmas in WW-I? If it had been the Middle Ages, the Church would have been making first a truce between belligerents on place, and then brokering a peace between the governments.
"Is that your only source? Or is it the only source that you need?"
I have confidence enough in the Bible, but by now it is not the only source I have. Flood, several mythologies around the world, pre-Flood times, certain patterns known from Genesis 4 and 5 and 6 very well fit with Mahabharata.
"Apparently by choice. You are homeless and you have internet?"
Right now on a cyber café, most often in libraries.
" I don’t know how you reply my comments this quickly."
I do not have hours at work - except the as yet unpaid work which is writing.
" If I were you I’d be doing something else more important to me, such as trying not to be homeless."
I do that by writing,by offering publishers ample opportunities to republish my writings, and by hoping someone will.
"Since getting out of your situation doesn’t seem to be a priority to you, I can only assume you are in it by choice."
You know, the kind of publishers (and parents of potential ones) who take your attitude are in fact the probable reason why I am still in the street.
AND since it is an attitude over at where you are in medical profession, I must assume it is one with social services here too.
That was first half, now I am waiting to a library before second half.
"Ok, Maybe Burj Khalifa was not the best example, but it was the tallest building. It’s true that big buildings are a beacon for disaster, but they are also built for a reason. Taipei 101, Tokyo Skytree, Toronto CN Tower, Shanghai tower, Petronas Towers are all still standing. And Tokyo and Taipei are quite disaster prone areas to add to that."
Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei - less Muslim immigrants, if any.
Petronas Towers - Malaysia is like Burj Khalifa a Muslim territory.
"but they are also built for a reason."
Perhaps not a good one?
"A matter of you say, I say."
It can be tested by the fact of converts being not just very intelligent but very rational people in many known cases.
"First one, yes, because to me it’s better to never have been born than live awfully."
Abortion is an awful death. Also, life if not aborted is not predictable, hence the comparison with an awful life is totally moot.
"Second, not under current circumstances, no. But if properly grounded in sound arguments, I might."
Likely circumstances : Muslim says it is anti-Muslim to oppose that kind of hysteria, Muslim doctors redefine alcoholism as to imply any habitual liking for alcohol and say "even two glasses can make you alcoholic" - then they show pictures of alcoholics who really are not content with two glasses. AND they have sufficient medical qualifications for getting away with it.
"Third, in normal circumstances, no, but I can understand their point. And depending on what the trade-off is, I might."
By camps, I don't mean makeshift camps where travellers can rest, nor self governed villages. I mean enforced camps with non-Jewish and non-Gipsy guards, selected ideologically for being anti-Jewish or anti-Gipsy or both.
"Not sure about that."
The amendment was re-stated as "separation of Church and State" (not in the US amendment, but in a recent also Masonic - the Supreme Court was Masonic majority back then - move in France) and this happened in a case where people were bussed to a non-governmental and religious school Everson vs Board of Education
"Not necessarily global truth. But I guess, they are less in number compared to secular schools. But also, I think the demand is also not as much."
Less in demand - after a few generations of secular schools.
"Couldn’t find it, do provide the exact link?"
For carbon dating:
Why CMI in Public Ignores Me (One Probable Reason)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/11/why-cmi-in-public-ignores-me-one.html
Just the latest, after our last ... search: C14 search: carbon dating.
A recent turn in my research : The Carbon Related Question, Update.
My effort to get the fact checked with a physicist : Other Check on Carbon Buildup on the blog Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl, another blog of mine.
A long series on recalibration of carbon (still valid if the fact check by physicist does not flush my theory down the sink), starting here : C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's
Geologic column, this post contains links to whole series : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
"I wonder if you have tried though, to challenge their preconceived concepts. If you succeed I will congratulate you with all my heart."
Exactly what I did. Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
"If you’d rather be accountable to your public, your choice."
Thanks.
"Also, the public usually doesn’t have specific education in each area to know whether your claims are well grounded in proof."
I am giving the proof. Whether a claim is well grounded in it, is a matter of logic, not of "specific education" in the area.
Also, I am definitely not excluding those who have the specific education from being part of my public, on the contrary.
" A friend of mine told me about this community of people that provided proof that Earth was actually flat. The arguments sounded plausible at first and yet, if I thought about it a bit more and the math of it, it came apart quite easily."
So did I. And you are not a professional astronomer or geographer, as far as I can tell, neither am I.
"So, peer review."
On the contrary, the example proves that review by and accountability before the public is adequate, that peer review is not a prerequisite, morally, for publishing.
Post a Comment