Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and Hospitals! (2 of 2)

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and Hospitals! (2 of 2) February 6, 2016

Christians have a long history of putting themselves at risk to help others during plagues. For example, the Plague of Cyprian (251–66) is estimated to have killed two-thirds of the population of Alexandria, Egypt. And yet,

During the Plague in Alexandria when nearly everyone else fled, the early Christians risked their lives for one another by simple deeds of washing the sick, offering water and food, and consoling the dying.

Many Christians will point to medieval hospitals to argue that they were pioneers in giving us the medical system that we know today. Let’s consider that claim.

(Part 1 considered the similar claim that Christianity is responsible for modern universities.)

Christianity Jesus HospitalsHealth care in the Bible

We can look to the Bible to see where Christian contributions to medical science come from.

We find Old Testament apotropaic medicine (medicine to ward off evil) in Numbers 21:5–9. When God grew tired of the Israelites whining about harsh conditions during the Exodus, he sent poisonous snakes to bite them. As a remedy, God told Moses to make a bronze snake (the Nehushtan). This didn’t get rid of the snakes or the snake bites, but it did mean that anyone who looked at it after being bitten would magically live. So praise the Lord, I guess.

This is a “hair of the dog” type of treatment, as is homeopathic “medicine.” Just as bronze snake statues are useless as medicine today, Jesus and his ideas of disease as a manifestation of demon possession was also useless. To those who point to Jesus’s few individual healings as evidence that Jesus cared about public health, I ask why Jesus didn’t eliminate any diseases or at least give us the tools to do so.

The Father of Western Medicine was Hippocrates, not Jesus.

Medieval hospitals

Without science, a hospital can do nothing but provide food and comfort. Palliative care is certainly something, and let’s celebrate whatever comfort was provided by church-supported hospitals, but these medieval European institutions were little more than almshouses or places to die—think hospitals without the science.

Christian medicine did not advance past that of Galen, the Greek physician of 2nd century who wrote medical texts and whose theories dominated Western Christian medicine for over 1300 years. Not until the 1530s (during the Renaissance) did the physician Andreas Vesalius surpass Galen in the area of human anatomy.

Let’s also be cautious about how much credit Christianity gets rather than simply Christians. People planning a hospital in Europe 500 years ago would’ve been Christians, not because no one but Christians were motivated to build hospitals but because in Europe at that time, pretty much everyone was Christian.

Hospitals of that time in other regions of the world would’ve been built by people who reflected those societies—Arabs, Chinese, and so on, and India, Greece, and Rome were trying to systematize health care long before Christians.

Christianity’s poor attitude toward learning

Christianity had an uneasy relationship with any ideas that didn’t directly support the Church. The 1559 Index Librorum Prohibitorum listed books by 550 authors that were prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church, though prior lists had prohibited books almost since the beginning of Christianity. The list is a Who’s Who of Western thought and included works by Sartre, Voltaire, Hugo, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Bacon, Milton, Locke, and Pascal. The List was abolished only in 1966.

Dr. Peter Harrison says, “From the patristic period to the beginning of the seventeen century curiosity was regarded as an intellectual vice.” For example, Augustine compared physical lust to “vain desire and curiosity … of making experiments with the body’s aid, and cloaked under the name of learning and knowledge.” Martin Luther said, “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.”

This aversion to knowledge is ironic because when the Church was motivated, it could accomplish great things. My favorite example is the thirteenth-century explosion of innovative cathedrals that still stand today.

A modern look at Christianity’s medieval hospitals

We can get a picture of medieval Christian hospitals by looking at Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity hospitals. They have minor comforts, and at best they are comfortable places to die. They’re not meant for treating disease and often lack even pain medication. This isn’t for lack of funds—some estimates claim that the charity took in $100 million per year, though we can only guess because the finances are secret.

One critique noted the mission’s “caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it.” Christopher Hitchens said, “[Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty.” Mother Teresa’s own philosophy confirms this: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.”

This is the opposite of the approach of modern hospitals.

Hospitals and medicine today

Let’s return to the Malcolm Muggeridge quote with which I started this post series: “I’ve spent a number of years in India and Africa where I found much righteous endeavour undertaken by Christians of all denominations; but I never, as it happens, came across a hospital or orphanage run by the Fabian Society [a British socialist organization], or a humanist leper colony.”

Maybe the humanists were more focused on curing the problem than simply addressing the symptoms and having a good old pray.

I’d like to give credit where it’s due. If the medieval Church catalyzed human compassion into hospitals that wouldn’t have been there otherwise, that’s great, but don’t take that too far. The Church was largely in charge at that time. If the Church deserves praise for its hospitals, does it also deserve some condemnation for the social conditions that forced people into those hospitals? Did Christianity retard medical science with its anti-science attitude? We forget how long a road it was to reach our modern medical understanding. The book Bad Medicine argues that “until the invention of antibiotics in the 1930s doctors, in general, did their patients more harm than good.” Christianity might have set modern medical science back centuries.

How many diseases has faith cured? How many have reasoning and evidence? Smallpox killed 500 million people in the twentieth century alone. Today, zero. Thank you, science.

Catholic hospital systems are today busy gobbling up independent hospitals in the United States. This appears to have nothing to do with providing improved health but rather to be an opportunity to impose Catholic moral attitudes in areas such as abortion and euthanasia. And note that “Catholic” hospitals are publicly funded, just like all the rest.

For religious hospitals, 46 percent of all revenues came from Medicaid or Medicare, 51 percent was patient revenue from other third-party payers, such as commercial insurers, and only 3 percent was classified as non-patient revenues.

Of those non-patient revenues, the majority came from county appropriations (31 percent) and income from investments (30 percent). Only 5 percent derived from unrestricted contributions, such as charitable donations from church members. So, at best, charitable contributions made up a tiny faction of religious hospitals’ operating revenues. (Source: “No Strings Attached: Public Funding of Religiously-Sponsored Hospitals in the United States”)

The few billion dollars that religion spends on good works in the United States is insignificant compared to the nearly trillion dollars that we as a society spend on health care through Medicare and Medicaid.

I’ll conclude with an observation about Mother Teresa’s charity, a modern throwback to medieval Christian hospitals. Speaking about her stance against condoms, which replaced science with Catholic prudery and removed a barrier against sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, one source said, “More people died as a result of dangerous Church beliefs than Mother Teresa could ever have hoped to save.”

Related posts:

Do you know what they call alternative medicine
that’s been proven to work?
Medicine.
— Tim Minchin, “Storm

There was a time when religion ruled the world.
It is known as The Dark Ages.
— Ruth Hurmence Green

Image credit: MilitaryHealth, flickr, CC

"Yes, that's a good point, though I keep being surprised when supposed fundamentalists seem quick ..."

10 Skeptical Principles for Evaluating the ..."
"Nope...and this answer demonstrates that you are as unaware of the argument Carrier makes as ..."

A Popular Blunder: Bringing Something Into ..."
"at what point is it or isn't it appropriate to draw historical conclusions based on ..."

A Popular Blunder: Bringing Something Into ..."
"Whoops--thanks for that correction.The signal-to-noise ratio for those trying to find out who wrote what ..."

A Popular Blunder: Bringing Something Into ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • mobathome

    Here are some notable non-religious charitable organizations:

    – The Red Cross
    – Médecins Sans Frontières
    – UNICEF
    – The World Health Organization

    What’s that you say? Some of the founders of these charities were religious? Indeed some were religious, and some were motivated by religion. Nonetheless, these organizations are neither run by a religion or even associated with a religion. They are non-religious charitable organizations. Are there no hospitals that meet this simple criteria?

  • MNb

    “these medieval European institutions were little more than almshouses or places to die”
    And long after. Walter Krämer, Wir kurieren uns zu Tode, Frankfurt 1993 claims that until the end of the 19th Century most doctors were more dangerous to their patients than most diseases. Only around 1910 the chance that the health of a random patient improved thanks to an also randomly selected doctor became bigger than 50%.
    Health care needed a bit longer to get rid of superstition and woo than most sciences.

    “This isn’t for lack of funds.”
    An Italian research journalist claims that there is a lot of fraud. Unfortunately I saw it on television and can’t remember his name.

  • RichardSRussell

    If religion is necessary for health, why doesn’t God cure devout amputees?

  • Sophia Sadek

    How I pine for the good old days of bleeding and purging in the name of health care. Now that’s Christian practice!

    • Greg G.

      Good health requires balanced humors.

      • And balanced health required good humor.

      • Sophia Sadek

        The Brits would argue that it is actually the humours that one must balance.

        • Greg G.

          Spell correct will accept “humour” but not “humours”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah ha, another case of two great nations separated by a common language…sort of….

          Humorism, or humoralism, was a system of medicine detailing the makeup and workings of the human body, adopted by the Indian Ayurveda system of medicine, and Ancient Greek and Roman physicians and philosophers, positing that an excess or deficiency of any of four distinct bodily fluids in a person—known as humors or humours—directly influences their temperament and health. The humoralist system of medicine is highly individualistic, for each individual patient was said to have their own unique humoral composition.

          Just saying….keep calm, carry on.

        • adam

          “The humoralist system of medicine is highly individualistic, for each individual patient was said to have their own unique humoral composition.”

          Ha!
          That’s laughable…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aristotelian-Thomist even maybe?

  • The link to No Beliefs does not work (at least for me).

    Regarding medical progress, the lack thereof was partly due to a Greco-Roman prohibition on dissection, which prevented studying anatomy except by deduction from pig corpses (no, really). This took centuries to shed. I believe that it wasn’t until the Renaissance once again before human dissection was allowed. Both Da Vinci and Michelangelo did this secretly, at huge risk-it was a capital crime.

    • Greg G.

      Did you get a 404 message? Wait a few minutes. I had on a different Pathos blog, too. I went back to it a few minutes later and it worked. Once I was getting it on 9 out of 10 Recent Comments. I tried a few things to no avail. Then i closed my browser completely and restarted. Everything was fine but now I think it was the 10 seconds it took to close and open the window was the main factor.

      • Well, now it works. Before it wouldn’t load.

  • JBrown971

    Can you provide the source for the Martin Luther Quote?

    Of the books on the 1559 Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which were medically or scientifically beneficial in hindsight?

    Also, what medical advancements were squelched by Christians?

    • 1: There’s a link to the Martin Luther quote in the post.

      2: Good question about the Index; I don’t know.

      3: I was referring to the anti-science attitude that delayed science. We can only speculate how discoveries might’ve happened differently if Christianity in Europe had supported and welcomed new science.

      • JBrown971

        1)The link simply directs you to a page where it was written down by another person. Do you have the source for the actual quote? Which of Luther’s works or which document attributing the quote to Luther are you using? I am curious about context because many of these quotes were directed at the legalistic Catholic church in a way that might actually mean the opposite of what you think.

        2) Then how could you cite it as a source of Christian’s hatred against science?

        3) “We can only speculate how discoveries might’ve happened differently” Can’t that statement be said about nearly all of history? Do you have actual proof of harm? Or is this entire piece built on conjecture?

        • adam

          “3) “We can only speculate how discoveries might’ve happened differently” Can’t that statement be said about nearly all of history? Do you have actual proof of harm? Or is this entire piece built on conjecture?”

          No we can look at how it is still happening:

        • adam

          “Do you have actual proof of harm?”

        • Greg G.

          All the discoveries of the past four centuries were waiting to be discovered in theprevious twelve centuries. Technology didn’t reach the level the Romans had until around the 18th century.

        • 1. I’ve updated the link to this one. I may see your concern about Luther quotes given that much could come from Table Talk volumes, which could easily be misquotes.

          2. Seriously? The Church bans books (including ones by scientists) and you’re unsure about whether the Church has a problem with science or not?

          3. The Greeks and Romans make remarkable scientific and technological progress. Then things pretty much stop for a millennium when Christianity is in charge … with the exceptions of church-specific improvements like cathedral building and artwork. Progress is moving along elsewhere—India, Arab World, China—so it’s not like there aren’t improvements to be made. With the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, progress on a broad front starts again, leading to the Industrial Revolution and the birth of modern science 200 years ago. So, no, not conjecture, but nice try.

        • L.Long

          I wish I had the source but don’t but it is said that the roman Docs had the muscles, circulatory systems worked out and were starting on nervous system when it all went to hell, the xtians took over and burned most of the satanic pagan medical scrolls. Again thanks for nothing!!! Xtians!

        • Greg G.
        • L.Long

          Thanks for the link. This is not it, it was a post about a specific roman doctor just before the xtian terrorist reign began.

        • JBrown971

          1) Thank you. It is important to understand that Luther made a distinction between the earthly realm and heavenly realm. In his writing on the Apostles Creed, he praises God for giving man reason in the explanation for article #1, but acknowledges that faith in God through the Gospel stands outside man’s reason in the explanation to article #3. I would challenge you to prove your quote applies in this case to secular scientific understanding, rather than dealing within a purely religious understanding.

          2) All cultures/worldviews have banned books. I haven’t denied that Christians were involved in such. I again challenge you to prove that books banning medical advancement are on that list as it pertains to your article.

          3)That doesn’t answer my question. It simply assumes that the rate of medical advancement should have been consistent over the course of human history. So now, do you have proof that medical advancement stalled in its consistent historical trajectory or had human understanding spiked previously and reach a natural plateau, not unlike cancer or AIDs research. Can I assume that since we don’t have cures, some group is retarding scientific advancement? Also, to return to my previous question, do you have evidence that Christian intentionally retarded medical advancement?

        • 1. A prominent religious leader rejects reason. I’m missing the problem.

          2. The other guys do it, so it doesn’t matter if your team does, too? Not much of a moral stance, IMO. My point was that the church was against the science freely following the evidence. That there are science books on the List proves my point.

          3. You’re asking that we replay all of history with Christianity not in charge to see if developments would’ve happened faster? Golly, I was hoping you wouldn’t spot my Achilles heel so readily. I should’ve done that—my bad.

        • JBrown971

          1) He’s not rejecting what you are claiming he is rejecting. But why let facts get in the way of your ideology. You should cut and paste the quotes where he praise the secular science of the time.

          2) “The other guys do it, so it doesn’t matter if your team does, too?” You continue to put words in my mouth. I assume that helps you dance around the question. The question is simple, especially since this post is about medicine. Provide one medical book on the list. My guess is you read somewhere about this list, but never researched it yourself. (not unlike the Martin Luther quote).

          3) Why not? You’re claiming that it was Christianity that held back medical advancement. I am just waiting for evidence that medicine was a) held back from advancement and b) would have been in a better place without Christianity. That is the argument you are proposing, is it not. Everything you have laid out is either unverifiable or pure conjecture.

        • adam

          ‘1) He’s not rejecting what you are claiming he is rejecting. ‘

          So are you claiming Luther did not reject reason?

        • adam

          “You’re claiming that it was Christianity that held back medical
          advancement. I am just waiting for evidence that medicine was a) held
          back from advancement and b) would have been in a better place without
          Christianity. ”

          I have already presented evidence of this…..as it continues to this day…

        • Greg G.

          I am just waiting for evidence that medicine was a) held back from advancement

          I gave you a link that shows that about 6 hours before you asked.

          The Progress of Medicine and Science

          b) would have been in a better place without Christianity.

          From a first century pagan:

          “‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.

          ‘Slaves! NO, comrades.

          ‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.

          ‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.

          But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

          ‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”

              — Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.

          Jesus doesn’t think slaves should even be thanked for their service.

          7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded?
          –Jesus, Luke 17:7-9

          Roman technology
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          About three quarters of a millenium later:

          High Middle Ages: Technology and military
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          A millenium later, still using many Roman roads and aqueducts:

          Later Middle Ages: Technology and military
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        • JBrown971

          Interesting how you use the pagans, who at the time were discarding children that were disabled. Something ended with Constantine.

          Great job pulling the passage from Luke out of context.

          Regarding you link on medicine. It seems you exist in a world where confirmation bias rules. As it fails to acknowledge the work of Mondino de Luzzi, Cassius Felix, Nicola da Reggio and Guy de Chauliac. It also fails to acknowledge the abundant presence of Galen in monasteries and the universities that trained the above mentioned people.

          Yourself and author enjoy making the radical or corrupt mainstream and dispensing quotes regardless of context. Additionally, nothing regarding how the Roman empire fell is taken into context (ie how all the money stated in the middle east. Wonder if that had any impact on the ability to do research?). Lastly, it fails to take into account the Christian impact on the advancements in the middle east.

          So please, using facts, try to prove it was specifically Christianity that held back medicine (wonder if any medical books are on the banned list presented by the author). Rather than finding the 5 quotes over that 1200 year span in which someone blamed sin. Or finding quotes taking completely out of context.

        • Greg G.

          Interesting how you use the pagans, who at the time were discarding children that were disabled. Something ended with Constantine.

          “Pagan” is a term that in that context means “not an Abrahamic religion”. Not all pagans did it. Nobody blames all Christians for the antics of Westboro Baptist Church, even though they can justify their actions and beliefs with the Bible.

          Constantine made infanticide illegal but he didn’t end it. It was still practiced in Christian countries through the Middle Ages and not just disabled children.

          Great job pulling the passage from Luke out of context.

          Every Bible quote is out of context. Jesus was using the not thanking slaves as an example, he was not saying it wrong and he finds slavery to be acceptable. Then there is:

          Luke 12:47-48 (NRSV)47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.  48 But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.

          These are the relevant portions of the passages. Just because it exposes the nastiness you prefer to overlook does not mean it is out of context when the context doesn’t change what was being expressed. I can show eighteen verses that have been translated to say “there is no god”, but that would be taking the phrase out of context.

          Regarding you link on medicine. It seems you exist in a world where confirmation bias rules. As it fails to acknowledge the work of Mondino de Luzzi, Cassius Felix, Nicola da Reggio and Guy de Chauliac. It also fails to acknowledge the abundant presence of Galen in monasteries and the universities that trained the above mentioned people.

          There is no reason that a Christian cannot do good science if they keep their religion out of it. Your examples are few and far between. They operated under the idea that humans were once smarter than the present day possible due to the idea that Original Sin has caused a constant decline, so they should learn from the Golden Age, rather than do a lot of new research.

          Mondino de Luzzi, (ca. 1270 – 1326), was able to study anatomy when legal and religious proscriptions were lifted. His not entirely accurate book, Anathomia, was used was required in medical schools for three centuries.

          Cassius Felix lived in the fifth century. His work was based on Greek medical sources.

          Niccolò da Reggio was a contemporary with Mondino, but he translated Greek works that came from Arab sources.

          Guy de Chauliac lived in the fourteenth century and wrote on surgery. He treated plague victims and survived it himself. One of his recommendations for avoiding the plague was bleeding.

          Lastly, it fails to take into account the Christian impact on the advancements in the middle east.

          Consider how much progress has been made since people stopped trying to explain everything with God in it. That progress could have been started much earlier without interference from the Christian church’s threats.

          So please, using facts, try to prove it was specifically Christianity that held back medicine (wonder if any medical books are on the banned list presented by the author). Rather than finding the 5 quotes over that 1200 year span in which someone blamed sin. Or finding quotes taking completely out of context.

          You used one guy from the fifth century who relied on Greek works and three people who made some progress in the fourteenth century when some restrictions were removed. Most of the medical knowledge in Medieval Europe came from the ancient Greeks, not so much from research.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Nobody blames all Christians for the antics of Westboro Baptist Church,

          some come pretty damn close. but then i recall you use “nobody” rather winkingly at times.

        • Interesting how you use the pagans, who at the time were discarding children that were disabled.

          Interesting how you worship Yahweh who demanded genocide.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Interesting how you use the pagans, who at the time were discarding children that were disabled. Something ended with Constantine.

          But Constantine was a pagan. Furthermore, infanticide is permitted, condoned, and on occasion, even ordered in the Bible from the very beginning…

          What Abe was ordered to do according to the yarn, and what Jephthah did do, can be defined as infanticide. What God ordered the Hebrews do to the Canaanite’s was definitely infanticide…the idiom, “people in glass houses” springs to mind.

          Psalm 137:9

          How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

          Isaiah 13:18

          And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.

          Regardless of what the Church said…Christian’s did something else, which should come as no surprise.

          Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents. According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference”. At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.

          Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.

          But no need to go that far back to see the nefarious antics of Christian’s or their establishments with babies in their protection…from less than a century ago child neglect resulting in deaths has been uncovered recently.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/03/bodies-of-800-babies-long-dead-found-in-septic-tank-at-former-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers/

        • Bible verses showing God’s A-OK with human sacrifice? Here’s my favorite:

          “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah” (Ez. 20:25–6).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip…Indeed.

          I also read another cracker somewhere in the OT, a yarn in which an agent under the instruction of Yahweh/Jesus that done for all the first born in Egypt that didn’t have a splodge of lamb’s blood on the door. But get this. The reason for this infanticide was because the Pharaoh wouldn’t allow the said gods chosen ones to walk free.

          Now here’s the clincher, this god was at it’s work and really just wanted to off wee children, because the dirty fecker had hardened the heart of the Pharaoh in the first place leaving him no choice. What a lousy bastard, eh?

          I won’t bother to mention what happened to King David and Bathsheba’s adulterous love child, shall a? It’s another cracker. A display of everything that is fucked up with the Abrahamic religions and it’s gods.

        • Myna Alexanderson

          Quote: “Lastly, it fails to take into account the Christian impact on the advancements in the middle east.”

          While no one can dispute the historical contribution of the Latin West in the science of medicine, it is erroneous to suggest that significant contributions in medical treatment from the Middle East and from Islam, in particular, did not occur independently from Christianity’s influence during the Middle Ages.

          Religion, in and of itself, did not contribute to medical advancement: an advancement that, by its very nature, is ultimately non-sectarian because the body is indifferent to theosophy. That religion, accompanied by localized superstition, did cloud some aspects of treatment was a reality, but that is not confined to the Middle Ages and continues even as we sail into the 21st century.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322233/

          http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/belief

          It would also be wise to take note of the bibliography and references offered at the conclusion of both articles.

        • L.Long

          Proof!?!? Who needs proof of anything. Xtians think proof is inferior to faith! So I have faith that the xtians hurt and held back almost ALL science and medicine thru the ages!!!!

    • A bit OT, but you might be interested to know that Church added Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1751. Fortunately, the Index carried little weight in North America’s (former) British colonies, whose political elite (Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc.) studied and discussed Montesquieu’s theories avidly, especially in connection with the development of the U.S. Constitution.

      http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1659&context=plr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%2522spirit%2Bof%2Bthe%2Blaws%2522%2Bmontesquieu%2B%2522john%2Badams%2522%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D%26bih%3D%26gbv%3D2%26oq%3D%2522spirit%2Bof%2Bthe%2Blaws%2522%2Bmontesquieu%2B%2522john%2Badams%2522%26gs_l%3Dheirloom-serp.3…3110.5997.0.6565.14.2.0.12.0.0.144.221.1j1.2.0….0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..13.1.143.FPoj3Xleulo#search=%22spirit%20laws%20montesquieu%20john%20adams%22

    • MNb

      Everything that threatened the theory of

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments

      because christians, who slavishly accepted everything coming from Antiquity (end specifically if authorized by the great Aristoteles). Specifically

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

      These days christians resist stem cell research.

      • JBrown971

        Please provide evidence that the more modern view of medical science was a) available, and b) reject by Christians during the middle ages.

        Christian reject the use of embryos for stem cell research. They on mass accept the use of adult stem cells for medical research. We are weird with that whole value life thing Christians seem to stand for.

        • Greg G.

          The ability to use adult stem cells came from studying the stem cells of embryos.

          PS:

          We are weird with that whole value life thing Christians seem to stand for.

          How many people died waiting for the now available treatments because of the delays resulting from Christian objections to the research?

        • It would be an amusing bit of divine justice if JBrown was diagnosed with a disease that embryonic stem cell research cured … just after he died.

        • Greg G.

          There were probably several people who would fit that scenario.

        • “value life thing”? Are you a vegetarian? Would you kill a slug if it were eating your vegetables? Are you against capital punishment? And if you’re pro-life on these questions, tell me that that’s true for your fellows within the movement.

          The “Pro-life” movement is actually just “pro-birth.” If you want to fetishize a single fertilized human egg cell, that’s great; just don’t impose that on the rest of us by law.

        • JBrown971

          HA! Nice straw man. Veggies or slugs = Humans. Punishment = Abortion.

          How dare I place life where it begins. Why must you impose some subjective view of human consciousness as the beginning of life?

        • Are you actually confused or just playing games? No, no strawman. Don’t tell me you’re pro-life when you’re not. You don’t mind eating hamburgers or using slug bait.

          If you want to celebrate the single fertilized egg cell, that’s fine. That’s what pro-choice people like me are happy to see. What’s a problem is when you impose your views on others as law.

        • William Mansour

          This is the silly and fallacious argument that pro-abortion types make all the time — talking about abortion as if it can only be performed on zygotes. What about the abortion of unborn fetuses ten hours, or even ten days, prior to delivery? Do you support that? If so, are you then arguing that there is no distinction to be made between a nine-month old fetus and a nine-day old zygote such that both can be aborted on demand and with impunity? And if you do not support the abortion of nine-month old fetuses, then you are not, in the literal sense, “pro-choice” because you do believe in at least some limitations on that choice. Moreover, if, indeed, you do not support the abortion of nine-month old fetuses, what about a fetus that is eight months and 29 days old? In other words, is it possible for you to draw any line that isn’t arbitrary?

        • There’s no fallacious argument. I agree with your point and have never said otherwise: as the fetus develops, it becomes more of a person and therefore abortion is less defensible. Beyond a certain point, the state steps in and declares it illegal.

          I do indeed support some limitations on abortion. Call that whatever you want. Since that characterizes most other pro-choice people, that’s the label I adopt.

          As for the line being arbitrary, no, it’s merely a difficult line to draw. Take sentencing for a crime. If it’s 2 years, do we really want it that long? What about 2 years minus one day–this is someone’s life after all–would that work? There are tough calls in lots of issues, not just where to draw the line for abortion.

        • William Mansour

          Well, you suggested that people who claim to be “pro-life,” but who eat meat and fish with slug bait, are not really pro-life. And I submit that you and others like you who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are not really pro-choice because you believe there is some (yet to be defined) point when such a choice should be prohibited. In other words, you are “pro-life,” you just disagree with other pro-lifers over the point in time at which abortion should be declared unlawful.

          As for your assertion that the line is not arbitrary, I respectfully disagree; the line is absolutely arbitrary. You said “Beyond a certain point, the state steps in and declares it illegal.” My question, and the question you have failed to answer, is: what is that point? Many pro-choice supporters, and the US Supreme Court, would answer by saying “the age of viability” which, according to the ever-evolving standards of medicine, would be at about 24 weeks gestation. Accepting this premise as true, a pro-choice person such as yourself might say that abortion should be outlawed after 24 weeks gestation because, at that point, the state’s interest in protecting human life outweighs the woman’s right to have an abortion. But what about 23 weeks and 6 days? Does the state’s interest in protecting human life magically become more compelling from one day to the next? Is there really a difference between a fetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old and one that is 24 weeks old such that the latter is entitled to greater legal protection? If the answer to that is “no,” and we are, therefore, willing to proscribe abortion at 23 weeks and 6 days, why stop there? Is there truly a material difference between a fetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old and a fetus that is 23 weeks and 5 days old? And so on and so forth. You see, the number is purely arbitrary because there is no significant difference between a fetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old and one that is 24 weeks and 1 day old that compels us to protect the latter and not the former. A matter of 24-48 hours differentiates the commission of a crime from the exercise of a putative constitutional right. If that’s not an arbitrary demarcation devoid of any rational basis, I don’t know what is.

        • Well, you suggested that people who claim to be “pro-life,” but who eat meat and go fishing with slug bait, are not really pro-life. But I submit that you and others like you who describe themselves as “pro-choice” are not really pro-choice because you believe there is some (yet to be defined) point when such a choice should be prohibited.

          I don’t think there’s information transfer here. If you’re quibbling over word choice, I don’t have much interest in participating.

          As for your assertion that the line is not arbitrary, I respectfully disagree; the line is absolutely arbitrary.

          If by “arbitrary” you mean that it’s subjective, I agree. We all might have different places where we’d like to draw the line. If by “arbitrary” you mean that it’s random, of course it’s not. Each person might agonize on just the right place to draw it.

          Your comparison to a criminal sentence is misplaced because the relevant inquiries in each matter are different. With respect to fashioning an appropriate criminal sentence, the inquiry is necessarily a normative one, that is, what SHOULD the sentence be? With respect to abortion, the relevant inquiry is not normative, but objective i.e. when does a fertilized human egg, as a matter of fact, become a human being and, thus, entitled to legal protection?

          And you’ve slipped in an assumption: that innocent human beings should never be killed. Normally I’d agree wholeheartedly with that … unless you make the unwarranted and ridiculous (IMO) declaration that a single microscopic cell is a human being. I wonder where you are on this issue.

          Unfortunately, definitions are key in this discussion.

          Your confusion is understandable

          No, I’m not confused. Or is “confusion” a euphemism for “error”?

          when SHOULD a fertilized human egg be entitled to legal protection?

          Right. If you have a line-drawing algorithm that’s objective, show me.

          You said “Beyond a certain point, the state steps in and declares it illegal.” My question, and the question you have failed to answer, is: what is that point?

          I dunno. And I don’t much care. That’s a different question—why bring it up? I’ll let legal and ethics experts work on it. They seem to have done a good job so far.

          Accepting this premise as true, a pro-choice person such as yourself might say that abortion should be outlawed after 24 weeks gestation because, at that point, the state’s interest in protecting human life outweighs the woman’s right to have an abortion. But what about 23 weeks and 6 days? Does the state’s interest in protecting human life magically become more compelling from one day to the next?

          We’ve been over this. Why should we sentence the bank robber to two years in prison? This is a human life we’re talking about here! How about 2 years minus one day? Have some compassion! Or maybe one day earlier—are you with me?

          Personhood is a spectrum—not a person as a cell and 100% a person at birth. It’s like a spectrum from blue to green—where do you draw the blue/green dividing line? We can quibble over it, but I think we can agree that blue is not green.

          If your position is that abortion is fine but you’re only interested in fine tuning the dividing line, that’s not an interesting conversation to me. We’re pretty much on the same page.

          If the answer to that is “no,” and we are, therefore, willing to proscribe abortion at 23 weeks and 6 days, why stop there? Is there truly a material difference between a fetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old and a fetus that is 23 weeks and 5 days old? And so on and so forth.

          To answer your question: blue is not green. And a single cell is not a person.

          You see, the number is purely arbitrary because there is no significant qualitative difference between a fetus that is 23 weeks and 6 days old and one that is 24 weeks and 1 day old

          Find a better word than “arbitrary.” It sounds like you’re picking dates randomly.

          A matter of 24-48 hours is all that differentiates the commission of a crime from the exercise of a putative constitutional right. If that’s not an arbitrary demarcation devoid of any rational basis, I don’t know what is.

          Welcome to the real world, my friend. You going to take that 2-year prison sentence for the bank robber and equivocate it down to 1 day?

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/01/spectrum-argument-for-abortion-revisited/

        • Ignorant Amos

          Compare the inequality in these two recent news stories…

          The woman, now aged 21 but unable to be identified because of a court order, was sentenced to three months in prison suspended for one year for aborting her baby using poison in July 2014.

          Aged 19 at the time, she claimed that she was unable to raise enough money to travel to England to access a lawful termination.

          Unlike the rest of the UK, abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland except in very extreme cases where it is deemed that there is a permanent serious risk to the life or mental health of the mother.

          In Northern Ireland, the maximum penalty for administering a drug to induce miscarriage under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 is life imprisonment.

          A law that is so antiquated that it predates the electric light bulb ffs.

          Now compare that with what happen when a real crime is committed.

          The parents of a month-old baby who died after they went on a 24-hour Christmas drinking binge and didn’t know where he was have escaped prosecution.

          Tragic Freddie Neil was found lying on the floor wedged between a wall and bed in his older brother’s room and pronounced dead on arrival at hospital.

          His parents Matthew Neil and Kim Smart-Neil were arrested and charged with neglect and manslaughter.

          But the CPS later decided to drop charges after deciding there was not enough evidence.

          Ya couldn’t make it up.

        • William Mansour

          There is no comparison. In the first case, should such despicable violence against an unborn child not be considered criminal? It would be, even in the US and England, if the child just so happened to be alive outside the womb instead of in it. The mother even threw the aborted fetus in the trash and didn’t have the common decency to dispose of her son (yes, it was developed enough that the sex could be determined) in a more respectable manner. And that’s like saying that we should feel bad for a person in Utah that is penalized for possessing marijuana because he didn’t have enough money to go to Colorado and possess it legally. The law is the law.

          As for the second case, the charges were dropped because there was not enough evidence. So what? It happens all the time. As tragic as the child’s death may have been, would it have not been equally as tragic if the parents were thrown in prison without the necessary evidence to convict them of a crime? So, according to your logic, whether individuals are entitled to due process should depend on how tragic the underlying crime is?

        • Ignorant Amos

          There is no comparison.

          My point in posting the two news items in the first place.

          In the first case, should such despicable violence against an unborn child not be considered criminal?

          Don’t be daft. Hyperbole such as that will result in you not being taken seriously. But ignoring the silly way you framed the question, my answer is NO, and I’m very much not in the minority.

          The criminalisation of the woman has been criticised by human rights organisation Amnesty International.

          “A woman who needs an abortion is not a criminal – the law should not treat her as such,” Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland director, said.

          And.

          A protest against the prosecution of a Northern Ireland women who bought abortion drugs online has being held outside the British Embassy in Berlin.

          Prior to the rally, the Berlin-Irish Pro Choice Solidarity said on Facebook: “How many people were disgusted by Trump’s comments about how women seeking abortions should be punished? Well, this is actually happening right now in Northern Ireland!

          It would be, even in the US and UK, if the child just so happened to be outside the womb instead of in it.

          Well obviously not.

          And that’s like saying that we should feel bad for a person in Utah that is penalized for possessing marijuana because he didn’t have enough money to go to Colorado and possess it legally.

          It would annoy me in such a case. A bit like the postcode lottery we have here when it comes to medical treatment. Unfair and unjust.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11957771/Postcode-lottery-in-cancer-diagnosis-is-costing-up-to-10000-lives-a-year.html

          The law is the law.

          That is the whole point. In such occasions the law is a stupid feckin ass.

          As for the second case, the charges were dropped because there was not enough evidence.

          Ah, well, that makes it all alright then.

          So what? It happens all the time.

          That’s the bloody problem.

          As tragic as the child’s death may have been, would it have not been equally as tragic if the parents were thrown in prison without the necessary evidence to convict them of a crime?

          As tragic as the child’s death may been? Your on here bawling your eyes out about the rights of a fetus, yet here you are non plused about the lack of welfare and justice afforded a 4 week old?

          So, according to your logic, whether individuals are entitled to due process should depend on how tragic the underlying crime is?

          How did ya arrive at that conclusion? But it’s nice to see that you are behind the rights of a pair of neglectful morons in the later case, while no thoughts for the young demented mother in the former. Way ta go Willie.

        • William Mansour

          Based on your comments, I can certainly see where you got your screen name from and, if I may say so myself, it is entirely appropriate.

          I’ll start at the bottom and work my way up.

          How did ya arrive at that conclusion? But it’s nice to see that you are behind the rights of a pair of neglectful morons in the later case, while no thoughts for the young demented mother in the former. Way ta go Willie.

          As a preliminary matter, it’s worth noting that sarcasm (and poor sarcasm, at that) is a tool typically used by people who don’t have anything substantive to say in response to an argument. Now that that observation is out of the way, I’ll move on to the merits of your arguments, such as they are. I made no judgment about the “neglectful morons” and never said what they did (or failed to do) was good or right. That is your (inaccurate) characterization. My point, which you clearly missed, was that these “neglectful morons” should not be thrown in jail if the government did not have enough evidence to prosecute and convict them. Apparently, you think differently. Hence, my conclusion that you believe the heinousness of a crime dictates whether a person should be criminally punished, regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of incriminating evidence.

          As tragic as the child’s death may been? Your on here bawling your eyes out about the rights of a fetus, yet here you are non plused about the lack of welfare and justice afforded a 4 week old?

          For starters, you used the wrong “you’re.” Just saying. Secondly, my use of the word “may” was purely rhetorical — of course the infant’s death was a tragedy and it would be ridiculous to characterize it as anything but. Aside from your quibbling over semantics, I find it amusing that you are “bawling your eyes out” (to use your language) over the homicide of an child by his mother (and father) four weeks after he is born, but are apparently not the least bit concerned about the homicide of a child by his mother four weeks before he is born. Interesting…

          It would annoy me in such a case. A bit like the postcode lottery we have here when it comes to medical treatment. Unfair and unjust.

          What is “unfair” and “unjust” about people, either directly or through their elected representatives, passing and enforcing a law? If I understand your argument correctly, you seem to be echoing the famous legal maxim first posited by St. Augustine: “Lex iniusta non est lex” i.e. “a law that is unjust is no law at all.” But that’s not an argument. I understand you may not agree with the law, but you have failed to set forth any objective standard of what “fairness” or “justice” is and why such a law is, under such a standard, “unfair” and “unjust.” You can’t just claim, without substantiation, that something is “unfair” and “unjust” because you don’t like it and then expect to win the argument.

          Don’t be daft. Hyperbole such as that will result in you not being taken seriously. But ignoring the silly way you framed the question, my answer is NO, and I’m very much not in the minority.

          The criminalisation of the woman has been criticised by human rights organisation Amnesty International.

          “A woman who needs an abortion is not a criminal – the law should not treat her as such,” Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland director, said.

          And.

          A protest against the prosecution of a Northern Ireland women who bought abortion drugs online has being held outside the British Embassy in Berlin.

          Prior to the rally, the Berlin-Irish Pro Choice Solidarity said on Facebook: “How many people were disgusted by Trump’s comments about how women seeking abortions should be punished? Well, this is actually happening right now in Northern Ireland!

          Not quite sure what hyperbole you are referring to. Are you disputing that the poisoning of one’s unborn child with the specific intent of causing that child’s death is not a form of violence? How about dismembering the unborn child in utero by ripping off each of its limbs and then sucking the remains out with a vacuum? Is that violent?

          Putting that aside, it’s no surprise that your statement contains another logical fallacy. You can’t just quote someone else’s opinion as proof that your same opinion is correct. Just because someone else agrees with you doesn’t mean your right. I know, I know, actually defending your position with facts and logic is hard work. But keep the faith, my brotha, you can do it!

        • William Mansour

          Based on your comments, I can certainly see where you got your screen name from and, if I may say so myself, it is entirely appropriate.

          I’ll start at the bottom and work my way up.

          How did ya arrive at that conclusion? But it’s nice to see that you are behind the rights of a pair of neglectful morons in the later case, while no thoughts for the young demented mother in the former. Way ta go Willie.

          As a preliminary matter, it’s worth noting that sarcasm (and poor sarcasm, at that) is a tool typically used by people who don’t have anything substantive to say in response to an argument. Now that we got that observation out of the way, I’ll move on to the merits of your arguments, such as they are.

          I made no judgment about the “neglectful morons” and never said what they did (or failed to do) was good or right. That is your (inaccurate) characterization. My point, which you clearly missed, was that these “neglectful morons” should not be thrown in jail if the government did not have enough evidence to prosecute and convict them. Apparently, you think differently — you seem to believe that not punishing the parents in this case is reprehensible considering what happened to their four-week old son. Hence, my conclusion that you believe the heinousness of a crime dictates whether a person should be criminally punished, regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of incriminating evidence.

          As tragic as the child’s death may been? Your on here bawling your eyes out about the rights of a fetus, yet here you are non plused about the lack of welfare and justice afforded a 4 week old?

          For starters, you used the wrong “you’re.” Just saying. Secondly, my use of the word “may” was purely rhetorical — of course the infant’s death was a tragedy and it would be ridiculous to characterize it as anything but. Aside from your quibbling over semantics, I find it amusing that you are “bawling your eyes out” (to use your language) over the homicide of a child by his mother (and father) four weeks after he is born, but are apparently not the least bit concerned about the homicide of a child by his mother four weeks before he is born. Interesting…

          It would annoy me in such a case. A bit like the postcode lottery we have here when it comes to medical treatment. Unfair and unjust.

          What is “unfair” and “unjust” about people, either directly or through their elected representatives, passing and enforcing a law? In a representative democracy, if the people don’t like the law, they can change the law by changing the lawmakers. But until such change occurs, I fail to see what is “unfair” and “unjust” about enforcing existing law. If I understand your argument correctly, you seem to be echoing the famous legal maxim first posited by St. Augustine: “Lex iniusta non est lex” i.e. “a law that is unjust is no law at all.” But that’s not an argument. I understand you may not agree with the law, but you have failed to set forth any objective standard of what “fairness” or “justice” is and why such a law is, under that standard, “unfair” and “unjust.” You can’t just declare, without substantiation, that something is “unfair” and “unjust” because you don’t like it and then expect to win the argument.

          Don’t be daft. Hyperbole such as that will result in you not being taken seriously. But ignoring the silly way you framed the question, my answer is NO, and I’m very much not in the minority.

          The criminalisation of the woman has been criticised by human rights organisation Amnesty International.

          “A woman who needs an abortion is not a criminal – the law should not treat her as such,” Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland director, said.

          And.

          A protest against the prosecution of a Northern Ireland women who bought abortion drugs online has being held outside the British Embassy in Berlin.

          Prior to the rally, the Berlin-Irish Pro Choice Solidarity said on Facebook: “How many people were disgusted by Trump’s comments about how women seeking abortions should be punished? Well, this is actually happening right now in Northern Ireland!

          Not quite sure what hyperbole you are referring to. Are you disputing that the poisoning of one’s unborn child with the specific intent of causing that child’s death is not a form of violence? How about dismembering the unborn child in utero by ripping off each of its limbs, one at a time, stabbing its skull with a pair of scissors, and then sucking the remains out with a vacuum? Is that a form of violence?

          Putting that aside, it’s no surprise that your statement contains yet another logical fallacy. You can’t just cite someone else’s opinion as proof that your same opinion is correct. Just because a bunch of other people agree with you doesn’t mean you’re right. I know, I know — actually defending your position with facts and logic is hard work. But keep the faith, my brotha, you can do it!

        • And then you’ve got good parents who think that prayer is the best way to cure a child. I believe some states still protect parents who take this approach.

        • Myna Alexanderson

          In other words, is it possible for you to draw any line that isn’t arbitrary?

          In the United States, 42 states have strict bans on late-term abortions, with very rare medical exception. Most are allowed only in the first trimester. If you have issues with the other 8, it is up to you to write the senators and congressmen and women of those states to voice your concerns.

          The issue is more complex than you appear to comprehend and even in states where it is allowed, I believe the percentage is around 0.08% and that under strict legal and medical guidelines. I refuse to enter into a debate on a matter that is between a woman and her physician, but suggest you put your complaint to its proper source if you have an issue, which you clearly do.

          If you think, in your wildest imagination, that induced abortion will cease to exist if made illegal, you are sorely mistaken. The purpose of legalization is to lessen the associated risks.

        • William Mansour

          Is it possible that criminalization of abortion would incentivize both men and women to take greater prophylactic measures, thereby reducing the need for abortions in general? Are you saying that criminalization provides no deterrent effect at all? If so, should murder or theft be legalized because people still murder and steal even though they are crimes?

          And is the decision really between a woman (or teenage girl) and her doctor? Is there some requirement that a pregnant woman consult with her personal physician before seeking an abortion and are there any statistics to prove that is what abortion-seekers normally do? Isn’t it true that a pregnant woman can just go to a local abortion clinic and get an abortion on demand from a doctor whom she does not know and likely will never see again without any meaningful consultation whatsoever?

        • Myna Alexanderson

          Is it possible that criminalization of abortion would incentive both men
          and women to take greater prophylactic measures, thereby reducing the
          need for abortions rather than just making them safer?

          No.

          And is the decision really between a woman (or teenage girl) and her doctor?

          It’s not a decision between the two, but a matter of consultation.

          Is there some requirement that a pregnant woman consult with her
          personal physician before seeking an abortion and are there any
          statistics to prove that is what abortion-seekers normally do?

          A woman does not need to consult with her (or a) physician whether to have an abortion, although before being referred to a clinic by her (or a) physician, her medical history and stage of pregnancy will need to be verified. You must understand that not all women who have abortions necessarily want to have one. Sometimes, an anomalous medical issue arises and there is no real choice involved.

          [Edited to add: There is usually some counseling involved before the procedure is done.]

          Isn’t it true that a pregnant woman can just go to a local abortion
          clinic and get an abortion on demand from a doctor whom she does not
          know and likely will never see again?

          One does not simply walk in the door of an abortion clinic and demand an abortion. Since it is unlikely that a woman’s personal physician performs abortions, it is therefore likely she will not know the physician who performs the abortion.

        • William Mansour

          So based on what you’re telling me, a woman need not consult with a doctor before getting an abortion from some other doctor who she also need not consult with, correct? So tell me, how is the decision to have an abortion one that is made between a woman and her doctor when you just admitted no doctor need be consulted with. Isn’t it more accurate to just say it’s a decision that a woman makes alone unless she decides to consult her doctor first? And even after any such consultation, the decision resides ultimately with the woman, correct? So isn’t is just a bit disingenuous to suggest that the woman’s doctor has some sort of vital role in the decision?

          And why wouldn’t the criminalization of abortion induce men and women to take greater protective measures since they will no longer be able to avoid the consequences of any reckless or negligent sexual conduct? Should not individuals be responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of their actions?

        • Myna Alexanderson

          Read what I wrote. I wrote: A woman does not need to consult with her (or a) physician whether to have an abortion, although before being referred to a clinic by her (or a) physician, her medical history and stage of pregnancy will need to be verified.

          Of course, the decision ultimately resides with the woman. If I was not clear, let me be clear now. It does.

          And why wouldn’t the criminalization of abortion induce men and women to
          take greater protective measures since they will no longer be able to
          avoid the consequences of any reckless or negligent sexual conduct?

          Because it never has before.

          Anyway, I’ve said my piece for what it’s worth and bid you good-evening or good-day as whatever is the case.

        • Valerie Tarico has written a provocative piece that outlines what conservatives would do if they actually wanted to reduce abortions like you say. She claims her approach would reduce it by 90% in 20 years. (And, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t repeal Roe.) Take a look.

        • The news in today’s Seattle Times was about a proposal to have a safe place for shooting up heroin in Seattle. Like you said: harm reduction.

          Conservatives were shocked at Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor with the filthy clinic, ignoring the fact that that’s the future that they’re pushing for.

        • William Mansour

          I have read about this proposal and it is not the first. There have been other initiatives around the world, both proposed and enacted, that aim to make drug use “safer,” for example, by providing heroin addicts with new, unused hypodermic needles. But isn’t this just addressing a symptom of the disease of addiction rather than the disease itself? Is it any different from saturating a terminal cancer patient with pain medication in order to make the burden of the disease easier to bear? And aren’t there unintended consequences? For example, while providing clean needles to heroin addicts might certainly reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV or Hepatitis, might it not also incentivize addicts to engage in greater drug use since needles are free and the risk of disease drastically reduced? What’s next? Providing free heroin that is pure and unadulterated to prevent overdoses and other adverse effects caused by foreign substances that street heroin is often cut with?

          The problem with all of these programs is that they don’t do anything to treat the actual problem: addiction. Clean needles and a safe place to shoot up do absolutely nothing to prevent overdosing, which is the #1 adverse effect of heroin use, or to reduce heroin use altogether.

          It seems as though modern western society has as its aim the total elimination of all risk and consequence which, in turn, reduces the need for personal responsibility. This is, indeed, why some people accurately (IMO) claim that younger generations in western society have a sense of entitlement and are, quite frankly, over-sensitive and emotionally weak — they haven’t actually been forced to deal with life’s problems. Instead, they’ve been sheltered from them. Life is nothing more than an extended period of trial-and-error. We grow and mature as human beings because we learn from our mistakes and, if we are wise, from the mistakes of others. But when mistakes have no consequences, when decisions are unaccompanied by risk, there is no learning, no human advancement. Children learn that fire is hot by getting burned. This is the problem with abortion and other forms of “harm reduction” — there is no lesson learned and no incentive to make better decisions. As a consequence, personal responsibility is abdicated. Why practice abstinence or safe sex and why wait until marriage if abortion on demand is an option (as many in the pro-choice crowd would like it to be)?

          And it is simply false to claim that making abortion a crime would not reduce the number of abortions. For example, a very interesting article here points out that, when New York, for example, liberalized its abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions in the state increased twenty-fold! And following Roe, abortions nationwide more than doubled from approximately 600,000 to just over 1.4 million annually. Indeed, as the article points out, legalized abortion leads to safer abortions, but it is equally evident that legalized abortion also leads to MORE abortions. If one can lawfully avoid becoming a duty-bound parent by having an abortion, an abortion seems like a pretty good option.

          Contrary to what Tronald Dump said about punishing women who get abortions, that is not what the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers support. It is, and always has been, a fundamental tenet of the pro-life movement that doctors, not expectant mothers, should be penalized for performing abortions. In fact, imposing criminal penalties on the mother would probably be found unconstitutional as a violation of due process. Generally speaking, in order to be a crime, there must be both a mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (voluntary act). Without a voluntary act, there can be no crime and criminalizing non-action, such as allowing an abortion to be performed on you without actively taking part in the performance itself, would likely run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

          Despite the fact that religious beliefs often play a vital role in one’s decision not to commit certain crimes, the fact remains that criminal penalties, in this life, often provide a greater deterrent (at least for those at the margins) against criminal activity. Legitimately or not, people are more fearful of the state’s wrath than they are of God’s wrath. Will criminalizing abortion eliminate all abortions? Of course not; just like criminalizing drug possession or murder does has not eliminated drug possession or murder. But for those abortionists at the margins, for those who would otherwise perform an abortion but for the criminal penalties, criminalization undoubtedly works to reduce the overall number of abortions performed.

          On a final note, your Kermit Gosnell reference doesn’t do much for your argument. Even with abortion completely legal, Gosnell was still able to do what he did so to say that criminalizing abortion would lead to more Gosnells is not logical. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, Gosnell and others like him would still face the same, and probably worse, penalties.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And it is simply false to claim that making abortion a crime would not reduce the number of abortions.

          Really? Not where I come from it doesn’t. Women are just being forced to become debt ridden, risk their health, or risk incarceration. Distressing the scenario will not impinge the will of a woman who is determined enough to seek a termination.

          http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/05/abortion-in-northern-ireland-women-share-their-experiences

          http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-s-women-face-jail-for-taking-abortion-pill-1.2598217

        • William Mansour

          No law will prevent a class of acts entirely. I’m not sure you read the part of my post where I talked about how criminal laws typically deter those at the margins from committing a certain act, but do not completely eliminate commission of that act. In other words, criminal laws reduce, but do not eliminate, certain acts. Can you find me any articles about women who chose not to have an abortion because of the criminal penalties? Probably not because that doesn’t make for a good story and it is not consistent with the pro-abortion narrative.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No law will prevent a class of acts entirely. I’m not sure you read the part of my post where I talked about how criminal laws typically deter those at the margins from committing a certain act, but do not completely eliminate commission of that act.

          I’m not sure how one could go about supporting such an assertion.

          In other words, criminal laws reduce, but do not eliminate, certain acts.

          How does the law against murder reduce murder? Laws are a deterrent, murderers will murder, thieves will thieve, drug takers will take drugs, regardless of the law.

          Explain to me again how Prohibition Laws reduced crimes, including the crime of drinking alcohol?

          Can you find me any articles about women who chose not to have an abortion because of the criminal penalties? Probably not because that doesn’t make for a good story and it is not consistent with the pro-abortion narrative.

          You seem to have it in your head that for most women having an abortion is just some minor inconvenience like losing a few pounds in order to fit that bikini they haven’t worn since last summer.

        • isn’t this just addressing a symptom of the disease of addiction rather than the disease itself?

          Obviously. It’s harm reduction. Given that we’ve tried and failed to have zero addicts, what can we do to reduce our social costs (money, damaged lives) given that this is a chronic social issue?

          while providing clean needles to heroin addicts might certainly reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV or Hepatitis, might it not also incentivize addicts to engage in greater drug use since needles are free and the risk of disease drastically reduced?

          Of course. So you weigh the pros and cons.

          In WA state, pot is now legal. Same thing—is legalization a net positive or not? Not an easy issue, but the data can be evaluated and a sensible conclusion reached.

          The problem with all of these programs is that they don’t do anything to treat the actual problem: addiction.

          Uh, you do know that this isn’t in lieu of other approaches but in addition, right?

          And why think that addiction is the actual problem? Force someone into a weeklong detox and there is no addiction anymore. Put him back in his environment and what do you suppose the half-life of his sobriety is?

          This is the problem with abortion and other forms of “harm reduction” — there is no lesson learned and no incentive to make better decisions.

          Huh? Abortion in the best case is a moderately tough procedure to go through. Don’t tell me that you’d say, “You’re going to have that baby and probably raise it to adulthood, young lady! Now let’s see if you’re as quick to open your legs next time!”? Methinks the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

          If so, I suggest you apply that to emergency rooms. “Driving too fast, weren’t you, son? Well you’re not getting treatment for your injuries here! Maybe next time you get behind the wheel, you’ll take some responsibility for your actions!”

          Why practice abstinence or safe sex and why wait until marriage if abortion on demand is an option (as many in the pro-choice crowd would like it to be)?

          I could detail the cluelessness here if the previous examples haven’t made my position clear.

          And it is simply false to claim that making abortion a crime would not reduce the number of abortions. For example, a very interesting article here points out that, when New York, for example, liberalized its abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions in the state increased twenty-fold!

          Huh? The article begins, “In 1955, experts had estimated, on the basis of qualitative assumptions, that 200,000-1,200,000 illegal abortions were performed each year.” So the abortion rate might’ve been the same as today even though the population has nearly doubled?? I don’t think this article is the ally you think it is.

          Tell me what you think of the Valerie Tarico article. My position is that pro-lifers who tell us that the sky is falling and that abortion is a holocaust don’t really believe that. If they did, they would be approaching the problem in a very different manner. You want to reduce abortions? Follow the advice in the article. Instead of being opposed to people like me, we’d be allies.

          in order to be a crime, there must be both a mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (voluntary act). Without a voluntary act, there can be no crime and criminalizing non-action, such as allowing an abortion to be performed on you without actively taking part in the performance itself, would likely run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

          I don’t follow. How do you find the woman innocent? When abortion is illegal, if she gets an illegal abortion, she’s committed a crime. For example, if I hire a hit man, I committed a crime even though I didn’t pull the trigger.

          your Kermit Gosnell reference doesn’t do much for your argument. Even with abortion completely legal, Gosnell was still able to do what he did so to say that criminalizing abortion would lead to more Gosnells is not logical.

          Again you’ve lost me. Gosnell broke today’s law, so he got punished. In an illegal-abortion America, abortions could be done by Gosnells or careful abortion doctors; there’s just less motivation to be nice since no one’s checking up on you.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Giving patients free opioids have been done in a few countries, with success. the number of overdose deaths have dropped, and the number of new addicts as well.

        • These are free opioids to, say, cancer patients? Not free opioids on demand to anyone, I’m assuming.

          In the US, we have the odd situation of an epidemic of synthetic opioid dependency plus hospitals that are anxious about giving too much pain meds to terminally ill patients.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          No, free heroin to addicts (the ones that has been through programs aimed at sobriety that has failed). I myself am in a similar program, going on for over 10 years now, using Suboxone (buprenophine, it works by triggering the endorphine production). Since I started, I have been off heroin and other drugs affecting the central nervous system. I smoke a blunt now and then, but that`s been a rarer and rarer occurrence over the years. Other ppl I know from my day as a user has had a return to the workforce, school etc, and are doing just fine. the program here in Norway is called LAR (legemiddel assistert rehabilitering, or medically assisted rehabilitation) and is aimed at damage reduction.
          there is talk of giving the most hardcore cases free heroin as a trial, but I have not been paying too much attention to how that is panning out. but it has been done with success in other places here in Europe.

        • That’s how legal marijuana was billed in my state of Washington. Money going to incarceration can go to treatment.

          Harm reduction makes a lot of sense. We also have needle exchanges for injected drugs.

          It’s great to hear that the buprenophine program is working for you. I think it’s more methadone here, but I don’t know. Is buprenophine the superior approach?

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Is buprenophine the superior approach?

          In my view it is. It does not give you any sense of a high after you have been taking it for a while, but it takes away any craving for dope. people not used to it gets the same effect as if they take morphine, but since theres a limit to how much endorpines your body can produce, the chances of getting OD is negligible, unless it`s combined with other things like alcohol or benzos. The side effects of methadone is harder on the body as well.

        • adam

          “hospitals that are anxious about giving too much pain meds to terminally ill patients.”

          Yes, they might get addicted to pain relief and suffer the long term side affects of opiods.

          “A few years ago when we did interviews with people in treatment, many would tell us that although they were addicts, at least they weren’t using heroin,” Cicero said. “But now, many tell us that a prescription opioid might run $20 to $30 per tablet while heroin might only cost about $10.”

          The drug overdose death rate more than doubled from 1999 through 2013, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.”http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1282578-heroin-is-cheaper-than-oxycontin-and-overdoses-are-increasing/

          The problem is that there is no quality control on illegal heroin.

        • Phil

          Very binary of you as if there aren’t other programs in parallel to the provision of needles that deal with the root cause. I don’t think there is one country in the world that would just say, “Here have some clean needles” job done and leave them to it.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          “What about the abortion of unborn fetuses ten hours, or even ten days, prior to delivery? ”

          Well, for one, they do not happen.
          are you just being obtuse, or simply an idiot?

        • That he raises this question suggests that he knows that the personhood of an 8-month-old fetus is much higher than that of an 8-day-old zygote. Maybe he’s simply saying that abortions, if done, should be done ASAP.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Life is life. and a slug has more of a mind than a fetus at the time an abortion legally takes place.

        • William Mansour

          I don’t know where you got your biology degree, but it’s beyond absurd to claim that a 16 week old human fetus that can hear, taste, and feel pain is less complex than a slug. I take it you’ve never purposely killed a mosquito before. Sorry, not all life is equal.

        • I’ve killed mosquitoes with pleasure. And a human blastocyst is less complex than that mosquito.

          I agree: not all life is equal. The 9-month spectrum of gestation is a great example.

        • William Mansour

          The mosquito is not nearly as complex as the human zygote based on the simple fact that the DNA of the human zygote is far more complex than the DNA of the mosquito and, most importantly, will eventually develop into a much more complex organism.

        • So argument is the Argument from Potential. I agree: the zygote will be more complex than the mosquito in 9 months.

          But it isn’t now. That’s the point, and that’s why that argument fails.

        • William Mansour

          Do you dispute that the human zygote is an independent, living organism and a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens that contains the same genetic makeup as a fully-developed human being? Based on a scientific description of fertilization, the fusion of sperm and egg in the “moment of conception” generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism. If you agree with this proposition, I don’t see how you can argue that an adult mosquito is more complex.

        • If you agree with this proposition, I don’t see how you can argue that an adult mosquito is more complex.

          Yes, the fertilized egg cell is alive. Yes, it has H. sapiens DNA. But it’s one eukaryotic cell. I approximate the number of cells in the mosquito to be about 1 million–each one specialized in its function to make a functioning whole. And it’s an independent living creature.

          No, one cell is not more complex than a million-cell organism.

        • Odd Jørgensen

          Do you dispute that the human zygote is an independent, living organism and a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens that contains the same genetic makeup as a fully-developed human being?

          Absolutely. it requires the body of another human being in order to develop beyond the zygote stage. You seem to be of the opinion that the little cluster of cells has more rights than the grown woman it resides in. then again, your ilk has a long history of not giving a rats ass about women and their rights.

        • Eleanor Suarez

          “Self-developing” is clearly false although irrelevant to the point in question, so I won’t criticize you for that wording. I don’t know what you mean by “independent”, but I don’t dispute that it’s a distinct member of the homo sapiens species whose life just got started.

          What I dispute is that those facts support the view that killing a homo sapiens in early development is worse than killing a fucking mosquito (indeed, just as bad as killing any other homo sapiens as anti-abortionists would have us believe). I dismiss your argument as a non-sequitur. I can share a few real-world examples (not even thought experiments involving aliens, conscious robots or a second species with human-like or superhuman capabilities living in parallel with us) to show how absurd your proposition is:

          * Identical twins come from a single zygote which separates in 2 or more later in development. Therefore they share exactly the same genetic makeup (to be fair some cell-specific mutations will soon or later occur to them, but this is also true of 2 cells inside your body). However we count them as 2 distinct organisms, and as 2 distinct persons after they start to acquire personalities (e.g., we don’t say killing both of them only counts as 1 murder because… genes!). Therefore, the genome can’t be responsible for making a person a person (it may contribute to it after it produces a brain with certain configuration and predispositions, but this is not the same as the genome).

          * Chimerism offers an extra control to disprove the “H. Sapiens genes makes moral worth” hypothesis. It’s the opposite case to monozyotic twins. A chimera is an organism (e.g. a homo sapiens) which develops as one body from the fusion of 2 or more genetically-distinct zygotes during early development, when cells are general enough to allow for the cooperation of 2 separate genomes to develop into one unified body. Interestingly, male and female genomes are allowed to fuse and coexist in one body. Not only this is real, it’s not that uncommon. You should know one or two persons who are chimeras, by mere statistics. Would you say each of them is one person or more?

          * Similarly, conjoined twins refute the idea that a right to life can come from having a Homo sapiens body (whatever its stage in development) that is distinct from its parent(s) or any other organism. We all know that killing a conjoined human body counts as 2 deaths, not one. There’s more than one person there.

          Also note that when the bodies are joined by the head we no longer call them conjoined twins in the plural, but a single person with extra limbs and organs. Why? Could it be that person-hood lives in the brain? Of course it does, at least in the case of all known biological organisms on Earth. This view is also supported by the simple observation that virtually all parts of the body can be severed, as long as the rest survives, before we say the person is gone, except for the brain. Severed parts could probably be kept alive, but it doesn’t seem very sensible to call them a human being.

          Although obviously incomplete, neuroscience has much more to tell us about how our minds are the product of brain activity than I can offer here to you; but these simple examples should be enough to get you started. For instance, we know that we can split one consciousness into two (yes!, two persons from one as far as I can tell, just like with conjoined twins) by simply cutting off the corpus callosum that connects the 2 cortical hemispheres. Some abilities (like language comprehension) will remain in only one hemisphere, but many others like reasoning and forming opinions branch off in both. Body coordination remains largely unaffected by the way, because there’s a clear separation of sensory input and motor responsibilities for each hemisphere in the neural pathways.

          > this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the
          properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism

          Clearly wrong from your part, yet irrelevant to the point in question. A genotype doesn’t exhibit any of the properties which make people valuable, nor can it develop into a person on its own, with or without the aid of the host cell (see epigenetics). For fucks sake, my hard disk could store thousands of never-seen-before homo sapiens genomes (at about 1 GiB each), but that wouldn’t grant it personhood.

          > I don’t see how you can argue that an adult mosquito is more complex.

          This is as silly a statement as the one that says human life doesn’t begin at conception (the one you were trying to refute). Get an entry-level general biology college text book and read from the beginning. I recommend “Biology: Life on Earth” by Audesirk, Audesirk and Bayers. If you go for that book, make sure to keep reading until after at least the chapter on the nervous system. You will have covered genetics and embriology by then.

        • Eleanor Suarez

          Not to mention that presentist theories of time, which are disfavored by modern physics and cherished by religious folks, are at odds with the idea that a future more complex fetus is real at the present.

        • That’s an interesting way of phrasing it.

        • Eleanor Suarez

          Wrong and wrong and wrong. Even a mosquito antenna would be more complex than a zygote. Moreover, the number one fact from evolutionary embryology you aren’t allowed to dismiss is the increase in the similarity of embryos across different species as you go back in the development process. A sufficiently young human zygote and a sufficiently young mouse zygote would only differ by their DNA and maybe a few proteins.

          The DNA criteria for moral worth is completely wrong-headed and untenable. First, speciecism is arbitrarily bigoted for the same reasons racism is arbitrarily bigoted, there’s an important difference of degree, but the arguments hold. Second, there’s no such a thing as a hard distinction between approved human DNA and non-human DNA; a species is only a cluster of genomes that a specific gnome is able to mate with. Our DNA is constantly changing and lies in a continuum with all other species on the planet (was there a first homo sapiens to deserve not being aborted for whom killing his parents was morally OK?). Finally, sheer DNA complexity can’t be in the criteria, because homo sapiens DNA is about as complex as corn DNA (which clearly isn’t deserving of rights), and shrimp DNA is something like 9 times more complex. These are just a few examples. Clearly just having a complex DNA doesn’t imply you also end up with a complex subjective experience and personhood. So either mosquitoes ought not be killed or there’s a set of genes that grant their host cell a right to life; so that when we come across hypothetical intelligent aliens with rich subjectivities we won’t be able to account for their moral worth. Hello 16th century theologically-motivated racism, how you’ve been doing?

          Potency isn’t an argument either, because every sperm+egg pair is about as equally capable of developing a fully-fledged human (even a yet-to-be-fertilized sperm+egg pair) than a sperm+egg pair a few moments later in time, yet we don’t see religtards arguing that jerking off amounts to killing children. Also, the argument begs the question as to why only homo sapiens potency counts, despite other species being just as capable of forming fully-fledged organisms of their own species. You can only appeal to the degrees of richness in the cognitive phenomena of more mature specimens of different species, which proves what has been our point along the way: that it’s cognitive activity what matters, and that it comes in degrees. Also, fertilization isn’t a point in time but a process that takes some time to occur with no clear boundaries (like everything else in biology). So much for clear-cut morals.

        • epeeist

          The mosquito is not nearly as complex as the human zygote based on the simple fact that the DNA of the human zygote is far more complex than the DNA of the mosquito

          And the human genome isn’t nearly as complex as that of, for example, Paris Japonica.

        • Eleanor Suarez

          It really depends on the timing

        • Eleanor Suarez

          You just claimed you were for life, not just homo sapiens life:

          > We are weird with that whole value life thing Christians seem to stand for.

          Perhaps you need a better name than “pro-life”. Or are you saying plants and slugs aren’t alive?

          The life of slugs and most vegetable organisms also begins at fertilization. Either being alive is a sufficient reason to deserve a right to live or it doesn’t. The fact that giving veggies a right to live comes off as patently absurd to all of us (well, except maybe for a few really confused hippies) suggests dignity is to be found somewhere else (hint: a mind, which for all intents and purposes means a working brain, and whose scientific study is far from subjective).

          Who says life begins with consciousness? That’s just silly.

        • Eleanor Suarez

          You just claimed you were for life, not just homo sapiens life:

          > We are weird with that whole value life thing Christians seem to stand for.

          Perhaps you need a better name than “pro-life”. Or are you saying plants and slugs aren’t alive?

          The life of slugs and most vegetable organisms also begins at fertilization. Either being alive is a sufficient reason to deserve a right to live or it doesn’t. The fact that giving veggies a right to live comes off as patently absurd to all of us (well, except maybe for a few really confused hippies) suggests dignity is to be found somewhere else (hint: a mind, which for all intents and purposes means a working brain, and whose scientific study is far from subjective).

          Who says life begins with consciousness? That’s just silly.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Pro-FORCED birth…in fact.

        • I read some bland pro-life article a few days ago that went on and on about new parents or parents-to-be who were over the moon about their child.

          Not a single mention of the woman/girl whose heart sank when she learned she was pregnant.

          When you learn that you’re pregnant, that’s either some of the best news in your entire life or some of the worst. How clueless are these people when they pretend the latter doesn’t exist?

        • L.Long

          Stem Cell research is rejected by the religious and it has NOTHING to do with abortion because a large %age of stem cells are available from birth stuff. Also the religious claim they are against stem cell because ABORTION!! So what religious are saying is that it is better to throw the fetus into the garbage rather then use the valued parts, thanks for nothing!

        • MNb

          Stem cell by definition is not on embryous, silly.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

          First sentence: “Stem cells are undifferentiated biological cells …”
          Also if you had cared to click that Wikipedia link and had used your brain iso parroting christian propaganda you might have concluded that I was not talking the Middle Ages but the 18th and 19th Century. Then the more modern view of medical science became available indeed – and it were christians “doctors” who rejected it.

      • Korus Destroyus

        This is some awful history. Where’s the evidence that the ideas of bloodletting or the four temperaments had anything to do with Christianity, or that opposing theories to these concepts were suppressed at all, let alone due to Christianity?

        • Greg G.

          He didn’t say it had anything to do with Christianity. He said it was “christians”.

          Early Christians eschewed the ancient Greek knowledge until it fell into their hands during the Crusades. Then it was so far beyond their knowledge, they accepted it all.

          There were few literate people in Europe who were not Christians. There were even fewer who were literate in Greek who were not Christians. Are you going to blame them for spreading everything the ancient Greeks got wrong and credit only Christians for spreading everything the ancient Greeks got right?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Early Christians eschewed the ancient Greek knowledge until it fell into their hands during the Crusades. Then it was so far beyond their knowledge, they accepted it all.”

          This is no less historical garbage than what Bob said, Greg. By the way, I want to make a quick note — when I use insulting terms, it’s not because I think there’s anything particularly wrong with you. It’s just that I have strong opinions against misinformation in ancient history.

          Did the Christians shun Greek knowledge until the Crusades? No, that’s nonsense. In fact, it was the Christians throughout the early medieval period who went to enormous lengths to copy and preserve the Greek writings. The single most read philosophical work in the entire medieval period was Boethius’s Consolations of Philosophy written in the 6th century — where Boethius combines classical to an enormous degree with his Christian theology. Christians in the first few centuries of the middle ages were single-handedly responsible for the survival of any works we call Greek and Roman today — Christians like Boethius, Cassiodorus and Charlemagne. The classical writings were the opposite of “shunned”. In fact, not only does the credit go to Christians, but it goes to Christianity itself, since the copying happened in Christian monasteries (the only institution that preserved literacy after Rome’s fall since the Christians were devoted to reading their Bible’s and church fathers).

          “There were few literate people in Europe who were not Christians. There were even fewer who were literate in Greek who were not Christians. Are you going to blame them for spreading everything the ancient Greeks got wrong and credit only Christians for spreading everything the ancient Greeks got right?”

          Where did I take any due credit from the ancient Greeks or give undue credit to Christians?

        • Greg G.

          Did the Christians shun Greek knowledge until the Crusades? No, that’s nonsense. In fact, it was the Christians throughout the early medieval period who went to enormous lengths to copy and preserve the Greek writings.

          If the Christians didn’t shun those ancient Greek writings at some point, it would not have been new to them in the 11th and 12th centuries when they got them from the crusades. At some point, a choice was made whether to reproduce the ancient Greek writings or the Christian writings.

          Where did I take any due credit from the ancient Greeks or give undue credit to Christians?

          When you changed the topic from “christians” to “Christianity”. The only people who were writing at the time were professed Christians. They were the ones who were basing their ideas on the thousand year old Greek literature whether it was right or wrong. They were not doing it because of Christianity, they were just Christians writing stuff that was wrong. They were wrong about that stuff for a few centuries.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If the Christians didn’t shun those ancient Greek writings at some point, it would not have been new to them in the 11th and 12th centuries when they got them from the crusades. At some point, a choice was made whether to reproduce the ancient Greek writings or the Christian writings.”

          Brush up on your history books, Greg. The classical works didn’t re-enter Europe through the crusades to Jerusalem, which began in the late 11th century. They re-entered Europe through Islamic Spain in the early 13th century (or was it late 12th?).

          By the way, where do you think the Muslims got access to the classical works? Did it fall out of the sky? No, bucko, they got it from Christians who copied them. So the only reason that the Muslims had them in the first place is because Christians made the conscious decision to preserve these works.

          “When you changed the topic from “christians” to “Christianity”. The only people who were writing at the time were professed Christians. They were the ones who were basing their ideas on the thousand year old Greek literature whether it was right or wrong. They were not doing it because of Christianity, they were just Christians writing stuff that was wrong. They were wrong about that stuff for a few centuries.”

          No, it was you, poor Greg, who changed the topic from Christianity to Christians. The fact is that they WERE copying it because of their Christianity. Where do you think, exactly, all the copying happened? The monasteries. Why in the monasteries? Because literacy was dead everywhere else. The only place literacy survived in was the monasteries, because Christians — due to their Christianity — wanted to be able to read their scriptures and church fathers. Without Christianity, the monks at the monasteries themselves would have failed to preserve their literacy, and so all the Greek writings — all of them — would have been lost, forever. And why do you think Christians copied down the Greek texts anyways? Because they found Juvenal’s poetry sooo good? LOL, not even close. It was because church fathers like Origen, John of Damascus and Augustine began merging Christianity, in their own ways, with various Greek philosophies. The Christians ended up believing that the Greek texts, themselves, were treasure gifts of God. Which is why they were copied. In other words, Christianity is the reason why they were preserved.

        • Greg G.

          They re-entered Europe through Islamic Spain in the early 13th century (or was it late 12th?).

          Whenever it was, the fact that they re-entered Europe is the point I am making. The fact that they had to re-enter means they were not maintained in Europe. It was a big deal to them but they were not worth maintaining to the earlier Christians.

          No, it was you, poor Greg, who changed the topic from Christianity to Christians.

          No, I didn’t. MNb referred to “christians”. You responded as if he was referring to “Christianity”. I called that out to you. You should brush up on your recent history. It happened within the last 24 hours.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Whenever it was, the fact that they re-entered Europe is the point I am making. The fact that they had to re-enter means they were not maintained in Europe. It was a big deal to them but they were not worth maintaining to the earlier Christians.

          And yet the reason why they had to re-enter was not because of some sort of intellectual lack on part of the Christians, but because of the tanking of literacy after the Roman empire fell. This has nothing to do with the prejudices or concerns of Christianity. It’s just a simple fact that the fall of the Roman empire was a total catastrophe and sent large sections of Europe back to Iron Age level technologies for a few centuries, especially Britain.

        • Greg G.

          And yet the reason why they had to re-enter was not because of some sort of intellectual lack on part of the Christians, but because of the tanking of literacy after the Roman empire fell. This has nothing to do with the prejudices or concerns of Christianity. It’s just a simple fact that the fall of the Roman empire was a total catastrophe and sent large sections of Europe back to Iron Age level technologies for a few centuries, especially Britain.

          But they didn’t lose all of their literature. They maintained the Bible and the writings of the church fathers. They seem to have maintained Greek literature such as the Homeric epics and Aesop. But they neglected the Greek philosophy and science which were lost to following generations for centuries.

          They made choices. They chose to not maintain those writings. Fortunately they maintained literacy in Greek and Latin so they could take advantage of the ancient writings when they were reacquired.

        • Korus Destroyus

          OF COOOOURSE THEY MAINTAINED THE BIBLE, LOL. That’s just incomparable. The reasons why specific Christian writings survived is because there was an intense religious motivation to keep them. As for specifically which Greek writings survived, I’ve simply no clue on this — you claim Homer and Aesop survived, though I’ll need sources to verify before we move on. I’m actually quite surprised I haven’t yet actually looked into specifically which writings were maintained or lost in this time. I’m quite ready to make a concession if it sharpens my points.

        • Greg G.

          OF COOOOURSE THEY MAINTAINED THE BIBLE, LOL. That’s just incomparable. The reasons why specific Christian writings survived is because there was an intense religious motivation to keep them.

          They made a choice. They chose religion over the intellectual Greek writings. They lost the intellectual Greek writings because they chose not to maintain them because they didn’t see the value in them. Early second millennium Christians found great value in them after they had been lost to the late first millennium Christians.

          you claim Homer and Aesop survived

          http://homermultitext.blogspot.com/2010/07/homeric-papyri-and-homer-multitext.html says the oldest manuscripts of Homer are dated to the 10th century, though fragments going back to the third century BCE are known.

          From further up the thread:

          And yet the reason why they had to re-enter was not because of some sort of intellectual lack on part of the Christians

          They didn’t see the value in those Greek writings. It doesn’t much matter why they didn’t. The fact remains that the writings were lost to western Europe for centuries. The writings turned out to be quite valuable when they were available. They were finally able to see farther by standing on Aristotle’s toes.

          It doesn’t matter that the Muslims got their copies from Christians in the early centuries. It matters that they maintained the writings into the thirteenth century, even while maintaining their religious writings. Apparently they saw some value in them.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “says the oldest manuscripts of Homer are dated to the 10th century, though fragments going back to the third century BCE are known.”

          Where were those manuscripts found? The Byzantine empire? If so, then it’s irrelevant — no Greek philosophers were lost in the Byzantine empire. Authors were only lost in western Europe, and that’s because the Western Roman empire fell there.

          Anyhow, I did some looking into the scholarly literature since you brought this up with me. Though nothing was really lost in the east, it seems that the authors in the west were, in fact, lost, since no one really read them anymore. Of course, making the dichotomy between “religion vs intellectual Greek writings” is absurd. The “religious” writings that were preserved are just as intellectual as anything the Greeks came up with. We moderns really need to stop exaggerating the accomplishments of the Greeks. Secondly, complaining about the fact that the ancients preserved writings they were interested in rather than the ones we moderns are interested in is just childish.

          “They were finally able to see farther by standing on Aristotle’s toes.”

          Well, not exactly. Aristotle’s writings helped spur some philosophy again, but such an orthodoxy developed around Aristotle’s many absurd ideas that the Condemnations in 1277, where the arts faculty at the University of Paris condemned the works of Aristotle, actually had the effect of accelerating the progress of science. Aristotle was far from the sole factor that reinvigorated the 12th century Renaissance.

          “It doesn’t matter that the Muslims got their copies from Christians in the early centuries. It matters that they maintained the writings into the thirteenth century, even while maintaining their religious writings. Apparently they saw some value in them.”

          So did the Byzantine Christians, remember? The only people who failed to maintain them were the ones who lived in the place where civilization literally fell apart. Give the Christians a break. And the fact that the Muslims got the classics from the Christians is relevant.

        • richardrichard2013

          the discussion is about history, i have a few questions,

          since christianity considered pharisee judaism as useless rituals , i am wondering how badly this affected christian health life. jesus told christians that keeping hands unwashed doesn’t matter since washing hands before meals is not from god but from pharisee tradition.

          it was the moslims and the jews who were doing rituals which involved water when it came to prayers , eating and going for a shit. i am wondering what christianity brought on the table when it came to living healthy life style?

        • Pofarmer

          This is a special breed of stupid.

        • Pofarmer

          Look, dumbass. They lost the ability to make frickin CONCRETE, arguably one of the most important construction innovations in the ancient world, or, ever, really. They couldn’t even be arsed to maintain that bit of peripheral knowledge. Existing Palimpsests indicate Christians knowingly copied over scholarly works and replaced them with-yeah, scriptures and prayer books. This isn’t lack of literacy, this is sabotage, plain and simple.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “This isn’t lack of literacy, this is sabotage, plain and simple.”

          Alright, time to put this guy in his place. The fact that they lost something as essential as concrete would also suggest that literacy itself couldn’t have been in a great position, which would mean … I’m right. And this is plainly demonstrable. There were two empires — the Western Roman Empire, and the eastern Byzantine Empire. The Western Roman empire collapsed, and they lost Aristotle. The Byzantine empire didn’t collapse and they didn’t lose Aristotle. That, itself, is enough to send your ridiculous argument about Christian sabotage packing.

          Now that that has been explained, your incredible failure to even consider the Byzantine empire in assessing whether or not Christianity played a role, we can actually take a look at exactly how deep the loss of literacy went.

          On the other hand, the evidence for the very widespread use of literacy, and, in particular, for its trivial use, which is such a striking feature of Roman times, is far less apparent in the centuries that followed the fall of the empire. The numerous stamps, seals, and painted or scratched inscriptions that had characterized the commercial and military life of the Roman world seem to disappear almost completely. The need to label and stamp large quantities of commercial goods appears to have evaporated, presumably because production and distribution were now much simpler and less extensive than they had been before. There are some rare stamped tiles known from the seventh and eighth centuries; but the wording of their inscriptions suggests that they were added to enhance their patrons’ prestige, rather than as a means of keeping track of production. Similarly, the disappearance of the professional army, maintained by a complex system of supply, brought to an end the thousands upon thousands of military inscriptions, and that very striking feature of Roman life, an army that was even more widely literate than the society that spawned it. Most interesting of all is the almost complete disappearance of casual graffiti, of the kind so widely found in the Roman period. (Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford University Press, 2005, 165)

        • Pofarmer

          The fact that they lost something as essential as concrete would also
          suggest that literacy itself couldn’t have been in a great position,
          which would mean ..

          This doesn’t follow. The ones who COULD have, ya know, the literate ones, saved the information, opted not to. This doesn’t have anything at all to do with “general literacy”. The knowledge could have been preserved and passed on. It simply wasn’t.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “This doesn’t follow. The ones who COULD have, ya know, the literate ones, saved the information, opted not to.”

          Or maybe there were so few literate ones thereafter, and the papyrus was degrading so quickly, that they were just … lost. Another factor is that many of the classics simply had no Latin translations. That’s a pretty big problem, eh? Once again, if Christianity was the factor, rather than literacy, then why wasn’t the classical literature ever lost in the BYZANTINE empire? Pretty simple, actually — the Byzantine empire didn’t collapse, so its literacy didn’t plunge, and the Byzantines spoke and wrote in Greek, and so they had no difficulty maintaining the classics.

          That provides a much more comprehensive, explanatory explanation than the suspiciously polemical explanation of “CHRISTIAN SABOTAGE!” that, once again, doesn’t explain why no such Christian sabotage happened in the Byzantine empire. In fact, it does indeed appear that my explanation is more comprehensive, more realistic (since it doesn’t rely on simplistic explanations), and less problematic. How interesting.

        • Pofarmer

          You seem to even realize the problem here. I know that you’ve been informed about palimpsests before, and even your own arguments don’t actually support your position. Scribes had time to wipe mathematical texts clean to copy prayers and scriptures over them. All they had to do was leave those alone. But no. The main priority was to save and copy and distribute vocational material. Not maintain scientific and mathematical knowledge, most of which the Byzantine empire ALSO lost. You see, the Byzantines didn’t hold onto the knowledge of concrete either. Nor did they hold onto things like advanced metallurgy and the ability to calculate spring rates that the Romans had mastered for their huge crossbow type “artillery” pieces.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Scribes had time to wipe mathematical texts clean to copy prayers and scriptures over them. All they had to do was leave those alone. But no.”

          Are you listening to yourself? If the Archimedes palimpsest was left alone, it would have been forgotten and lost. That’s why, surprise surprise, the only manuscript that wasn’t lost of that work is the one that was used as a palimpsest.

          “The main priority was to save and copy and distribute vocational material. Not maintain scientific and mathematical knowledge, most of which the Byzantine empire ALSO lost.”

          There were no such “losses” in the Byzantine empire due to neglect that apply to Greek or Latin literature. In the Byzantine empire, pagan writings were just as likely to survive, if not slightly more so, then Christian ones.

          Complaining that the ancients preserved the texts that they were interested rather than the ones you’re interested in is just childish.

          “Nor did they hold onto things like advanced metallurgy and the ability to calculate spring rates that the Romans had mastered for their huge crossbow type “artillery” pieces.”

          Maybe because their civilization collapsed? Geez. Give the Christians a break dude.

          P.S. I’m thinking that the Christians more then made up for it in the end. Where do the modern universities come from? Medieval cathedral schools. The second medical revolution in history is also a product of Christianity. The Church funded astronomy more than every other institution combined for six hundred years. Christianity, as historians of science are increasingly noting in recent and more complex ways in recent years, was probably the largest single factor in the development of modern science. By the end of the Middle Ages, Christian society was more advanced than the Greeks could have ever imagined.

        • Pofarmer

          If the Archimedes palimpsest was left alone, it would have been forgotten and lost.

          No, ya moron. All they had to do was MAINTAIN it, in the same way whatever they copied over it was maintained.

          Complaining that the ancients preserved the texts that they were
          interested rather than the ones you’re interested in is just childish.

          Uhm, no, it’s what happened.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “No, ya moron. All they had to do was MAINTAIN it, in the same way whatever they copied over it was maintained.”

          Incredible. People should have maintained text that they didn’t care about in the comprehensible least. Because they should have foreseen that modern people would be more interested in it. As I said earlier, complaining that the ancients preserved what they were interested in, rather than what you’re interested in, is childish. Your response;

          “Uhm, no, it’s what happened.”

          It is what happened. And it’s a childish complaint.

          By the way, I’m not even going to click on that Carrier video. Carrier is a noted complete quack and Tim O’Neill has already chewed up any credibility he had … oh yeah, poor Carrier never had any given the fact that he’s a blogger now because he failed to acquire an academic career.

          Since the Archimedes palimpsest has been mentioned, I’ll point to Tim’s article on it as well. He also gives Carrier a bit of tearing up here too. You deeply need to read this article.
          https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/the-archimedes-palimpsest/

        • Pofarmer

          Incredible. People should have maintained text that they didn’t care about in the comprehensible least

          The question is, why didn’t they care about those texts?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista

          Carrier, unlike O’neil, actually has PhD in the relevant topic here.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Carrier, unlike O’neil, actually has PhD in the relevant topic here.”

          O’Neill*, unlike Carrier, isn’t a career failure. Nice try. O’Neill is obviously vastly more learned than the biased polemicist that is Richard Carrier. Very good recent news from about a week ago;

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2018/11/richard-carrier-loses-his-lawsuit/

          Also extraordinarily rich seeing a Carrier fan appeal to credentials. Doesn’t Carrier have like only 6 published papers in his entire life with an H-index in the toilet?

          As for the Ballista, your own Wiki page seems to resolve this;

          With the decline of the Roman Empire, resources to build and maintain these complex machines became very scarce, so the ballista was supplanted initially by the simpler and cheaper onager and the more efficient springald.

          Ah, so it’s not that anyone was too dumb to keep building these, it was because, as I seem to have written earlier, the civilization fell apart. How horrid! The Christians couldn’t keep manufacturing these weapons of war in light of their collapsing world! Give the Christians a break man.

        • Pofarmer

          O’Neill*, unlike Carrier, isn’t a career failure
          Last I checked, O’neil is an HR person at a University somewhere with a degree in Midevil literature. Whoopdee doo.
          The point, ya numb nuts, is that they didn’t even keep the knowledge alive of things like the measurement units or how to calculate spring rates, which they needed to know to build and size the weapons. That was all very useful information. Sure civilization fell apart, and Christian scribes fiddled while Rome burned, pretty much. Much of this stuff would have to be rediscovered over a thousand years later from scratch.

        • MR

          You should probably back off, Pofarmer, I’m pretty sure you’re dealing with O’Neill and he has a very fragile ego. I’d hate for you to break him.

        • Pofarmer

          If this is O’neill, and I’m not saying it isn’t, he’s weirder than Carrier.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve changed my mind…I don’t think KD is a sock of O’Neill. O’Neill doesn’t make such unadulterated schoolboy errors. His fuckedupisms are a lot more nuanced.

        • MR

          No, I think you’re right. More like some weirdly obsessed fanboy. Plus O’Neill, ostensibly anyway, claims to be atheist as I recall.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If the bio on O’Neill’s blog is anything to go by, and I’ve no reason to think otherwise, he is an atheist. The claims he makes about the atheist associations he has been/is part of in Australia, are too easy to be checked out and a lie.

        • Pofarmer

          He argues like an apologist, though. Seems to be a very black and white thinker.

        • MR

          Plus seems to have O’Neill’s agenda. Weird.

        • Pofarmer

          I was talking about O’Neill, but this guy is obviously no better.

        • MR

          Oh, yes, black and white thinker, strawmen, false dichotomies, tunnel vision, major chip on the shoulder, seems to enjoy being an asshole, very much like an apologist.

        • Pofarmer

          Also seems to find the information that agrees with him and stop looking.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Autistic….not saying that is a bad thing…I’ve enough around me that endure…recognizing it is the problem.

        • Pofarmer

          I found the greatest quote on scienceblogs quite by accident.

          It’s time to move on. The last vestiges of my SIWOTI syndrome
          have left me. The Internet remains a bottomless pit of stupidity. (It
          has its good points too!)
          It used to be that I would read something
          foolish, and then stew about it all day until I could unload in an epic
          blog post. I was updating nearly every day, and writing those updates
          was the highlight of my day.

          https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2016/10/18/farewell-to-evolutionblog

        • Ignorant Amos

          True dat…Korus Destroyus will have to be put in file thirteen…his absolute fuckwittery is not worth the effort being invested…and am sure the lurkers are as bored with the knob jockey as I am now.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Last I checked, O’neil is an HR person at a University somewhere with a degree in Midevil literature. Whoopdee doo. ”

          And Carrier is a blogger who was dependent on his wife for an income for a good decade before cheating on her. Nice try.

          “The point, ya numb nuts, is that they didn’t even keep the knowledge alive of things like the measurement units or how to calculate spring rates”

          For the good of God, listen to the words appearing on your screen. The civilization collapsed. Perhaps I need to outline exactly what that means. The complexity of society for a good proportion of western Europe returned to Iron Age or pre-Iron Age levels for a few centuries. Do you not get the sheer scale of the problem?

          “Sure civilization fell apart, and Christian scribes fiddled while Rome burned, pretty much.”

          The complete opposite. Every classical work that you’ve ever read (well, I’m not sure if you’ve read any) survived because, primarily, Christian monks painstakingly copied them. They would have been permanently lost, otherwise. You’re testing my patience. There was no “fiddling”, people were kind of trying not to utterly die. And, by the way, most of them did die. The population was a fraction of its former size within a century of the fall of the empire. It’s almost as if I have to explain the fact that people, when they have to go back to doing hard labor all the time just to get by, don’t have all those luxurious past-time hours where they can learn how to read and delicately copy texts totally useless to their survival or community.

        • Pofarmer

          don’t have all those luxurious past-time hours where they can learn how to read and delicately copy texts totally useless to their survival or community.

          Because who needs concrete, or the ability to calculate elasticity of metals, or algebra, or early calculus. Let’s just scrub that out and throw some prayers on there. That’s much more important. You’re making my point for me,

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Because who needs concrete, or the ability to calculate elasticity of metals, or algebra, or early calculus. Let’s just scrub that out and throw some prayers on there. That’s much more important. You’re making my point for me,”

          Another anti-religious myth. No, Pofarmer, no “early calculus” was lost. Archimedes never figured calculus out. Calculus is based on integrals and derivatives. Archimedes figured out a bit of something to do with integrals, and knew no derivatives. Calling this “early” calculus is just an attempt to still kind of try to relate it to calculus even though … it wasn’t.

          ” the ability to calculate elasticity of metals,”

          When the hell did the Greeks figure this out?

          “Let’s just scrub that out and throw some prayers on there. That’s much more important. You’re making my point for me”

          You’re revealing your historical ignorance for me. Read Tim O’Neill’s article that I gave you. The monks who copied over that Archimedes manuscript were the very ones who originally copied it — and, in their time, there were a number of Archimedes manuscripts already in circulation. The very fact that Archimedes did survive attests to the centuries of copying it must have undergone by the Christians. And the vast majority of manuscripts that became palimpsests were Christian manuscripts.

        • Pofarmer

          Do you normally just make up whatever shit tickles your fancy?

        • Korus Destroyus

          Sure I do. Except for the quack nonsense that Greeks could calculate the elasticity of metals. Keep up.

        • Pofarmer

          Good Lord man. The idea is that in order to improve and build these machines, which used ginormous metal springs on the later models, they needed to be able to calculate things like spring rates and do at least some metalurgy. Now, I suppose everything could have been done simply by trial and error, but this seems somewhat unlikely.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And Carrier is a blogger who was dependent on his wife for an income for a good decade before cheating on her. Nice try.

          And his private life is relevant to this discussion, because….?

          Since Carrier depended on his wife for an income…not all that rare in these modern times…how does he earn his income now…and how is any of this line of fuckwittery even relevant to his scholarly credentials vis a vis that arsecrank O’Neill, who gets disparaged by a whole lot more scholars than just Carrier btw?

          https://vridar.org/2012/12/29/more-nazareth-nonsense-from-tim-oneill/

          How Carrier earns his money is an non sequitur to his academic ability. It just doesn’t follow.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And his private life is relevant to this discussion, because….?”

          It’s not, I just thought I’d mention how much of a total disgusting prick Carrier is.

          “Since Carrier depended on his wife for an income…not all that rare in these modern times..”

          The point went flying over your head. Let’s try that again.

          Carrier depended on his wife for an income for a full decade while fiddling in his hobbies … and then cheated on her. Do you realize how much of a prick you’d need to be to throw someone who painstakingly worked for you for a full decade under the bus for a little pleasure? That’s the kind of guy Carrier is.

          TIM O’NEILL GETS DISPARAGED BY SCHOLARS? AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Check your link again bucko, the author of that is Neil Godfrey — a Carrier minion who has no credentials of his own. O’Neill’s blog has been endorsed by a number of scholars — including Dame Averil Cameron, Tim Whitmarsh, Larry Hurtado, etc. Carrier’s work hasn’t been endorsed by a single scholar. So O’Neill’s work is demonstrably more respected by academia than Carrier who is, as I noted earlier, an academic failure.

          “Does Carrier use his PHd to earn his living?”

          No, he just has a Patreon account. If you noticed, dear Ignorant, Carrier has no academic job and and isn’t getting one any time soon.

          You then, like the quack you are, call my news “erroneous”. It isn’t, kiddo. It’s a fact. The judge dismissed his case, and he lost. Simple as that. Carrier can try refiling the lawsuit, and then losing again, if he wants. That would be entertaining. Carrier’s toilet H-index is still hilarious, BTW.

          “How many has O’Neill got published and what is their H-index?”

          LOL! O’Neill isn’t the one claiming to be an academic. Another Amos buffle because we both know O’Neill chewed up your heroes career.

          “Because the only use for such calculations is going to be the building of big crossbows? So, no point in preserving such stuff when a more useful application of resources is prayers?”

          I couldn’t have come up with a dumber response. Looks like you’re still salty about the fresh Hippocrates beating you received.

          “Did you ever get around to changing ALL the instances where Wiki asserts those early Islamic universities as universities?”

          Which ones did I miss? Anyways, as I’ve shown earlier from Jacques Verger, Verger explicitly states that the only reason some people call the madrasas “universities” is out of convenience, and they simply don’t compare to the later European institution.

          “I could give zero fucks…as you are so keen to point out, any dopey cunt can go onto Wiki and edit, so pah!”

          You CERTAINLY give several, considering how much whining you did when I fixed up the links you tried to cite.

          “I’m not the one who has the issue with online encyclopedias as sources.”

          You’re on crack. I have a problem with crap encyclopedias, Britannica is appropriately citeable. Britannica makes mistakes. So does academic literature. But the fact that Britannica makes a few mistakes doesn’t put it at Wiki’s level.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not, I just thought I’d mention how much of a total disgusting prick Carrier is.

          So just a massive ad hominem then. For having affairs? Wise ta fuck up.

          The point went flying over your head. Let’s try that again.

          No point went right over my head, because your fuckwittery hasn’t made any point.

          Carrier depended on his wife for an income for a full decade while fiddling in his hobbies … and then cheated on her. Do you realize how much of a prick you’d need to be to throw someone who painstakingly worked for you for a full decade under the bus for a little pleasure? That’s the kind of guy Carrier is.

          Let’s try again.

          So what? Carrier is a cunt and you hate him. I get that. What has him being a cunt got to do with his arguments? Answer the question, how does he earn a living in the here and now? Not back at a time when it is convenient for your red herring argument.You made the assertion, back it up, or fuck up.

          TIM O’NEILL GETS DISPARAGED BY SCHOLARS? AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Check your link again bucko, the author of that is Neil Godfrey

          Whooosh!

          I know who the authors of Vridar are…Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield. I go there quite regularly. What defines a scholar in your books?

          — a Carrier minion who has no credentials of his own.

          Yet again, demonstrating your stupidity and ignorance. His credentials are there on his blog. Godfrey and Widowfield are serious “hobbyist’s” in the same way O’Neill is, and O’Neill is no more credentialed than Godfrey. Again. not that it matters.

          O’Neill’s blog has been endorsed by a number of scholars — including Dame Averil Cameron, Tim Whitmarsh, Larry Hurtado, etc.

          And Godfrey’s blog has been endorsed by scholars such as Philippe Wajdenbaum, Eva Mroczek, Russell Gmirkin, N.T. Wrong, Tom Dykstra, R. Joseph Hoffmann, John Moles, James Crossley, Anthony Le Donne and — April DeConick…so he wins the “my dad is bigger than your dad” dick swinging contest that you have such a fascination with.

          Carrier’s work hasn’t been endorsed by a single scholar.

          Not that it matters, but yet again, you are erroneous. Raphael Lataster,who holds a Ph.D in religious studies, has endorsed Carriers work. He wrote a endorsing review of his work for “The Journal of Religious History”…

          Journal of Religious History is the most comprehensive journal of its kind. Since 1960 it has been a vital source of high quality information for all those interested in the place of religion in history. The Journal reviews current work on the history of religions and their relationship with all aspects of human experience. With high quality international contributors the journal explores religion and its related subjects along with debates on comparative method and theory in religious history.

          He also co-authored a book with Carrier that was pretty much an endorsement of Carriers thesis. A book that was also endorsed by another academic…

          https://www.academia.edu/33088935/Review_of_Raphael_Lataster_Jesus_Did_Not_Exist_A_Debate_Among_Atheists

          So that’s your fuckwittery rebutted right there. Those peers that reviewed Carrier’s work and passed his papers and books for publication, are giving them an endorsement of sorts. Lot’s of others endorse Carriers work. Your just being a dick, for being a dick sake.

          Even Daniel Gullotto, who gave Carrier a less favourable review, wasn’t completely negative…

          Gullotta agrees OHJ is “a rigorous and thorough academic treatise that will no doubt be held up as the standard by which the Jesus Myth theory can be measured.” He concludes it’s ultimately still implausible and at times tendentious, of course. But it should still be addressed. Not ignored.

          So O’Neill’s work is demonstrably more respected by academia than Carrier who is, as I noted earlier, an academic failure.

          Bwaaaahahaha….

          Like I said…when O’Neill has his work peer-reviewed and published, come back and see us. By his own admission, O’Neill states he is not an historian…so he is an amateur.

          LOL! O’Neill isn’t the one claiming to be an academic.

          I know, you are the one doing that for him. I’m pretty sure attaining a doctorate at an Ivy League university and having ones work pass peer-review and published, fulfills the criteria of at least one definition of “academic”…but I notice you shifted the burden and didn’t answer the question…I’ll take the answer I know…it’s none.

          Another Amos buffle because we both know O’Neill chewed up your heroes career.

          There’s that delusional disorder you suffer from occurring again. You should seek help with that.

          No, he just has a Patreon account.

          Are you naturally this dense, or is it just when it comes to certain topics that you then digress to a slavering dolt?

          If you noticed, dear Ignorant, Carrier has no academic job and and isn’t getting one any time soon.

          Kind of depends how you define “academic job” doesn’t it really?

          http://secularactivism.org/?page_id=290

          Does getting paid for teaching not count? What about being paid to give talks on an “academic” subject that one is deemed an expert because of ones standing in the “academy”?

          You then, like the quack you are, call my news “erroneous”. It isn’t, kiddo. It’s a fact. The judge dismissed his case, and he lost. Simple as that. Carrier can try refiling the lawsuit, and then losing again, if he wants.

          This is why I had to cease and desist engaging you that last time…you devolve into fuckwittery in the face of the evidence. Everyone here sees it. He didn’t loss, because the case wasn’t heard. It wasn’t heard for technical reasons, not the merits or otherwise of the case. Ya fucking moron. It was dismissed “without prejudice” because the judge was not allowed to hear. But you already know all this, because being the dishonest cunt you are, you decided not to link to the Friendly Atheist page, rather going with the more biased one ya did…toss pot.

          That would be entertaining.

          I couldn’t give a fuck either way…it is just all part of your obfuscation to distract the fuckwittery you are posting.

          Carrier’s toilet H-index is still hilarious, BTW.

          I don’t give a shit. Go learn about the H-index and the host of problems with it…especially where it concerns Carriers particular thesis…ya Dime Bar. BTW…in the toilet as you think, at least he has one…your amateur hero doesn’t even have one.

          I couldn’t have come up with a dumber response. Looks like you’re still salty about the fresh Hippocrates beating you received.

          You really are away with the fairies. I gave no less than three citations where Hippocrates was called the father of WESTERN medicine…you have yet to refute that comment, unless I’ve missed it, so you’ve been soundly pwnd on that score.

          Which ones did I miss?

          Here’s a couple.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_seminaries#List_of_oldest_Islamic_seminaries

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Al_Quaraouiyine

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

          And the definition.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_university

          Anyways, as I’ve shown earlier from Jacques Verger, Verger explicitly states that the only reason some people call the madrasas “universities” is out of convenience, and they simply don’t compare to the later European institution.

          I don’t care. What was the the equivalent to a university in the medieval Islamic world? Did the western world have anything equivalent to those Madrassa’s in the first millennia? They are conveniently being called universities, because, well, to all intents and purposes, that’s what they did…the work of a university. They compare to the later European institutions in every way that it matters for the purposes of the OP and my assertion. Get over it. The horse has been flogged.

          You CERTAINLY give several, considering how much whining you did when I fixed up the links you tried to cite.

          Really? Cite where I did this so-called whining? I don’t even know where you “fixed up the links” that I tried to cite. And there are a lot more sources than those on Wikipedia, why would I give a fuck? Again with the delusional thinking.

          You’re on crack.

          Not me. The author of the article I cited in Slate.

          https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/the-encyclopedia-britannica-was-expensive-useless-and-exploitative-im-glad-its-gone.html

          But the fact that Britannica makes a few mistakes doesn’t put it at Wiki’s level.

          How the fuck does the number of mistakes made, make a difference. If one mistake is made, it throws the integrity of the whole thing into question…guess why? Soft boy. It’s how it is used, is where it works or fails. That’s why it should be not cited uncritically. A mistake is a mistake…Britannica makes quite a few…how would you know if you were citing one of them without checking?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

          I have a problem with crap encyclopedias, Britannica is appropriately citeable.

          Great…let’s forget about Wikipedia, since it gives you the willies and you don’t understand its limitations and how to use it properly.

          And since you’ve got such a hardon for Britannica, we’ll stick with that one…

          The Qarawīyīn Mosque is the centre of a university that was founded in ad 859; several of its schools (madrasahs) are grouped around it. The university has been renowned since the European Middle Ages as a centre of Islāmic culture. When the Muslims were expelled from Spain beginning in the 13th century, many came to Fès and to Qarawīyīn, bringing knowledge of European and Moorish arts and sciences. By the 14th century there were said to be 8,000 students at the university.

          https://www.britannica.com/topic/Qarawiyin

          Ohhhhps!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “So just a massive ad hominem then. For having affairs? Wise ta fuck up.”

          Looks like kiddie Amos doesn’t know what an ad hominem is. From Amos’s favorite (and only) source in the world;

          “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]”

          As I’ve shown earlier, I’m not substituting pointing out the disgusting prick Carrier was to his family for an argument. I’m quite fine with pointing to O’Neill’s intellectual wipeouts of Carrier’s career. But it always get me just how triggered Amos gets when I point out that his hero is a disgusting slob.

          “What has him being a cunt got to do with his arguments? Answer the question:”

          Strawman fallacy, you quack. It has nothing to do with it — nor can you, in your entire lifetime, find a quote from me saying it does. That’s why I … actually pointed to refutations of Carrier.

          “And Godfrey’s blog has been endorsed by scholars such as Philippe Wajdenbaum, Eva Mroczek, Russell Gmirkin, N.T. Wrong, Tom Dykstra, R. Joseph Hoffmann, John Moles, James Crossley, Anthony Le Donne and — April DeConick…so he wins the “my dad is bigger than your dad” dick swinging contest that you have such a fascination with.”

          No, it hasn’t win. Look at those “endorsements” again — they’re almost all minor atheist scholars who thanked Godfrey for his good book reviews or wrote nice comments under a single post they found good (often, thanking him for the good reviews he gave to their own book). The “endorsement” from Joseph Hoffman, for example, is literally just him writing in the comments section of a single article he found useful. What total crap. Once again proving how mythicists need to put their heads through the mud to make it look like they aren’t fringe loons. So O’Neill wins the dad contest. I could keep going, but you’ve got to be living in a cave if you think Godfrey runs a scholarly kind-of blog.

          “By his own admission, O’Neill states he is not an historian…so he is an amateur.”

          I already know that, you prick. O’Neill doesn’t need to show a resume because … he doesn’t claim to be a historian. And yet, Carrier does. Which is why his career failure is relevant. Cheated on his wife, failed career, and one gigantic ego. The guy at the forefront of all world scholarship!

          Now, this was so funny I gotta quote it in full;

          Kind of depends how you define “academic job” doesn’t it really?

          http://secularactivism.org/

          Does getting paid for teaching not count?

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

          More proof mythicists literally can’t believe scholars don’t take them seriously. So you’re telling me Carrier giving online classes at a tiny little atheistic and unaccredited (and will never be accredited) “academy” qualifies as an academic job? God really has been good to me. You then actually go on to suggest Carrier driving around in his car and giving talks to small atheist groups qualifies as academic work. Next thing you know he’ll be a professor for debating Trent Horn.

          “He didn’t loss, because the case wasn’t heard.”

          How is not getting dismissed outright not a freaking “loss”? Call it whatever you want, Carrier isn’t going to win in a thousand years because everyone who isn’t his Patron donor, in the real world, knows he’s full of crap.

          “BTW…in the toilet as you think, at least he has one…”

          LOL!

          Sorry dude, but your comment got cut off at the end because it was too long. The maximum I can see is the Wiki articles you referenced — I’ll give you an update the next time you respond. The ‘List of Islamic seminaries’ one is not a problem, of course, because Quaraouine is currently a university. The only Wiki pages that need context are the ones that call it the oldest university.

          EDIT: The Al Azhar and Islamic university Wiki’s also don’t claim this to be the oldest university. The only Wiki page with a problem is this one;
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Al_Quaraouiyine

          And, you don’t need to worry, I’m working on it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whateva…I’ve lost the will to live with your mindwankery…stay safe.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Looks like kiddie Amos doesn’t know what an ad hominem is.

          Whaaaaa?

          “Last I checked, O’neil is an HR person at a University somewhere with a degree in Midevil literature. Whoopdee doo. “

          And Carrier is a blogger who was dependent on his wife for an income for a good decade before cheating on her. Nice try.

          Yeah…when you are attacking the man rather than address his arguments, that’s the ad hominem. Can you not see your major malfunction in your reply to Pofarmer? I suppose not…too thick I reckon.

          Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.

          You not liking Carrier for x, y, and z reasons is irrelevant. Him cheating on his wife and living off her earnings is also a non sequitur to his academic credentials and how he makes his living now. It just does not follow in any rational thought process.

          Analogy…Bill Cosby is a convicted sex offender, but that has no bearing on the fact that he was a good entertainer for years.

          Apparently Sir Issac Newton was a right piece of shite too. But contributions to science still stands.

          There is no point to you bringing up Carrier’s personal failings other than the ad hom, you seem to think that I give a fuck, your attempted character assassination has no bearing on Carrier’s work, so denying you are engaging in the ad hom is just more lies from a liar.

          From Amos’s favorite (and only) source in the world;

          Another lie…where did I say it was my favorite source…and your lie is compounded by saying it is my only source, the very comment you are replying to has a number of other source citations ya dishonest idiot.

          As I’ve shown earlier, I’m not substituting pointing out the disgusting prick Carrier was to his family for an argument.

          But that’s exactly what you did when Pofarmer provided a link to a lecture on the topic at hand…don’t you remember? Go back to the beginning of your massive ad hom and work from there.

          By the way, I’m not even going to click on that Carrier video. Carrier is a noted complete quack and Tim O’Neill has already chewed up any credibility he had … oh yeah, poor Carrier never had any given the fact that he’s a blogger now because he failed to acquire an academic career.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/02/yeah-but-christianity-built-universities-and-hospitals-2-of-2/#comment-4211970379

          I’m quite fine with pointing to O’Neill’s intellectual wipeouts of Carrier’s career.

          Or a more novel approach would be to point out where Carrier’s argument vis a vis Pofarmer’s citing him fails. What you think O’Neill has done to Carrier’s career is irrelevant to his argument…something you are really struggling to comprehend.

          But it always get me just how triggered Amos gets when I point out that his hero is a disgusting slob.</blockquote

          I'm not one bit triggered by you pointing out that you think he's a "disgusting slob" ya cretin. I don't give a fuck what you think of him, or even if he he is a "disgusting slob"….it is not relevant to his work. It is an ad hom and a non sequiturTry and stay focused ffs.

          “What has him being a cunt got to do with his arguments? Answer the question:”

          Strawman fallacy, you quack. It has nothing to do with it — nor can you, in your entire lifetime, find a quote from me saying it does.

          Now who is it that doesn’t understand their fallacies?

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

          You keep pointing to Carrier’s personal foibles like they are relevant, I’m asking what it has to do with his work. Or the citation Pofarmer used to support his position. What is your purpose for this latest line in your fuckwittery?

          That’s why I … actually pointed to refutations of Carrier.

          If you did, then I’ve missed them…where did you do this?

          No, it hasn’t win. Look at those “endorsements” again — they’re almost all minor atheist scholars who thanked Godfrey for his good book reviews or wrote nice comments under a single post they found good (often, thanking him for the good reviews he gave to their own book).

          You are one thick cunt.

          More nonsense. They are endorsements by the very definition of the word ffs.

          An endorsement is a statement or action which shows that you support or approve of something or someone.

          Philippe Wajdenbaum…Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog.…is an endorsement on the “quality” of the blog by an esteemed published Ph.D doctorate.

          Tom Dykstra…For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org.…is an endorsement on the “generally high-quality scholarship” of the blog by a published Ph.D doctorate.

          April D. DeConick…I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest.…is an endorsement of the blog by a published Ph.D doctorate.

          The “endorsement” from Joseph Hoffman, for example, is literally just him writing in the comments section of a single article he found useful.

          So what?…he was endorsing that article he found useful. Does that mean he didn’t find anything else on the blog useful? Has he read the whole blog and all of it’s articles…a doubt anyone has. And I bet the same applies to O’Neill’s endorsements too, btw.

          What total crap.

          Yes…bingo…this whole line of your dick measuring fuckwittery is indeed total crap…makes me wonder why toss bags like you need to go this route in the first place.

          Once again proving how mythicists need to put their heads through the mud to make it look like they aren’t fringe loons.

          When you can make a convincing rebuttal of the mythicist position, you’ll be onto something. But I won’t hold my breath waiting on it,. Top scholars who’ve given it a shot have failed so far. Plenty of once held as “fringe loon” thesis are now mainstream thinking, so pah!

          So O’Neill wins the dad contest.

          There’s your delusional mindwankery creeping in again.

          I could keep going, but you’ve got to be living in a cave if you think Godfrey runs a scholarly kind-of blog.

          Hey…if those qualified to make that assertion…who am I to disagree? In the meantime…I could keep going, but you’ve got to be living in a cave if you think O’Neill runs a scholarly kind-of blog.

          I already know that, you prick.

          Bwaaaahahaha…whose triggered know then Soft Boy?

          O’Neill doesn’t need to show a resume because … he doesn’t claim to be a historian.

          Well, if ya don’t have the relevant qualifications to put on a resume, there’s not much point.

          And yet, Carrier does.

          That’s because he has them ya knuckle dragging moron.

          Which is why his career failure is relevant.

          You keeps saying this and I can only assume that by career failure, you mean a tenured position at a respectable university. For some crazy reason you seem to think that every one who doesn’t use their humanities doctorate in a particular way, they are career failures. Why not do a wee bit of research on the subject of history Ph.D’s and future employment in that field.

          Carrier earns his living in part as an historian. Get over it already.

          Cheated on his wife,…

          So what? A number of Presidents of the United States have cheated on their wives…what ta fuck is your point?

          …failed career,…

          Pure subjective conjecture.

          …and one gigantic ego.

          So what? You think O’Neill hasn’t? Wise ta fuck up. And again, so did a number of Presidents, and none bigger than the present one, what ta fuck is your point?

          The guy at the forefront of all world scholarship!

          Who even said that? Though it could be claimed that when it comes to the subject of Jesus historicity, he’s up there.

          His recent books on the historicity of Jesus have established him as a leading supporter of the Christ myth theory,… ~Maurice Casey

          So at the forefront of all world scholarship on that theory anyway.

          More proof mythicists literally can’t believe scholars don’t take them seriously.

          Except for those scholars that do…and those scholars that are also mythicists.

          So you’re telling me Carrier giving online classes at a tiny little atheistic and unaccredited (and will never be accredited) “academy” qualifies as an academic job?

          Nope…who’s straw manning now. Try and read for comprehension…I asked two questions. You answered neither.

          God really has been good to me.

          There ya go again with that delusional thinking.

          You then actually go on to suggest Carrier driving around in his car and giving talks to small atheist groups qualifies as academic work.

          You are all over the place on this issue. Your opening gambit was “career failure”…then you switch to “academic work” like the disingenuous twat you are. When one uses ones qualifications to earn ones living, it isn’t a “career failure”…most folk whose third level qualifications are in history, don’t earn their living doing history. Carrier gets paid to talk about things historical…how he gets there, how many fee-payers he talks to, and whether they believe in a god or not, is irrelevant.

          Carriers “academic work” is in the papers he has had peer-reviewed and published…for which he doesn’t earn any money. And his books that have been published, for which he does.

          Next thing you know he’ll be a professor for debating Trent Horn.

          You have a cheek to talk about me. Not relevant…if he got paid for debating Trent Horn, then he is using his qualifications to earn money.

          How is not getting dismissed outright not a freaking “loss”?

          FFS…the stupid, it burns. The case wasn’t dismissed because it lacked merit, and couldn’t be heard…anywhere…that would be a loss. It was dismissed…”without prejudice”…do you even know what that means? Without detriment to any existing right or claim…because of jurisdiction issues…that is not a lost case ya fucking halfwit.

          Call it whatever you want, Carrier isn’t going to win in a thousand years because everyone who isn’t his Patron donor, in the real world, knows he’s full of crap.

          I really don’t give a fuck…I was just pointing out your dishonesty in favouring the more biased and erroneous source when you knew fine rightly of the existing of the other. And none of this obfuscating merry-go-round you are engaging in, is even relevant to anything being discussed. So pah!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Yeah…when you are attacking the man rather than address his arguments”

          What argument? Carrier failed his career as an academic or a historian. Now he’s a full time blogger who gives talks to small atheist groups around the country. There’s no argument that rectifies this. If someone claims to be a historian, obviously O’Neill isn’t, his toilet H-index is relevant.

          “Him cheating on his wife and living off her earnings is also a non sequitur to his academic credentials and how he makes his living now. It just does not follow in any rational thought process.”

          These weren’t part of a single argument, dear Amos. They’re just different ways that Carrier is a failure at life.

          “Bill Cosby is a convicted sex offender, but that has no bearing on the fact that he was a good entertainer for years.”

          Yes, I can agree that Carrier’s failure in his personal life is distinguishable from his career failure.

          “If you did [reference the refutations of Carrier], then I’ve missed them…where did you do this?”

          O’Neill, remember?

          “Tom Dykstra…For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org….is an endorsement on the “generally high-quality scholarship” of the blog by a published Ph.D doctorate.”

          One failed historian endorsing a blogger. Nice. Dykstra got his PhD in 2004. Instead of actually becoming an academic, he ended up as a writer. Ooops. I can only give credit to the words of Phil and April, not very big scholars by the way. All the other endorsements are just exactly as I described earlier — good book reviews (often for their own book), or perhaps the only comment out of all of them that look like a real, official endorsement possibly comparable to the ones O’Neill has on his own blog, from … Richard Carrier.

          Bloop.

          “So what?…he was endorsing that article he found useful”

          That’s my point. Hoffman saying “I like this article” isn’t the same as “I endorse this entire blog.” If Godfrey failed to write a single good article in all his years on that blog, that would be an unbelievable accomplishment.

          “When you can make a convincing rebuttal of the mythicist position, you’ll be onto something.”

          O’Neill took care of that for me. The debates over, Carrier lost, give up.

          “but you’ve got to be living in a cave if you think O’Neill runs a scholarly kind-of blog.”

          Dame Averil Cameron, one of the world class scholars who have endorsed O’Neill’s blog, has one of his articles as a required reading in one of her classes (since she’s a prof and all). That sounds nice and scholarly-kind of to me.

          “You keeps saying this and I can only assume that by career failure, you mean a tenured position at a respectable university.”

          Well, not really. He doesn’t have any position, not just tenure. And he’s not at any university or even college, let alone a respectable one. He has like 6 published papers (and none in the last several years), and an H-index in the toilet. By what metric is Carrier not a career failure?

          Carrier could have forgotten about being a historian and just become a cashier or lifeguard or something. You don’t HAVE to do what’s on your degree. And yet, Carrier claims to be doing exactly that. You seem to be missing the point. It simply is not a coincidence that the leader of mythicism is an awful historian. It takes an awful historian to misrepresent the data, selectively use information, come up with flabbergasting hypotheticals and ad hoc scenarios, etc, etc, etc, to get to a conclusion like mythicism. It’s simply not possible that a credible scholar could have found their way into accepting all the necessary orthodoxies of mythicism.

          “Carrier earns his living in part as an historian.”

          He’s not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What argument?

          The arguments he make in his books ya moron…or on this particular occasion, in that video presentation that you refused to watch because you prefer the ad hominem attack.

          Carrier failed his career as an academic or a historian.

          So you keep saying.

          The amount and type of career success a person achieves is affected by several forms of career capital. These include social capital (the extent and depth of personal contacts a person can draw upon), human capital (demonstrable abilities, experiences and qualifications), economic capital (money and other material resources which permit access to career-related resources), and cultural capital (having skills, attitudes or general know-how to operate effectively in a particular social context).

          Now he’s a full time blogger who gives talks to small atheist groups around the country.

          But that’s not all he does…you need to answer the question on how he earns a living? Why does he get paid what he gets paid?

          There’s no argument that rectifies this.

          There is no argument needed….the facts are the facts. You are doing that thing you are good at…setting your definition as the only definition in order to argue your position is the correct one. Because you are a lying dishonest turd.

          If someone claims to be a historian, obviously O’Neill isn’t, his toilet H-index is relevant.

          Why is O’Neill not an historian?

          The H-index isn’t relevant for a variety of reasons. You’ve got this hardon for his H-index and it appears you are unaware that scholars report what is wrong with the H-index itself…a quick Google should educate you…try it. Carriers number of published papers and his chosen subject matter is relevant to why his H-index is low.

          Here, I’ll get you started…

          The h-index suffers from a strong discipline bias. For example, it tends to be more indicative of scientific productivity and impact in life sciences, chemistry or physics. In many of the engineering areas and most social sciences and humanities- it can be a very weak indicator.

          https://enspire.science/h-index-erc/

          http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/03/31/four-reasons-to-stop-caring-so-much-about-the-h-index/

          These weren’t part of a single argument, dear Amos. They’re just different ways that Carrier is a failure at life.

          Then you are a a fucking rocket.

          You are stating Carrier’s scholarship is not worth consideration because of the litany of personal failings you perceive. You are attacking the man…that is the epitome of the ad hominem fallacy ffs.

          Google Richard Carrier and ya get …”About 80,100,000 results (0.55 seconds)”

          He is a published author with no less than 8 books of his own, with contributions to quite a number of others.

          Define “failure at life”? What does that even mean?

          If having affairs or living off the wage earner in a relationship are the metric for being a “failure at life”, then there are quite a few out there. But your sexist bigotry is noted.

          Yes, I can agree that Carrier’s failure in his personal life is distinguishable from his career failure.

          But he isn’t a failure in either…and you haven’t shown he is, either, so pah!

          O’Neill, remember?

          Nope….O’Neill is an arsecrank and there is more than just Carrier and Godfrey that thinks so.

          O’Neill took care of that for me.

          No he hasn’t.

          The debates over, Carrier lost, give up.

          Nope…far from it…and real scholars with credentials don’t think the debate is over either ya fuckwit…but thanks for confirming your ignorance on the topic with your cock-sucking adherence to the arsecrank O’Neill.

          Dame Averil Cameron, one of the world class scholars who have endorsed O’Neill’s blog, has one of his articles as a required reading in one of her classes (since she’s a prof and all). That sounds nice and scholarly-kind of to me.

          That still doesn’t make his blog scholarly ffs. What was it you were saying?

          That’s my point. Hoffman saying “I like this article” isn’t the same as “I endorse this entire blog.” If Godfrey failed to write a single good article in all his years on that blog, that would be an unbelievable accomplishment.

          Well, not really. He doesn’t have any position, not just tenure. And he’s not at any university or even college, let alone a respectable one. He has like 6 published papers (and none in the last several years), and an H-index in the toilet. By what metric is Carrier not a career failure?

          Matters not a jot to his being an historian with a doctorate.

          http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=Historian

          Carrier could have forgotten about being a historian and just become a cashier or lifeguard or something. You don’t HAVE to do what’s on your degree. And yet, Carrier claims to be doing exactly that.

          Because that’s what he is doing. It isn’t necessary to be doing it in an educational establishment…something you can’t get over.

          You seem to be missing the point.

          No, I’m not…I’m just saying I don’t care, because it doesn’t matter. What matters is a persons argument and how well they can support it.

          It simply is not a coincidence that the leader of mythicism is an awful historian.

          The leader of mythicism? That’s funny. So, now he IS an historian, just an “awful” one…in your opinion?

          Is your problem Carrier being a mythicist? You do know that it was after being coerced to look into the subject, and after some research, the data convinced Carrier that the theory had some gravitas, right?

          It takes an awful historian to misrepresent the data, selectively use information, come up with flabbergasting hypotheticals and ad hoc scenarios, etc, etc, etc, to get to a conclusion like mythicism.

          I don’t recognize anything in that diatribe relevant…but I’m sure you can give examples…I’m guessing not.

          It’s simply not possible that a credible scholar could have found their way into accepting all the necessary orthodoxies of mythicism.

          Well, the problem with that statement is your subjective opinion on what is a credible scholar. I already gave you one that considers the the thesis viable.

          Published scholar Raphael Lataster Ph.D

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Raphael_Lataster

          But for a bit of balance, how about a Catholic priest? Father Thomas L. Brodie…also published doctorate.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie

          Then there is double Ph.D holder and theologian Professor Robert M. Price.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

          What about Professor Hector Avalos…a scholar sympathetic to the thesis?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Avalos

          Professor Thomas L. Thompson even?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson

          He’s not.

          The fact of the matter is, that he is…end of.

          This nonsense of your’s is getting tediously boring. You don’t like Carrier, I get it. You don’t think much of his work…I don’t think you are very familiar with it…I get that too. I’m more interested in the details.

          You failed to refute Pofarmers citation, because you don’t think it is worth even looking at, because you don’t like the scholar making the point. You’ve spilled much ink with the big ad hom, attacking the man, not his argument. I’m guessing that is much easier for you, because you can’t refute the point being made.

          You are as dishonest and as disingenuous as the day is long…a dumbarse…life is too short to be wasting anymore of it on your mindwanking fuckwittery. I’m done.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “The arguments he make in his books ya moron…or on this particular occasion, in that video presentation that you refused to watch because you prefer the ad hominem attack.”

          When I was saying his career has been refuted, I wasn’t talking about that video. I was talking about his thesis of mythicism itself.

          Towards the end of your comment, you try proving mythicism has academic support. That’s quite a sorry list. “Raphael Lataster” — not a historian in the tiny least. Robert Price … another failed historian with not a single published paper. Avalos has only described himself as a “Jesus agnotic” or something — and it’s important to mention here Avalos is a hardcore anti-Christian zealot. Thompson simply is not a mythicist … at all. Neither is Thompson an NT scholar, so not quite relevant. But even disregarding that, he’s just not a mythicist. Ehrman once dismissed Thompson’s denials of Jesus’ historicity, and Thompson responded here;

          http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tho368005.shtml

          What does Thomspon say?

          art Ehrman has recently dismissed what he calls mythicist scholarship, my Messiah Myth2 from 2005 among them, as anti-religious motivated denials of a historical Jesus and has attributed to my book arguments and principles which I had never presented, certainly not that Jesus had never existed.

          Aww, so the non-NT scholar isn’t a mythicist after all. So the whole list of credentialed mythicists boils down to a series of non-historians, failed scholars and anti-Christian zealots. Imagine my shock.

          And you quote some irrelevant blurb to try to escape the fact that Carrier is a failure, yet again. Let me spell this out. Almost no published work. Toilet H-index. Failure to get any academic position. Failed marriage because Carrier is a disgusting, unfaithful cuck. Accusations of sexual assault that, when were repeated, launched a failed lawsuit. Carrier has fostered an anti-intellectual community called ‘mythicism’, and so now, more people than ever believe in total pseudo-history about early Christianity. In what way is Carrier not a failure?

          “But that’s not all he does…you need to answer the question on how he earns a living? Why does he get paid what he gets paid?”

          The hell? He gets paid for his blog articles. The topic of those articles is mythicist pseudo-history. He’s the equivalent of a failed biologist who gets paid to write creationist articles on Answers in Genesis for his lifetime.

          “Nope….O’Neill is an arsecrank and there is more than just Carrier and Godfrey that thinks so.”

          You’re right, Raphael Lataster also probably shares those thoughts. Of course, O’Neill demolished Lataster to a good degree as well (see below). Certainly, credible scholars like Dame Cameron enjoy O’Neill’s much-needed work on a variety of issues.
          https://historyforatheists.com/2018/09/pz-myers-and-jesus-agnosticism/

          “Is your problem Carrier being a mythicist? You do know that it was after being coerced to look into the subject, and after some research, the data convinced Carrier that the theory had some gravitas, right?”

          No, Carrier is just a quack atheist blowhard fueled by self-obsession and desire for recognition. That largely explains his grudging take into a refuted idea.

          “I don’t recognize anything in that diatribe relevant…but I’m sure you can give examples…I’m guessing not.”

          Of course I can give an example of how Carrier does this. Remember, Carrier’s thesis requires Paul to have actually thought of Jesus as a spiritual alien or something who never touched the Earth. Just take a look at this, then.

          Romans 1:1-3: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

          So Jesus is a descendant of David. So, how does Carrier get around a fairly unambiguous Pauline statement like this that seems to suggest that Jesus was, in fact, living an earthly life? Well, simple. It just means Jesus was manufactured from a cosmic sperm bank. The sheer retardation of this “explanation” is beyond words. Carrier will truly make up literally anything to escape reality. Mythicists actually believe this, by the way.

          Since it’s ever-relevant, here is O’Neill’s total demolishing of this idea, which requires quite a bit of twisting by Carrier to make. Can’t wait for O’Neill’s full length article.
          https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/995rym/what_are_some_of_the_arguments_made_by_those_who/e4s00g4/

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course I can give an example of how Carrier does this. Remember, Carrier’s thesis requires Paul to have actually thought of Jesus as a spiritual alien or something who never touched the Earth. Just take a look at this, then.

          Romans 1:1-3: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

          So Jesus is a descendant of David. So, how does Carrier get around a fairly unambiguous Pauline statement like this that seems to suggest that Jesus was, in fact, living an earthly life? Well, simple. It just means Jesus was manufactured from a cosmic sperm bank. The sheer retardation of this “explanation” is beyond words. Carrier will truly make up literally anything to escape reality. Mythicists actually believe this, by the way.

          Since it’s ever-relevant, here is O’Neill’s total demolishing of this idea, which requires quite a bit of twisting by Carrier to make. Can’t wait for O’Neill’s full length article.

          But whatever interpretation given to that passage in Romans, it doesn’t mean Jesus was born of the actual seed of David. The passage is no concern to the mythicist argument.

          https://vridar.org/2010/08/18/seed-of-david-born-of-woman-and-mythicism/

          O’Neill demolished nothing ya idiot.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13387

        • Ignorant Amos

          Carrier has fostered an anti-intellectual community called ‘mythicism’, and so now, more people than ever believe in total pseudo-history about early Christianity.

          That sentence alone demonstrates your ignorance on this issue.

          Carrier is a fairly recent convert to what is a centuries old mythicism.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Carrier is a fairly recent convert to what is a centuries old mythicism.”

          That sentence alone demonstrates your ignorance on this issue. Read my words again, kookoo bird. Carrier fostered an an-intellectual community called mythicism. Notice how these words don’t magically imply that Carrier founded mythicism itself. I’ve read Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist and am well aware that mythicism was made up in the 19th century, and that for the first 1800 years of Christianity no one actually thought there was no earthly Jesus.

          “But whatever interpretation given to that passage in Romans, it doesn’t mean Jesus was born of the actual seed of David. The passage is no concern to the mythicist argument.”

          Actually, that’s what it does. As O’Neill shows, Paul uses the same phrase countless times and it all clearly means the same thing. In order to get around this fairly straight forward verse, Carrier claimed that it was talking about a cosmic sperm bank. That, alone, buries his credibility.

          You then provide a post from, with no surprise, Neil Godfrey. The sheer stupidity of that little post is … well … I can’t word it out. Those “mythical” characters, poor Godfrey doesn’t realize, weren’t thought to be mythical by the people writing about them. The authors just thought they were earthly (I can’t believe I even have to say it) men. Likewise, Paul simply thought that Jesus … was an earthly man … descended from David’s lineage. Which means Paul had no crap spiritual interpretation. Godfrey claims things are “misconceptions” about mythicism when they’re obviously freaking true. Every single one of those misconceptions is an obvious fact about mythicism.

          You finish your comment off with a little, irrelevant post by Carrier where he regurgitates his cringeworthy thesis. Obviously, it never addresses the actual criticisms O’Neill, or any sane critic would note. To derive a cosmic sperm bank from the text is an absurd twisting, and Paul uses the same phrase many, many times elsewhere. Poor Carrier. And what I can conclude from this is that you, too, believe in the cosmic sperm bank interpretation. Sigh.

        • Carrier failed his career as an academic or a historian.

          And I failed in my career as an art historian. The fact that I never studied art history, had any interest in art history, or applied myself in that direction is a likely cause.

          Hmm … perhaps there’s a parallel here. Do we know that Carrier wanted a career in academia but failed to get one? Or is this “failure” just speculation on KD’s part?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do we know that Carrier wanted a career in academia but failed to get one?

          Nope…I don’t…maybe KD has a special insight. It is an assumption that everyone that gets a doctorate in History would seek a career teaching or in research or whatever. The fact of the matter is, the opportunities for those seeking qualifications in these disciplines to go on and get a position using such qualifications, is limited. It is not unusual for a Ph.D historian to not have a career in the academy.

          https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/career-diversity-for-historians/career-diversity-resources/the-many-careers-of-history-phds/careers-in-and-beyond-the-professoriate

          https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2012/what-makes-a-successful-academic-career-in-history

          Interesting too, is the number of peer reviewed papers that historians get published.

          Carriers mythicist views would make him persona non grata, his ability to do history well wouldn’t come into it. Attaining a doctorate at Columbia University demonstrates his ability in his field.

          Or is this “failure” just speculation on KD’s part?

          I’d say so. KD has associated Carrier’s employment record as a measurement of his ability to do history. It is complete fuckwittery, but if it suits KD’s position, that won’t matter.

        • Well, KD has pretty high standards. If Carrier has disappointed KD, then that’s a black mark in anyone’s book.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry dude, but your comment got cut off at the end because it was too long.

          Well, whatever reason it got cut off, it wasn’t because it was too long, that’s for sure.

          The maximum I can see is the Wiki articles you referenced — I’ll give you an update the next time you respond.

          No need, am not bothered. Since you are demonstrably disingenuous and dishonest.

          EDIT: The Al Azhar and Islamic university Wiki’s also don’t claim this to be the oldest university.

          I never said they did, they’re just older than the oldest western university.

          The only Wiki page with a problem is this one;

          Not a problem for me.

          And, you don’t need to worry, I’m working on it.

          I’m not a bit worried…you’ve got your work cut out for ya if you are going to get all instances of that university being cited as the oldest continually operating university in the world.

          The end that got cut off…

          Anyways, as I’ve shown earlier from Jacques Verger, Verger explicitly states that the only reason some people call the madrasas “universities” is out of convenience, and they simply don’t compare to the later European institution.

          I don’t care. What was the the equivalent to a university in the medieval Islamic world? Did the western world have anything equivalent to those Madrassa’s in the first millennia? They are conveniently being called universities, because, well, to all intents and purposes, that’s what they did…the work of a university. They compare to the later European institutions in every way that it matters for the purposes of the OP and my assertion. Get over it. The horse has been flogged.

          You CERTAINLY give several, considering how much whining you did when I fixed up the links you tried to cite.

          Really? Cite where I did this so-called whining? I don’t even know where you “fixed up the links” that I tried to cite. And there are a lot more sources than those on Wikipedia, why would I give a fuck? Again with the delusional thinking.

          You’re on crack.

          Not me. The author of the article I cited in Slate.

          https://slate.com/technolog

          But the fact that Britannica makes a few mistakes doesn’t put it at Wiki’s level.

          How the fuck does the number of mistakes made, make a difference. If one mistake is made, it throws the integrity of the whole thing into question…guess why? Soft boy. It’s how it is used, is where it works or fails. That’s why it should be not cited uncritically. A mistake is a mistake…Britannica makes quite a few…how would you know if you were citing one of them without checking?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

          I have a problem with crap encyclopedias, Britannica is appropriately citeable.

          Great…let’s forget about Wikipedia, since it gives you the willies and you don’t understand its limitations and how to use it properly.

          And since you’ve got such a hardon for Britannica, we’ll stick with that one…

          The Qarawīyīn Mosque is the centre of a university that was founded in ad 859; several of its schools (madrasahs) are grouped around it. The university has been renowned since the European Middle Ages as a centre of Islāmic culture. When the Muslims were expelled from Spain beginning in the 13th century, many came to Fès and to Qarawīyīn, bringing knowledge of European and Moorish arts and sciences. By the 14th century there were said to be 8,000 students at the university.

          https://www.britannica.com/

          Ohhhhps!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “No need, am not bothered. Since you are demonstrably disingenuous and dishonest.”

          Not really. Anyways, I’ll update you anyways. This was what the page said a few days ago;

          “In some sources, the medieval madrasa is described as a “university”,[11][12][13][14][15] in one Rough Guide book even as vying with Al-Azhar (c. 970) in Cairo “for the title of world’s oldest university”.[16]”

          As you can see, there are five references for the university statement, as well as a sixth reference from the citation of a Rough Guide. You can read my comments on the Talk Page of that Wiki page, but I demonstrated that three of these references are unreliable, and a fourth (Niall Ferguson’s book Civilization), though reliable, was being misrepresented. This is what the Wiki page looks like now in this section;

          “In some sources, the medieval madrasa is described as a “university”.[11][12][13] According to other scholars, the earliest universities developed in medieval Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries.[14] Jacques Verger says that while the term ‘university’ is occasionally applied by scholars to the madrasa out of convenience, the European institution marked a major disruption between earlier institutions.[15]”

          As you can see, I removed three of the references to the claim of being a university — two unreliable ones and the misrepresented book, and I added on another chunk explaining the alternative scholarly explanation. I still need to remove ref 13 — an unreliable book called the ‘Illustrated Dictionary of the Muslim World’. Refs 11 and 12 are reliable, so they’ll stay. There’s a bit more improvement that needs to be done.

          “I never said they did, they’re just older than the oldest western university.”

          The Wiki page also doesn’t claim that the Azhar university was a university when it was founded. Azhar became a real university many centuries later. It’s like the University of Bologna — it was founded in 1088, but only really became a university towards the end of the 12th century — which is why scholars say the university originated around 1200 rather than in 1088. But maybe that should be clarified for the Azhar page, like I clarified it for the Bologna page a few weeks earlier.

          “I don’t care. What was the the equivalent to a university in the medieval Islamic world? Did the western world have anything equivalent to those Madrassa’s in the first millennia? ”

          Medieval Islam had no equivalent to the university. As for the first millennium, it’s possible the monasteries and cathedral schools in that stage were equivalent — but this is speculation on a topic neither of us know the answer to. Certainly, until 1200 or even 1300, the Islamic world produced more intellectual advancements than the Christian one.

          “Really? Cite where I did this so-called whining? I don’t even know where you “fixed up the links” that I tried to cite. And there are a lot more sources than those on Wikipedia, why would I give a fuck? Again with the delusional thinking.”

          Dude, you got pretty pissed about how I supposedly “delete” anything that disagrees with me, or something. Of course, the correct term is ‘fix’. These “other sources” are UNESCO, a UN agemcy, not quite comparable to the consensus of experts.

          Your Slate link isn’t working. And it doesn’t need to, Slate is a crap source for history.

          “How the fuck does the number of mistakes made, make a difference.”

          Is this a real question? Geez, Amos.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The complete opposite. Every classical work that you’ve ever read (well, I’m not sure if you’ve read any) survived because, primarily, Christian monks painstakingly copied them. They would have been permanently lost, otherwise. You’re testing my patience.

          Contradicts…

          There was no “fiddling”, people were kind of trying not to utterly die. And, by the way, most of them did die. The population was a fraction of its former size within a century of the fall of the empire. It’s almost as if I have to explain the fact that people, when they have to go back to doing hard labor all the time just to get by, don’t have all those luxurious past-time hours where they can learn how to read and delicately copy texts totally useless to their survival or community.

          Everyone is too busy trying to survive, rather get busy copying important stuff that would help them better survive…but the monks, they had the time to indulge in copying out navel gazing fluff that was of no practical use to anyone. Right.

          Now that’s funny…ya want to have yer cake and eat it too.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Nope, you just need a bit of perspective. The monks who painstakingly copied and saved all those texts I referred to are in the Byzantine empire, which doesn’t collapse. The population that fell apart and lost all these texts because they were trying to survive are in the former Western Roman empire. Talking about two completely different things. Nice try, though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          O’Neill*, unlike Carrier, isn’t a career failure. Nice try.

          Define career failure? How does O’Neill earn his money vis a vis Carrier? Does Carrier use his PHd to earn his living?

          O’Neill is obviously vastly more learned than the biased polemicist that is Richard Carrier.

          Demonstrating you know fuck all about Carrier, his position, how he got from where he was to where he is on the subject now. Dickhead.

          Very good recent news from about a week ago;

          Relevant because? Your citation is erroneous too btw…

          https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/11/15/judge-dismisses-richard-carriers-defamation-lawsuit-against-atheist-bloggers/

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14888

          But why would you be interested in what is really the case?

          Also extraordinarily rich seeing a Carrier fan appeal to credentials. Doesn’t Carrier have like only 6 published papers in his entire life with an H-index in the toilet?

          How many has O’Neill got published and what is their H-index?

          Ah, so it’s not that anyone was too dumb to keep building these, it was because, as I seem to have written earlier, the civilization fell apart. How horrid! The Christians couldn’t keep manufacturing these weapons of war in light of their collapsing world! Give the Christians a break man.

          More retarded reading comprehension…or you just love your own interpretation of what others write…either way, you’re being a dick.

          … the ability to calculate spring rates that the Romans had mastered for their huge crossbow type “artillery” pieces.”

          Because the only use for such calculations is going to be the building of big crossbows? So, no point in preserving such stuff when a more useful application of resources is prayers?

          Christians were too stupid and busy concerning themselves with writing about nonsense, to realise the worth of ancient stuff discovered prior to Christianity.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Forgot this part of the comment;

          “You see, the Byzantines didn’t hold onto the knowledge of concrete either. Nor did they hold onto things like advanced metallurgy and the ability to calculate spring rates that the Romans had mastered for their huge crossbow type “artillery” pieces.”

          Source? Somehow I’m unbelievably skeptical of this claim. Sounds like bull to me.

        • Pofarmer
        • Ignorant Amos

          One just has to point to Ireland and Celtic Christianity for the example to decimate KD’s fuckwittery.

          With the arrival of Christianity, things become much clearer. In the first place, Ireland becomes ‘literate’ – it learns to write and keep books. Ogham – the indigenous script developed here in the pre-Christian period – continued to be used for inscriptions, sometimes alongside the new latin script. However, it is this new script that transforms Ireland’s written record and a wealth of information about the Early Christian period has survived. Christianity came to Ireland about 1600 years ago and seems to have spread rapidly. Monasteries like the one built here in the Heritage Park sprang up across Ireland and quickly became centres of learning, art and political power. While the new religion was originally established on the diocesan model common throughout Europe, which was led by bishops, it changed very quickly here in Ireland to a monastic model, led by abbots. In many ways the so-called ‘Celtic’ Church had more in common with Coptic Christianity which predominated in the East, rather than the Roman version. Some of the Irish monasteries became so large and powerful, with so many people living in them, both lay and religious, that they can nearly be thought of as towns.

          This nonsense that the fall of the Roman Empire meant there was nothing getting wrote by western Christians, for 400-600 years, is pure nonsense.

          https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=his

          Myths aside, the Irish Christians were writing, and not just Christian nonsense either…but they weren’t writing about the stuff being discussed here, because they just didn’t know about them…because they were lost to western Christian culture. And it wasn’t just in Ireland either. So KD’s defence is spurious.

          The project aims to identify the clear beliefs, customs, practices and rituals of the early Irish Church. The arrival of Christianity in the country changed everything on the island of Ireland, says Dr Boyle. “It brought literacy. Before that, there is little or no writing. When we do start to get substantial written records, around the late sixth and seventh centuries, Ireland had already been undergoing Christianisation for two centuries.”

          So, why did Ireland gain the reputation as the “land of saints and scholars”? Surely there was something different happening here? “Exceptional writing was taking place in Irish, but the monks and clerics also had to learn Latin, whereas elsewhere in Europe, Latin was the everyday language. As learners of Latin, Irish clerics really had to think about how language works, and this linguistic theory seems to have inspired work in other disciplines.”

          Irish scholars at this time were producing grammatical texts about their own vernacular language, while churchmen were also at the forefront of science and maths, calculating the dates of Easter – an exceedingly difficult task at that time. They wrote and studied law texts in both Latin and Irish. Much of this material survives.

          Some ecclesiastic centres, including Glendalough, Clonmacnoise and Armagh, went on to develop areas of research specialisation, much like modern universities. Women accessed education through female monastic communities, although they had less access than men.

          Ireland’s history here cannot be isolated from that of Europe. “Just as elsewhere, the Irish Church had control over education, society and social organisation. It used education, learning, literacy and the law as tools to maintain this control. There’s a conception that the early Irish Church was comprised of lonely little hermits going into the wilderness to write nature poetry. But the Church was, in fact, a powerful, worldly institution that controlled vast amounts of land, including some of the best farming land in Ireland. Yes, it produced outstanding literature and great art, but it could do this because it had wealth, not because hermits were off in caves communing with nature. The scientific and grammatical texts that were being produced were not being written in tiny forest huts, but in large libraries in well-stocked churches.”

          https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/spotlight-research/what-do-we-really-know-about-early-irish-church

          There were no snakes in Ireland before St Patrick. Nobody really knows the exact nature of pre-Christian belief in Ireland. The meteoric rise of the Christian Church saw it become the most powerful institution on the island, dwarfing even the strength of the Church in post-Famine Ireland. Ireland’s religious powers oversaw a violent, slave-owning society. And the image of the nature-loving hermitic monk retiring to the forest to write poetry is more a charming myth, or even a potent propaganda tool.

          That said, early Christian writings in Ireland were a lot of ballix. Known as the “Irish Penitentials”, Christians had no problems copying that shit and propagating it thriughout the Christian west. A paper on the Christian fuckwittery imposed on early Irish Christians can be read at…

          https://journals.openedition.org/medievalista/447

          The Celtic penitentials and their influence on continental Christianity

          https://archive.org/details/celticpenitentia00mcneuoft

          If there was a capability to write, reproduce, and promote bullshit, then the excuse in KD’s argument is refuted.

          Nah…KD is talking shite again…no surprise there then.

        • MR

          I thought Bob already banned Tim O’Neill?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          When was the last time you beat your wife?

        • Korus Destroyus

          1567, June 3rd. Care to answer my question now?

        • MNb

          Yes, on 2386, February 16th. By then your question will have become relevant for my comment.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ah, so you have no evidence of Christianity promoting bloodletting or Christians opposing theories that contradicted Hippocrates’ four humors. Next time, try not to make things up. You might get caught.

        • MNb

          Eeehhhhh …. you are the one making things up, not me. What I do have evidence for is your poor comprehensive reading skills and your inclination to confuse your prejudices with valid conclusions. If you want to remedy it I recommend you to carefully reread the first sentence of Greg G’s comment just underneath. Only if you have a firm grip of it proceed to “will have become relevant” in my previous comment.
          Success!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “making things up”

          Making … what up? Greg’s comments are so ridiculous as to be beyond ridiculous. His idea that the works of the Greeks were only accepted because they were “so far beyond their [the Christians] knowledge” is something only someone who has their head up their arse could say. You refer to Greg’s comments above yours — just checked it out. Clicked on the first link. Almost shot myself because of the historical crap on that page. Needless to say, virtually every sentence is steeped in incredible error.

          Once again, after JBrown97 asked what evidence there was of Christianity suppressing medicine, you replied by claiming that Christianity opposed anything that stood in the way of Hippocrates’ four humors theory. Still waiting on the evidence, simple bucko.

          By the way, you need to work on your ability to write. Your comments are very badly written.

        • Greg G.

          Making … what up? Greg’s comments are so ridiculous as to be beyond ridiculous. His idea that the works of the Greeks were only accepted because they were “so far beyond their [the Christians] knowledge” is something only someone who has their head up their arse could say. You refer to Greg’s comments above yours — just checked it out. Clicked on the first link. Almost shot myself because of the historical crap on that page. Needless to say, virtually every sentence is steeped in incredible error.

          By the way, you need to work on your ability to write. Your comments are very badly written.

          MNb writes well enough and English is not his first language. What is the problem with your reading? He did not mention “Christianity” but you read that into his post. I explained that he used “christian” but you still can’t get your mind out of Christianity mode. The problem is your one-track mind that you cannot allow to be corrected.

        • MNb

          Like this: “His idea that the works ….”
          See, I referred to the first sentence of his comment, not to the rest.

          Plus this: “you replied by claiming that Christianity opposed anything that stood in the way of Hippocrates’ four humors theory.”
          A fine example of you mixing up what I wrote and what you wished me to write.

          Free advise to you for today: if you want a discussion address what someone writes, not what your prejudices make you want him/her to wrote.

          “Your comments are very badly written.”
          I sincerly apologize for not being a native English speaker.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I sincerly apologize for not being a native English speaker.”

          Well, apology accepted.

          Anyways, if it is the case that you aren’t a native speaker of English, then why do you keep wasting my time by complaining about my so-called “prejudices” of reading comprehension when, perhaps, considering the possibility that I misunderstood you, not because of my “prejudices” but because … English isn’t your native language? Instead of leading me on in endless circles about what I need to read and re-read, why don’t you just clarify your point?

        • MNb

          “Well, apology accepted.”
          How gracious of you! This deserves

          https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amazing+grace+aretha+franklin

          Really, I could hardly sleep tonight out of fear that you would not accept them. I still shiver at the thought!

          “….. then why do you keep wasting my time …..”
          Once again I sincerely apologize, this time for not being aware that only native English speakers are allowed to point out your prejudices. May I conclude that I’m not allowed either, because not a native English speaker, to point out that you yourself are responsible for the way you use or waste your time and nobody else? Or that you perhaps are not mature enough to take responsibility yourself for what you do and not do, but prefer to blame others?

          “Instead of leading me on in endless circles about what I need to read and re-read, why don’t you just clarify your point?”
          Why would I? Running around in circles benefits your condition.

          OK, serious. It’s your problem, not mine and I think it too much work to remedy your problems for you. Eighteen years of internet have taught me that my way is much more fun. It may even be more effective with thick skulls like yours.
          But who knows, depending on your next reaction I might feel like to take your hand and guide you step by step towards my point.
          Let me begin with a simple question. Do you understand the difference between “christianity” and “christians”? Just yes will not be enough; you’ll have to explain.
          Success again!

        • Korus Destroyus

          No problem, I was afraid it would keep you up. Anyways, you really are wasting my time — and sarcasm isn’t going to cut it. These conversations can be very, very simple. Someone misunderstands you, you just clarify. Instead, you’re dragging my heels through the mud and claiming I’m the one with a thick skull. Why can’t you just clarify you’re damned point so I can actually address it?

          “Let me begin with a simple question. Do you understand the difference between “christianity” and “christians”? Just yes will not be enough; you’ll have to explain.”

          Presumably, if I follow this line of inquiry, you’ll finally drag your head out of the mud and get to the point. Christians are the members of the religion, whereas Christianity is the religion itself.

        • MNb

          “Anyways, you really are wasting my time”
          Really your responsibility and your problem, not mine.

          “and sarcasm isn’t going to cut it.”
          It already did. Thanks to my sarcasm I cut through your thick skull, though I’ve still some work to do.

          “Why can’t you just clarify you’re damned point so I can actually address it?”
          Are you an expert in asking questions that already are answered?
          But thanks for justifying sarcasm.

          “you’ll finally drag your head out of the mud”
          Almost correct! The only mistake you made is not recognizing your own head, which is not surprising as that’s the one stuck in the mud.

          Next question. Which word did I use in my comment of three years ago, “christianity” or “christian”?
          With your head in the mud it’s hard to see clearly, so I’ll copy it:

          – Everything that threatened the theory of

          [link omitted]

          because christians, who slavishly accepted everything coming from Antiquity (end specifically if authorized by the great Aristoteles). Specifically

          [link omitted]

          These days christians resist stem cell research.-

          As by now I assume a short attention span I’ll repeat: which word did I use? To make it easy for you I underlined it.

          Even for you this should not be too difficult and given your benevolent cooperation I’ll ask you the next question too. In your first reaction of two days ago to my three years old comment, which word did you use, “christianity” or “christians”? Again for your benefit I’ve copied:

          “Where’s the evidence that the ideas of bloodletting or the four temperaments had anything to do with Christianity, or that opposing theories to these concepts were suppressed at all, let alone due to Christianity?”

          Final question for this comment: do you recognize the difference, given the two definitions you gave yourself?

          (this comment is made a bit shorter because I’m afraid it’s already too long for KD to digest in one go)

        • Korus Destroyus

          “It already did. Thanks to my sarcasm I cut through your thick skull, though I’ve still some work to do.”

          Once again, it’s not my skull that’s thick. You just didn’t like my jokes about your English. You just need to summarize your misunderstood point so the conversation can actually … move on.

          Anyways, now that you’ve finished dragging your head through the mud, you finally tell me what’s going on. Your original point is about Christians doing certain non-medical things, not Christianity. Which means you utterly failed to address JBrown’s question:

          “Also, what medical advancements were squelched by Christians?”

          JBrown asked which medical advancements Christians squelched. You failed to name any. You just claimed that everything that opposed the four humors idea was opposed — which is total fiction — and then cited bloodletting, which is … a complete red herring to JBrown’s challenge.

        • MNb

          You can deny it as often as you like, your skull remains as thick as a brick.

          “You just didn’t like my jokes about your English.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Now you are a self-declared mindreader too! My dear KD, if I hadn’t liked them I would have ceased reacting to your so stupid that they are funny comments.
          It’s the complete opposite. I like every single aspect of your inane comments so much that I am very impatient waiting for new ones. Please, keep them coming!
          Really, I’ve quit this blog quite a while ago. You’re the only one whom I’m reacting to and hence the only reason I visit this blog again!

          “You just need to summarize your misunderstood point so the conversation can actually … move on.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! My dear KD, you already have demonstrated several times that a simple summary is not nearly enough for you. You haven’t even managed thus far to understand Greg G’s “He didn’t say it had anything to do with Christianity. He said it was “christians”. So as long as you refuse to answer my utterly simple question “do you recognize the difference, given the two definitions you gave yourself?” any progression with you is totally impossible.

          “Your original point is about Christians doing certain non-medical things, not Christianity. Which means you utterly failed to address JBrown’s question:
          “Also, what medical advancements were squelched by Christians?””
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Please take careful notice of the underlined words.
          JBrown asked about christians. My answer was about christians and hence failed to address his question about christians.. Despite you giving pretty fine definitions of the two different words you still refuse to understand the difference! and keep on wanting me to address his question about christians by talking about christianity.
          You’re hilarious. Keep up the good work!

          Hey, just curious. Are you a Young Earth Creationist too? I mean, even Flat Earth Theorists don’t reach your abominable level.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “BWAHAHAHAHA! Now you are a self-declared mindreader too!”

          Oh come on, bucko, it’s dead obvious. You didn’t like my jokes about your English. Nothing to be ashamed of.

          ” So as long as you refuse to answer my utterly simple question “do you recognize the difference, given the two definitions you gave yourself?””

          What the hell? So I outright explain the difference between Christians and Christianity, and you still want clarification that I see the difference? How is that even possible?

          “JBrown asked about christians. My answer was about christians and hence failed to address his question about christians.”

          And my point is, dear MNb, that even on just “christians”, your response fails. When did “Christians” squelch any theories that contradict the four humors?

          And no, I’m not a young earth creationist. Of course, even a triangle-earth creationist would require a level of seriousness beyond what you’ve been able to put up.

        • MNb

          “it’s dead obvious.”
          In other words, it once again reflects your prejudices. How unsurprising.

          “Nothing to be ashamed of.”
          BWAHAHAHA! This precisely says nothing about me, everything about you and you don’t even realize it!
          Also thanks for demonstrating that you only accept what people say if it confirms your prejudices. Because yes, it’s nothing but your prejudices (and one of the more stupid ones) that I didn’t like your jokes. In reality I think you one big joke.

          “and you still want clarification that I see the difference?”
          Yep, you have serious problems with comprehensive reading. That’s not what I wrote.

          “How is that even possible?”
          You are the one who wrote about christianity in your first reaction to me. You’re just too dishonest, like all stupid commenters, to admit that you asked an irrelevant question and hence are responsible yourself for you running around in circles. When I told you the first time you first tried to contradict it and then tried to neglect it. Which shows what a pathetical failure you are.

          “When did “Christians” squelch any theories that contradict the four humors?”
          And …. here we go again. Where did I use the word “squelch”? Once again that reflects your prejudices and your stupid tricks to frame “discussions”. Of course nothing you bring up deserves such a qualification. Also you already have shown you prefer to simply reject any source that provides evidence that’s inconvenient to you.

          OK, all good and funny things must come to an end; these days I get bored pretty easily. This will be my last reaction to you. It’s pretty obvious that you suffer from lastworditis, but don’t worry, I won’t read anything anymore coming from you.
          Here’s my point.

          Up to well into the 19th Century almost everybody was christian.
          Up to well into the 19th Century blood letting was practiced.
          Blood letting was based upon the four humours theory.
          Blood letting was labeled as harmful by new medical and biological insights.
          Those new insights were formulated from the 17th Century on; for instance after William Harvey’s research on the vascular system.
          So from then on everyone (and almost all of them were christians) who practiced blood letting and hence supported the four humours theory opposed the new medical and biological insights.

          Now what you should have asked – but cannot be expected from someone as thick skulled and prejudiced as you – are these questions. I’ll spell them out for you, because never ever will you arrive at them by yourself.

          1. “MNb, do you realize that those new medical discoveries were made by christians too?”
          Yes. As about everybody was christian that’s exactly to be expected.

          2. “MNb, do you realize that this question says exactly zilch about christianity?”
          Yes. That’s why I used the word “christians” or I would have used “christianity”.

          This is my view on the historical relation of christianity with science in general. Pay close attention: I totally reject the Conflict Thesis. That’s outdated 19th Century crap.
          Every single new scientific development meets opposition. So when about everybody is christians some will oppose it while others are responsible for it (ie both the new development and opposition). That means that christianity can’t be a sufficient condition for scientific progress, did not spawn any scientific revolution (not to mention India and China) but overall did not obstruct any either. We can say that for Europe (and for Europe alone; in China and India other intellectual systems played a similar role) christianity was a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
          The nice thing is that thanks to the scientific method (and not christianity) any unjustified opposition to new scientific insights can be dismissed far more quickly than in the past. Christians can do that just like all other people, as long as they accept the scientific method. Alas even today that’s not normal. And no, before your prejudices bohter you again, I actually think that atheists in general do hardly better in this respect. I’ve met too many climate sceptics and racists who were also atheists.
          Thanks for your great entertainment. Bye.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “In other words, it once again reflects your prejudices. How unsurprising.”

          What’s the prejudice that made me notice your unpleasant feelings about being roasted? Anyways, I’m going to skip your cheap insults and cut straight into the crucial points, because you finally — FINALLY — clarified, exactly, your point. Also, it’s good to hear you reject the conflict thesis. That’s reassuring.

          “So from then on everyone (and almost all of them were christians) who practiced blood letting and hence supported the four humours theory opposed the new medical and biological insights.”

          Not being convinced by the new medicine isn’t the same as opposing alternatives. Now that we’ve finally gotten down what your position is, which took far too long, we can simply settle this with a quick, unambiguous question. Which, specifically, were the new medical and biological insights opposed on the basis of the preservation of the four humours theory? All you need to do is name it, give a source that backs you up, and we’ll agree.

          Anyways, I can now jump straight to dealing with the rest as well;

          “That means that christianity can’t be a sufficient condition for scientific progress, did not spawn any scientific revolution (not to mention India and China) but overall did not obstruct any either. We can say that for Europe (and for Europe alone; in China and India other intellectual systems played a similar role) christianity was a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.”

          And yet this isn’t exactly true. Christianity did, effectively, spawn the scientific revolution — at the very least, Christianity, while not the sole cause, was the single largest cause of the scientific revolution in history. The Church was literally the primary patron of the scientific world for a thousand years. A thousand. The modern university evolved out of the Christian cathedral. The members of the Society of Jesus, i.e. the Jesuits, a Christian religious order, were responsible for an enormous amount of astronomy in the 17th century. In the 9th century, lower case and spacing between letters were invented for Christian purposes — and this kind of language formatting is crucial for efficient scientific documentation. Shall I go on?

        • Ignorant Amos

          What? No complaint about the use of Wiki? Well, I never. Flabbergasted I am.

    • Greg G.

      Also, what medical advancements were squelched by Christians?

      They opposed anesthesia for surgery because they thought suffering was edifying, for one.

      • Pofarmer

        Christians opposed vaccinations because they thought if you got an illness it was “God’s will.”

      • Korus Destroyus

        Greg, I’d hate to intrude here, but you are aware that it’s an anti-religious historical myth that anesthesia was opposed by Christians, right?

        • Greg G.

          Greg, I’d hate to intrude here, but you are aware that it’s an anti-religious historical myth that anesthesia was opposed by Christians, right?

          I do not think you are correct.

          Early opposition to obstetric anaesthesia by A. D. Farr https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1980.tb03951.x makes the claim in the abstract that “religious opposition is no more than a myth of historiography.” The article mentions James Young Simpson in the opening paragraph:

          The use of ether was promoted in Scotland by the professor of midwifery at Edinburgh from 1839 to 1870, James Young Simpson (1811-1870), who was the first to apply the new technique to midwifery, on 19 January 1847.

          Simpson himself wrote a response to religious objections to anesthesia.

          On October 16, 1846, William Thomas Green Morton used sulfuric ether to anesthetize a patient at the Massachusetts General Hospital. January 19, 1847 Sir James Young Simpson first used sulfuric ether during labor in Edinburgh, Scotland.

          Simpson introduced chloroform in late 1847. From the start the introduction of anesthesia would be controversial. Arguments against anesthesia in obstetrics ranged from questioning the safety for mother and fetus to challenging the theological basis for altering the birthing process. Simpson lived in a society immersed in religion, and his daily interactions were with people whose culture was shaped by the established Church. In December 1847 he wrote, Answer to the Religious Objections Advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery.

              https://www.general-anaesthesia.com/objections.html

        • Greg G.
        • Korus Destroyus

          I am absolutely correct. There’s not a living historian that thinks there was any actual religious objection against anesthesia. You inadvertently refute yourself by quoting the work of A.D. Farr. Farr is a historian who exhaustively surveyed all the data and found only a teensy, tiny bit of objections from a few religious people — nothing comprehensibly close to any sort of actual, organized religious opposition to anesthesia that would be required for a claim like “religion historically has opposed anesthesia”.

          In fact, if you bothered to actually read something of Farr’s work, he concludes that the little pamphlet Simpson published that you’re referring to was intended to forestall religious opposition that Simpson anticipated would arise which, in any case, didn’t. The theological response to the development of anesthesia was overwhelmingly positive, and the overwhelming share of the opposition that anesthesia faced came on scientific and medical, rather than religious, grounds, historically speaking. See pp. 123-130 in the work Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard 2009).

        • Greg G.

          Farr is a historian who exhaustively surveyed all the data and found only a teensy, tiny bit of objections from a few religious people

          OK, I accept that there was just a little opposition to anesthesia. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

          In fact, if you bothered to actually read something of Farr’s work, he concludes that the little pamphlet Simpson published that you’re referring to was intended to forestall religious opposition that Simpson anticipated would arise which, in any case, didn’t.

          I do not see where Farr said anything like that. Here is what Simpson wrote:

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091217410762

          Along with many of my professional brethren in
          Scotland, and perhaps elsewhere, I have, during
          the last few months, often heard patients and
          others strongly object to the superinduction of
          anaesthesia in labour, by the inhalation of Ether
          or Chloroform, on the assumed ground, that an
          immunity from pain during parturition was contrary
          to religion and the express commands of
          Scripture.
          Not a few medical men have, I know,
          joined in this same objection;* and have refused
          to relieve their patients from the agonies of childbirth,
          on the allegation that they believed that
          their employment of suitable anaesthetic means for
          such a purpose would be unscriptural and irreligious.
          And I am informed that, in another medical
          school, my conduct in introducing and advocating
          the superinduction of anaesthesia in labour
          has been publicly denounced ex cathedra as an
          attempt to contravene the arrangements and
          decrees of Providence, hence reprehensible and
          heretical in its character, and anxiously to be
          avoided and eschewed by all properly principled
          students and practitioners. I have been favoured
          with various earnest private communications to
          the same effect. Probably, therefore, I may be
          excused if I attempt, however imperfectly, to point
          out what I conscientiously conceive to be the
          errors and fallacies of those who thus believe that
          the practice in question ought in any degree to be
          opposed and rejected on religious grounds.

          Farr notes this:

          It has also become clear that all subsequent comments about the religious propriety of obstetric anaesthesia arose as a result of the publication of Simpson’s pamphlet, and generally referred directly to it. Indeed, Simpson himself wrote only 7 months later that ‘Here, in Edinburgh, I never now meet with any objections on this point, for the religious, like the other forms of opposition to chloroform, have ceased among us’.

          I wonder what “the subsequent comments about the religious propriety of obstetric anaesthesia” were all about? Were they religious objections themselves? Farr discusses Meigs objection to Simpson because Meigs favored natural childbirth but his phrase “fair daughters of Eve” raises an eyebrow about whether his opinion was religion based with the Christianese filtered out. OTOH, it may have been a common phrase of the period.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “OK, I accept that there was just a little opposition to anesthesia. Thank you for pointing that out to me.”

          Glad to see your open-mindedness. I’d add in “very” to the little, but I think you get the point. Anyways, I also noted Farr concludes that Simpson’s pamphlet was basically written to forestall a religious opposition that failed to really manifest. You respond;

          “I do not see where Farr said anything like that.”

          Well, it’s in the same paper you mentioned earlier. Page 906, to be exact.

          It is almost certain that Simpson’s pamphlet Answer to the Religious Objections. . . was written to forestall objections which, in the event, did not arise, and that its publication has subsequently been misinterpreted by other commentators as evidence for a non-existent opposition. Personal reservations about anaesthesia upon religious grounds were certainly felt, but the lack of evidence — either for theological opposition to anaesthesia from the institutional churches or of any widely held (or expressed) opposition on the part of individuals is too significant to be discounted. It must be concluded that there never was any formal ‘conflict’ between religion and science at this point, and that the whole episode is no more than an artifact of historiography.

          Anyways, I don’t dispute Simpson’s words in the quote you provide. As Farr notes, it’s certainly true that here and there a laymen popped up and may have voiced religious concerns regarding anesthesia. However, as Farr notes, there never mounted any actual religious or church opposition to anesthesia, and as noted earlier, the overwhelming theological response was positive in nature and the overwhelming opposition was medical in nature. You also refer to Charles Meigs. In my previous response, I pointed you to a chapter in the monograph Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion written by Rennie Shoepflin. Since the chapter discusses Meigs, I’ll just quote a good portion of it.

          Charles D. Meigs (1792–1869), professor of obstetrics at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia for over forty years, proved to be one of its most vocal and influential opponents. But even Meigs’s objections have been misinterpreted by later commentators to have been founded primarily on religion and morality, not science… When Meigs referred to the “profound Drunkenness of etherization” and asserted that “to be insensible from whisky, and gin, and brandy, and wine, and beer, and ether, and chloroform, is to be what in the world is called Dead- drunk,” his concerns were not moral but medical. Meigs feared that women would not be conscious enough under the influence of anesthesia to respond to physicians’ queries during delivery—when, for example, they had to manipulate the infant with forceps. Echoing the ancient Hippocratic mandate to “do no harm,” he concluded that natural labor “is the culminating point of the female somatic forces. There is, in natural labor, no element of disease—and, therefore, the good old writers have said nothing truer nor wiser than their old saying, that ‘a meddlesome midwifery is bad.’ (pp. 127-128)

          The entire book, as it turns out, can be accessed in PDF with this link. If there’s a single thing I’d recommend you read the entirety of as soon as you can, it’s this book.
          https://erikbuys.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/galileo-goes-to-jail.pdf

        • Pofarmer

          Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion written by Rennie Shoepflin

          I think you need better sources.

          From a review here

          https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/02/04/my-review-of-galileo-goes-to-j

          Myth 9 is, “That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science.”
          Historian Noah Efron argues that such a view is far too simplistic, and
          that Modern Science was not born out of any one world view or
          philosophy. Quite right.

          In several cases, though, the myth is just a very extreme statement
          of something which, if moderated somewhat, would be both true and
          significant. Myth 8 is, “That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for
          Advocating Copernicanism.” As philosopher Maurice Finnochiaro tells
          the story, Galileo was only threatened with torture and imprisonment.
          He actually suffered nine years of house arrest, the forced recantation
          of his views, and seeing his book banned. Take that Church bashers!

          Which is pretty much what I figured, since the guy wrote a book on how Christian Science is “Coming of Age.”

          Sheesh.

        • Pofarmer

          And then this, from the same as below.

          Myth 1 is, “That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the Demise
          of Ancient Science.” The reality, according to historian David
          Lindberg, is that science was a low priority for early Christianity, and
          was something to be practiced within the strict confines of Church
          authority and the teachings of scripture. (Science became the
          “handmaiden” of religion, in Lindberg’s telling.) Those aspects of
          Greek science and philosophy congenial to a Christian point of view were
          absorbed into the thinking of Early Christianity. Fascinating, but the
          fact remains that the Greeks had produced an impressive body of
          scientific and mathematical work, which the early Christians had little
          interest in building upon. They may not have killed ancient science, but they certainly did not embrace it or advance it.

          In short, you’re still a dumbass.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I think you need better sources.”

          Kid, the book is published by Harvard University Press and the contributors are world-leading historians. That blog, written by an atheist who doesn’t understand history at all, is just lying and misrepresenting the book.

          “In several cases, though, the myth is just a very extreme statement
          of something which, if moderated somewhat, would be both true and
          significant. Myth 8 is, “That Galileo was Imprisoned and Tortured for
          Advocating Copernicanism.” As philosopher Maurice Finnochiaro tells
          the story, Galileo was only threatened with torture and imprisonment.
          He actually suffered nine years of house arrest, the forced recantation
          of his views, and seeing his book banned. Take that Church bashers!”

          Well … no. The trial 1) had nothing to do with science 2) Galileo’s “house arrest” was actually at a very comfortable mansion, and 3) Galileo was never at risk of torture. Why were these details left out?

          “Which is pretty much what I figured, since the guy wrote a book on how Christian Science is “Coming of Age.””

          Who? What book?

          That the reviewer is lying should be clear from this summary;

          Myth 1 is, “That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science.” The reality, according to historian David Lindberg, is that science was a low priority for early Christianity, and was something to be practiced within the strict confines of Church
          authority and the teachings of scripture. (Science became the “handmaiden” of religion, in Lindberg’s telling.) Those aspects of Greek science and philosophy congenial to a Christian point of view were absorbed into the thinking of Early Christianity. Fascinating, but the fact remains that the Greeks had produced an impressive body of scientific and mathematical work, which the early Christians had little interest in building upon. They may not have killed ancient science, but they certainly did not embrace it or advance it.

          I went over the chapter again. Here’s a better way to phrase it. Traditional historical examples of Christianity opposing science, such as the life of Hypatia, or based on misrepresentation of history. The idea of ignoring philosophy is a rare hardly expressed in any of the church fathers, and one would have to go painstakingly searching to find it — by and large, Christians, though their main priority wasn’t science (neither was it for the Greeks or even Greek philosophers, obviously), they accepted and appreciated the progress of Greek learning — in fact, they were extraordinarily learned in it. That’s a real summary. Please, Pofarmer, stop letting your masters do the thinking for you. Read the book for yourself. Here’s a quote from the 9th chapter — “Myth 9: That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science”;

          To be fair, the claim that Christianity led to modern science captures something true and important. Generations of historians and sociologists have discovered many ways in which Christians, Christian beliefs, and Christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods, and institutions of what in time became modern science. (pg. 80)
          [insert various examples I don’t have space to quote]
          Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. (pg. 81)

          In other words, Efron points out that though Christianity may have been the single biggest factor in the rise of modern science, we can’t just ignore all the other civilizations that also did good work. By the end of the Middle Ages, the Christianity had gone sheer bounds beyond what the Greeks managed to accomplish.

          EDIT: Since you probably need more convincing the author is either ignorant or lying, another example will suffice;

          Nor were these limits just theoretical. On numerous occasions church authorities attempted to ban certain ideas and arguments from being disseminated. Shank gamely tries to downplay the significance of these incidents, but he is mostly unsuccessful. [Shanks quote you can read for yourself] Shank, it would seem, is unfamiliar with the notion of a “chilling effect.” To argue that the only people affected by a given condemnation were those specifically under the authority of some local prelate simply ignores the indirect effects such things have. Some eager young scholar, noting that church authorities are routinely in the habit of condemning certain modes of thought and argument, quickly learns not to step out of line. Shank is, indeed, engaging in medieval hairsplitting.

          Again, he appears to be … lying. Shanks points out that the condemnations had pretty much no effect given their locality and the fact that … no one actually listened to them, and no one enforced them. The author replies by saying that, oh wait, Shanks has never heard of a “chilling effect”! Poor guy failed to properly read Shanks. There was no chilling effect. The condemnations literally had no effect. At all. In fact, when the Paris university condemnations of Aristotle took place, other universities started using this to advertise themselves as a place where, “unlike Paris”, you could read Aristotle (as if people actually stopped at Paris). In other words, the author is just lying in order to escape the cold, hard, historical reality. He lies about Giordano Bruno, he lies about natural theology, etc etc.

        • Pofarmer

          Well … no. The trial 1) had nothing to do with science 2) Galileo’s
          “house arrest” was actually at a very comfortable mansion, and 3)
          Galileo was never at risk of torture. Why were these details left out?

          Because they’re false, moron.

          I really see no need to go further.

          “Which is pretty much what I figured, since the guy wrote a book on how Christian Science is “Coming of Age.””

          Who? What book?

          Your author. Look it up, dumbass.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Because they’re false, moron”

          No, dear Pofarmer, they’re called “facts”. Let’s try this again. I’ll offer some scholarly references at the end of this comment, since you genuinely seem to think I’m making any of this up. No, I’m not. It just really is shocking that our society is so historically ignorant. I’m sure at least half the chapters in that book would give you a heart attack.

          Galileo’s trial had nothing to do with science. Galileo actually offered no evidence for heliocentrism — in fact, his only evidence was the waves of the ocean which, in his own day, could be shown that he was essentially misrepresenting. There wouldn’t be evidence for heliocentrism until nearly a century later. Galileo’s observations invalidated Ptolemy’s geocentric model, but Tychoe’s hadn’t been invalidated at all. The reason why Galileo was put on trial is because after the Pope himself allowed Galileo to write his heliocentrism stuff, he turned his back and started mocking the Pope. And mocking a political power like the Pope in the 17th century was a big no-no.

          Galileo’s “house arrest” was actually at a very comfortable mansion. That’s no secret. He lived in the Villa il Gioiello near Florence. It’s a gigantic property that’s still standing today. Just put its name into Google Images. I wish I could be put under house arrest in that place for a few days …
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Il_Gioiello

          Galileo was never at risk of torture. That’s because under Inquisiton law, you can’t be tortured 1) if you’re too old, 2) if you’ve got a real illness, 3) you’re a cleric. Galileo was all three. And on top of that, Inquisition cases rarely practiced torture. Galileo wasn’t even formally charged with heresy. So what on Earth were the odds? The Galileo trial is hyped beyond comprehension from what it actually was.

          Scholarship time;

          Today, in our time, you the reader have doubtlessly heard that Galileo used science to prove that the Earth circles the Sun—indeed, the back cover of the standard modern translation of Galileo’s 1632 Dialogue explicitly states just that.20 But I believe that by the time you finish the pages of this book, you will agree with Riccioli’s New Almagest frontispiece. You will conclude that an objective and rational analysis of the best data on hand in the midseventeenth century would lead one to concur with Riccioli that the Copernican hypothesis, while certainly an improvement over the ideas of Ptolemy, did not compare favorably against hybrid geocentrism. You will find that some very strange ideas sprouted under Copernicanism—ideas about giant stars pointing to the nature of God, or indeed being the “warriors” of God. (Graney, Christopher. Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo. University of Notre Dame Press, 2015, 8

          In addition, Inquisition authorities in Rome rarely practiced torture, further reducing the likelihood that Galileo experienced this punishment. Inquisitorial rules exempted old or sick people (along with children and pregnant women) from torture, and
          Galileo was not only el der ly but suffering from arthritis and a hernia. The rules also spared clerics, and we now know that Galileo had received the clerical tonsure (a ceremonial haircut given to men being inducted into the clergy) on April 5, 1631, in order to benefit from an ecclesiastical pension. For reasons that may easily be guessed, the rules of torture stipulated that defendants could not be tortured unless a period of ten hours had elapsed since their last meal; but the known pace of the trial did not leave a gap of this length. Finally, another rule held that defendants could not be tortured during the investigation of an alleged crime unless the transgression was serious enough to require corporal punishment. Galileo’s alleged crimes fell short of formal heresy, which would have justified corporal punishment; therefore, torturing him would have been inappropriate. (Galileo Goes to Jail, pg. 77)

          The first book I quoted, quite recently published in 2015, is an excellent piece of scholarly progress when it comes to Galileo scholarship. Graney effectively demonstrates that in the centuries after Copernicus’s death, and even after Galileo, the scientific evidence was quite harshly stacked against heliocentrism. For example, why, as the Earth goes around the sun, does the moon go with it? You would correctly respond “well, gravity, duh” — but sorry bucko, can’t. Gravity wasn’t discovered until Newton. Until Newton came along, there were numerous holes in the Copernican theory.

        • Pofarmer

          Kelly also noted that by the practice of the time, Galileo’s guilty
          plea, which denied actual belief in the heresy, triggered an automatic
          examination of his private beliefs under torture, a new procedure
          adopted by the church around the turn of the 17th century. Galileo was
          never tortured, however. The pope decreed that the interrogation should
          stop short with the mere threat of torture.

          Why are you being a dishonest apologist?

          http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church

        • epeeist

          Why are you being a dishonest apologist?

          Because he is a dishonest apologist?

        • Pofarmer

          Good point. I’m sure you’ve also noted our old friend, the demand for isolated Rigor, popping up. Appeal to the scholarly sources when it suits you and to O’neill, who certainly isn’t a scholarly source on this score when that suits you, but discount any and all sources, scholarly or not, that tend to disagree with you. It’s almost a special case of some sort of True Believer Syndrome.

        • Pofarmer

          I mean, c’mon.

          In
          1643 the British parliament, during its war with King Charles I,
          brought in an act to control books. John Milton was incensed and wrote
          his tract Areopagitica, defending free speech. What he asks parliament
          is: do you want to be like Catholic Italy with its stultifying censorship?

          Milton knew what he was talking about. He had travelled to Italy,
          spoken with its intellectuals. He quotes a real example of a papal
          “imprimatur”, or permission to publish – one of four papal licences that
          appear at the beginning of Galileo Galilei’s book, Dialogue Concerning
          the Two Chief World Systems. As Milton knew, the imprimaturs sanctioning
          Galileo’s book turned out to mean nothing. Soon after it was published
          in 1632 he was tried in Rome by the Inquisition, threatened with
          torture, and terrorised into retracting his defence of the heretical
          theory that the Earth is in orbit around the sun.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/05/italy

        • Korus Destroyus

          Nice quotations. Care to tell me which part of a single word I wrote it disputes?

          By the way, I ought to let you know the article makes a bit of a booboo. That’s because media articles are crap sources when it comes to history.

          “threatened with torture, and terrorised into retracting his defence of the heretical theory that the Earth is in orbit around the sun.”

          Actually, he wasn’t terrorized in the least. Other than that, whatever you quoted looks fine. Your UCLA link simply fails to contradict anything I wrote. It’s as if you, upon realizing I’ve carefully looked over the scholarly sources, have totally given up and are just trying to throw random quotes in the hope that they’ll stick or something. They won’t. And again, those are quite crap sources when it comes to history. Relying on journalists instead of scholars on scholarship is essentially intellectual suicide. Remember Pofarmer, it was a journalist responsible for that reprehensible book “Hitler’s Pope”.

          EDIT: By the way, you prick, screw you for calling me “dishonest”. I actually spend the time giving you the facts and scholarly information, you ought to pull your head out of the dirt and actually say to yourself “Gee whiz, if it wasn’t for this guy, I’d still believe in a lot of total crap. Thanks Korus!”

        • Pofarmer

          What you’ve quite obviously done is cherry pick sources you agree with.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah…yes…sources….because…because…because…my sources are right and your sources are…well….not.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “What you’ve quite obviously done is cherry pick sources you agree with.”

          Which claims, in specific, am I “cherry picking” sources for? All of them? Two of them? Which academics disagree with me? So many questions … so few answers …

        • Ignorant Amos

          EDIT: By the way, you prick, screw you for calling me “dishonest”. I actually spend the time giving you the facts and scholarly information, you ought to pull your head out of the dirt and actually say to yourself “Gee whiz, if it wasn’t for this guy, I’d still believe in a lot of total crap. Thanks Korus!”

          Spoiiiiing!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Relying on journalists instead of scholars on scholarship is essentially intellectual suicide. Remember Pofarmer, it was a journalist responsible for that reprehensible book “Hitler’s Pope”.

          He was a journalist that had access to the Vatican archives that were restricted to most everyone, including historians apparently, because the author led the See to think that his book would be all favorable. Did you even read the book ffs?

          Was everything in that book erroneous…like Wiki….or Britannica….have you read actually read Cornell’s book..what does it get wrong and is it accurate in any parts? Your are one clear and utter fuckwit.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “He was a journalist that had access to the Vatican archives that were restricted to most everyone, including historians apparently, because the author led the See to think that his book would be all favorable. Did you even read the book ffs?”

          Sorry, the author of that crackpot book “Hitler’s Pope” lead the See to think his propaganda book would be favorable to them? The same book that contends that the papacy was complicit with the Nazi’s? Sources. Needed. ASAP.

          Did I mention the book is all fiction? The papacy was involved in three assassination attempts against Hitler. Hitler hated Christianity, especially the Catholics. Well, Hitler hated most people.

          “Was everything in that book erroneous…like Wiki….or Britannica….have you read actually read Cornell’s book..what does it get wrong and is it accurate in any parts? Your are one clear and utter fuckwit.”

          Amos, maybe if you had a freaking clue, you’d realize I would be able to actually respect you a bit more if you stopped trying to insult me every few moments? Instead, I have to keep calling you a prick. I’m surprised you’re not aware of all the billions of problems with that reprehensible book, given your favorite source in the world is Wikipedia. This is the second paragraph on the Wiki page of the book;

          “Various commentators have challenged the book’s leading ideas, or challenged factual assertions contained within it.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Jewish historian of the Holocaust Martin Gilbert credits Pius XII with various actions which saved Jews, and notes that the Nazi security forces referred to him as the “mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals”.[9] Pius XII maintained links to the German Resistance[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and in the assessment of historian Frank Coppa writing for the Encyclopædia Britannica, Cornwell’s depiction of Pius XII as anti-Semitic lacks “credible substantiation”.[17]”

          A much more sober, scholarly investigation into the ‘relationship’ between the papacy and the Nazi’s is a recent work by Mark Riebelng; Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler.

          “Spoiiiiing!”

          What does this even mean?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry, the author of that crackpot book “Hitler’s Pope” lead the See to think his propaganda book would be favorable to them?

          Well the Holy See didn’t know what the contents of the book were going to be until after it was written, ya dolt.

          The same book that contends that the papacy was complicit with the Nazi’s?

          Are you really this dumb? Cornwell’s original intention for his book was to defend the Pope and the RCC. He’s a Catholic after all. It was through his research that his position changed.

          Sources. Needed. ASAP.

          It’s right there on page five of the preface to the book.

          I applied for access to crucial material in Rome, reassuring those that had charge of the appropriate archives that I was on the side of my subject. Acting in good faith, two key archivists gave me generous access to unseen material: depositions under oath gathered thirty years ago for Pacelli’s beatification, and also documents in the office of the Vatican Secretariat of State. At the same time, I started to draw together, critically, the huge circuit of scholarship relating to Pacelli’s activities during 1920’s and 1930’s in Germany, works published during the past twenty years but mainly inaccessible to general readership.

          By the middle of 1997, nearing the end of my research, I found myself in a state of moral shock. The material I had gathered, taking the more extensive view of Pacelli’s life, amounted not to an exoneration but to a wider indictment. Spanning Pacelli’s career from the beginning of the century, my research told the story of a bid for unprecedented papal power that by 1933 had drawn the Catholic Church into complicity with the darkest forces of the era. I found evidence, moreover, that from an early stage in his career Pacelli betrayed an undeniable antipathy towards the Jews, and that his diplomacy in Germany in the 1930’s had resulted in the betrayal of Catholic political associations that might have challenged Hitler’s regime and thwarted the Final Solution

          Did I mention the book is all fiction?

          Well it’s definitely not all fiction. I don’t believe you’ve even read it.

          The papacy was involved in three assassination attempts against Hitler.

          Yeah…I’ve read that too…though I’ve not seen the evidence that supports it yet. No matter. I wouldn’t doubt it is possible, the conniving fuckers have no qualms about anything. But that was after the genie was out of the lamp.

          Hitler hated Christianity,…

          Well that’s debatable…but irrelevant.

          …especially the Catholics.

          Except when he needed them and was making pacts with them to strengthen his position of course.

          Well, Hitler hated most people.

          Again….irrelevant. Whether Hitler hated the world or not, what part the RCC and the Pope played in his rise to power is the focus of the book.

          Amos, maybe if you had a freaking clue, you’d realize I would be able to actually respect you a bit more if you stopped trying to insult me every few moments?

          Do you think I give a rats arse about what you think or respect…wise ta fuck up.

          Instead, I have to keep calling you a prick.

          Wooooohooooo….am cut a tell ya, cut through to the bone.//s

          I’m surprised you’re not aware of all the billions of problems with that reprehensible book,…

          Billions is it? The book that you haven’t even read ya mean?

          …given your favorite source in the world is Wikipedia.

          There’s that lying cuntishness again.

          This is the second paragraph on the Wiki page of the book;…

          Yeah…I’ve read the Wiki page on the book many moons ago.

          “Various commentators have challenged the book’s leading ideas, or challenged factual assertions contained within it.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Jewish historian of the Holocaust Martin Gilbert credits Pius XII with various actions which saved Jews, and notes that the Nazi security forces referred to him as the “mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals”.[9] Pius XII maintained links to the German Resistance[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and in the assessment of historian Frank Coppa writing for the Encyclopædia Britannica, Cornwell’s depiction of Pius XII as anti-Semitic lacks “credible substantiation”.[17]”

          Hypocrite. Did I say that everything in the book is accurate? But no one says that the book contains no flaws, what book does. Frank Coppa isn’t going to be unbiased either.

          A much more sober, scholarly investigation into the ‘relationship’ between the papacy and the Nazi’s is a recent work by Mark Riebelng; Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler.

          Yeah….ave seen an interview with the author and Sam Harris…a might pick it up some time.

          “Spoiiiiing!”

          What does this even mean?

          http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/test-1.png

        • Pofarmer

          So then ole KD here is a Catholic apologist. That explains a lot.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “So then ole KD here is a Catholic apologist. That explains a lot.”

          What a load of crap. I’m no Catholic, bucko. In fact, I think the idea of praying to saints or that the Pope can forgive your sins is a load of rubbish. Utterly ridiculous how pointing out a simple historical fact — that Hitler hated Catholics — results in being a “Catholic apologist”. More evidence that you’re a quack, and the two plops who upvoted your comment (epeeist and Amos).

        • Pofarmer

          Just a useful idiot then.

        • epeeist

          Does one have to be a Catholic to be an apologist for Catholicism?

        • Pofarmer

          Well when you put it that way………

        • Ignorant Amos

          But Catholic or not, you are still a Catholic apologist…because, well, you are engaging in that.

          Utterly ridiculous how pointing out a simple historical fact — that Hitler hated Catholics — results in being a “Catholic apologist”.

          What you are pointing out is not a fact. Hitler hated anything or anyone he thought posed a threat, if those just happened to be Catholic as well…then hey-hoo…the concentration camps were not full of Catholics and many Catholics were serving Nazi’s. Hitler’s mother was a devout Catholic ffs.

          A third of Germany were Catholic and Hitler played to them, as much as the RCC played to Hitler. It may be true that Hitler had plans to do away with Catholicism after the war, but that was because he viewed Catholicism as a threat to nationalist interests.

          Although Hitler had problems with the Catholic Church and eventually wanted to replace Catholicism with his brand of Christianity, the very fact that Hitler wanted a united German Church proves that he supported Christianity.

          A picture paints a thousand words…a number of pictures….even more.

          https://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

        • epeeist

          Hitler hated anything or anyone he thought posed a threat, if those just happened to be Catholic as well

          In the almost standard claim about Stalin killing people because he was atheist I usually point out that he killed a fair number from the politburo, the army and the NKVD and ask the claimant why these people were killed. I usually get crickets as an answer.

          In Hitler’s case the people sent to concentration camps included Roma, homosexuals, blacks and the disabled as well as members of the resistance. One has to wonder what KD thinks the reason for these people being killed was.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And atheists…he wasn’t keen on them as an organised group either…

          1885, the group had 5,000 members. The largest organization of its sort in Germany at the time, by 1933, the German Freethinkers League had a membership numbering some 500,000. The League was closed down in the spring of 1933, when Hitler outlawed all atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany. Freethinkers Hall, the national headquarters of the League, was then converted to a bureau advising the public on church matters.

          Historian, and dare I say it, creationist, Richard Weikart’s book, “Hitler’s Religion”, is an interesting exposition of Hitler’s religious views…

          Weikart argues that Hitler is best understood as a pantheist, one who believes that nature is God and that the cosmos provides principles to guide human conduct. He frequently deified nature, referring to it as eternal and all powerful. One of the reasons it’s difficult to determine Hitler’s actual beliefs, however, is that he said different things in public than in private, like many politicians, and because he often portrayed himself as a pious Catholic and applauded Christianity in his speeches (especially before the late 1930s) to gain political capital, public approval, and greater popularity. Moreover, Hitler was a “religious chameleon” and notorious liar who continually obfuscated to serve his purposes. Most Germans who joined the Nazi Party or at least voted for Hitler professed to be devout Christians, and many even saw him as protecting Christianity from the threat of godless communism.

          Though it is not without criticism…

          In his conclusion, Weikart writes, “Indeed, it is much easier to figure out what Hitler did not believe than to figure out the actual content of his religious convictions and feelings” (276). Weikart’s comment is honest and telling. Too often, however, Weikart endeavors to pinpoint Hitler’s thinking on a particular issue but then presents another piece of evidence that is contradictory. As Weikart admits, Hitler “was a religious chameleon, a quintessential religious hypocrite” (12). Weikart is correct that Hitler was a chameleon who could not be trusted. Yet, Weikart perhaps tries too hard to convince the reader of Hitler’s pantheism. He does not seem open to considering the longstanding impact of the Austrian Catholic milieu on Hitler’s upbringing and education. Ingrained indoctrination into a faith tradition often remains in an individual’s psyche long after practice ends. Had it been published in time, Weikart might have also benefited from consulting Nathan Stoltzfus’s Hitler’s Compromises: Coercion and Consensus in Nazi Germany (Yale, 2016), which would allow him to see the various ways in which Hitler dealt with complicated confrontations between church and state. Likewise, he might have taken a closer look at my Hitler’s Priests: Catholic Clergy and National Socialism (Northern Illinois University Press, 2008), which presents how many clergy supporters of National Socialism readily intertwined their Catholic Christianity with National Socialist ideology. The God of Adolf Hitler is not very different than the God professed by Father Philipp Haeuser, a notorious “brown” priest from the Augsburg diocese. Clearly, Weikart has examined an extensive amount of published primary and secondary sources for his work. Nevertheless, the decisiveness and unyieldingness of his argument seem to call for further documentation and comparative analysis through the incorporation of archival sources, to definitively conclude that Hitler was a pantheist. However, in the end, perhaps Hitler will more than likely still only reveal a chameleonic nature, without ever allowing anyone to pinpoint his internalized religion decisively.

          https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2017/06/review-of-richard-weikart-hitlers-religion-the-twisted-belief-that-drove-the-third-reich/

        • Korus Destroyus

          “But Catholic or not, you are still a Catholic apologist…because, well, you are engaging in that.”

          Pointing out historical facts is Catholic apologism? Gosh. Because that’s a credible thing to say.

          “Hitler hated anything or anyone he thought posed a threat, if those just happened to be Catholic as well”

          Umm … No. He actually targetted the Catholics that he clearly hated.

          “Hitler’s mother was a devout Catholic ffs.”

          From 0 to 100, guess how irrelevant this is. Right, 104.

          Hitler obviously couldn’t exterminate a third of Germany, that was a sheer impossibility. That Hitler didn’t kill a third of Germany isn’t an argument for his neutrality towards Catholicism. Since he couldn’t exterminate a third of Germany, he just did the next best thing. Annihilated the Catholic schools, flaunted anti-Catholic propaganda en masse, arrested numerous Catholic clergy on invented charges, set up a concentration camp for them, etc, etc, etc.

          The nobeliefs.com link is obvious propaganda. It claims Hitler tried spreading his own version of Christianity … no. Hitler hated Christianity in general. The very beginning of the page;

          Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler’s major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Well the Holy See didn’t know what the contents of the book were going to be until after it was written, ya dolt… Cornwell’s original intention for his book was to defend the Pope and the RCC. He’s a Catholic after all. It was through his research that his position changed.”

          It was the evidence that changed my mind after years of ignorance! Said every flat earther, YEC, 9/11 hoaxer, climate denier, etc.

          “Well that’s debatable…but irrelevant.”

          Debatable that Hitler hated Christians, especially Catholics? Well … no, no it’s not. Under Nazi Germany, Catholic schools were eradicated, thousands of Catholic clergy were presecuted and sent to concentration camps, anti-Catholic propaganda was rampant … have you ever heard of the Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp? Couple thousand clergy sent there, and surprise surprise, 95% of them were Catholic. You later refer to Hitler’s “alliances” with Catholics .. assuming you aren’t BS’ing me, which you probably are, Hitler also had a little temporary alliance with Stalin. Hitler’s “alliances” has nothing to do with the idea that he doesn’t want you in a gas chamber.

          Anyways, in my last response, I noted the cohort of horrible reviews the book has, especially from historians. The response thou gave;

          “Hypocrite. Did I say that everything in the book is accurate? But no one says that the book contains no flaws, what book does. Frank Coppa isn’t going to be unbiased either.”

          Umm … but not all books with a few errors have roundly awful reviews, right? You know this, no? Usually a historical book has entirely crap responses from historians when the thesis is total buffoonery. Here is Ronald Rychlak’s exposition of Cornwell’s misrepresentations;

          http://home.olemiss.edu/~rrychlak/web20061010/cornwell-errors.htm

          Since you thought it was relevant to mention Cornwell is Catholic, here’s an excerpt from the review above;

          Having decided to report on Cornwell’s religious beliefs, the reviewers might have noted that his earlier books were marketed as having been written by a “lapsed Catholic for more than 20 years” and that reviewers said he wrote “with that astringent, cool, jaundiced view of the Vatican that only ex-Catholics familiar with Rome seem to have mastered.” They might also have reported that during the time he was researching this book he described himself as an “agnostic Catholic.” Finally, it might have been worth noting that in a 1993 book he declared that human beings are “morally, psychologically and materially better off without a belief in God.” Instead, they presented only that side of the story that Cornwell and his publisher wanted the public to hear.

          Not very faithful, eh?

          The papacy was involved in three attempts to overthrow Hitler. Surely you’ve heard something about the 20 July plot. Riebling, too, had access to the Vatican’s archives, and documents from the archives these assassination attempts.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It was the evidence that changed my mind after years of ignorance! Said every flat earther, YEC, 9/11 hoaxer, climate denier, etc.

          Yeah…that’s usually the case when one changes there mind about one thing to another. It is the quality of the evidence that is the question. Yet we all know that the Nazi’s the RCC contrived with each other…that’s a fact.

          https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2003/09/01/vatican-concordat-hitlers-reich-concordat-1933-was-ambiguous-its-day-and-remains

          The only real opposition to Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist Party was the Catholic Center Party. Have you ever heard of the Enabling Act of 23 March 1933? That’s when the leader of the Catholic Center Party, Ludwig Kass, himself a Catholic priest, urged his members to vote for the implementation of the Act which gave Hitler the authority to install a dictatorship. The Catholic Center Party didn’t last too long after that.

          Debatable that Hitler hated Christians, especially Catholics? Well … no, no it’s not.

          Yeah….it really is…Hitler didn’t hate Christians, he was one ffs. He remained a Christian all his life. He was a Catholic, never renounced it, and the RCC didn’t excommunicate him, though it did excommunicate Goebbels…for marrying a divorcee Protestant.

          You do know that 96% of the German population were Christians during Hitler’s reign…right?

          Under Nazi Germany, Catholic schools were eradicated, thousands of Catholic clergy were presecuted and sent to concentration camps, anti-Catholic propaganda was rampant …

          Not because they were Christian ya doofus, but because they posed a threat to Hitler’s authority. One of the reasons the Catholics signed the concordats and voted for the Enabling Act was the promise to leave the education of Catholic to Catholics. And in return, Catholics wouldn’t meddle in the politics of the Reich. This didn’t workout. So Hitler kicked back at those that wouldn’t kowtow.

          ..have you ever heard of the Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp? Couple thousand clergy sent there, and surprise surprise, 95% of them were Catholic.

          Yes I have…I’m reasonably well read on the subject of Hitler regarding his involvement with religion.

          Why did those clergy get sent to Dachau? Here’s a clue, it wasn’t because they were Christian, or even Catholic…it was because they were deemed to be political opposed to Hitler. If Hitler hated Christians the Reich would’ve been one big concentration camp and there’d have been no fucker left to guard the gates. Even if your nonsense was a wee bit right, every cleric in Germany would have been incarcerated…which clearly wasn’t the case. Wise up with this bullshit.

          I know you don’t like Wikipedia, but it condenses a pretty complex subject to something manageable to read in a couple of minutes.

          The Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration (in German Pfarrerblock, or Priesterblock) incarcerated clergy who had opposed the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. From December 1940, Berlin ordered the transfer of clerical prisoners held at other camps, and Dachau became the centre for imprisonment of clergymen. Of a total of 2,720 clerics recorded as imprisoned at Dachau some 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Roman Catholics. Among the other denominations, there were 109 Protestants, 22 Greek Orthodox, 8 Old Catholics and Mariavites and 2 Muslims. Members of the Catholic Society of Jesus (Jesuits) were the largest group among the incarcerated clergy at Dachau.

          [Rabbi’s fared differently]

          Dachau was chiefly a political camp, rather than an extermination camp, but of around 160,000 prisoners sent to its main camp, over of 32,000 were either executed or died of disease, malnutrition or brutalization. The prisoners of Dachau were used as guinea pigs in Nazi medical experiments. The sick were sent to Hartheim to be euthanized.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_Barracks_of_Dachau_Concentration_Camp

          You later refer to Hitler’s “alliances” with Catholics .. assuming you aren’t BS’ing me, which you probably are, Hitler also had a little temporary alliance with Stalin.

          I can’t believe you are so ignorant on this subject…it’s common knowledge. Hitler would’ve made pacts with whoever and whenever it was advantageous to Hitler…as did Stalin…it’s what dictators do…and get this, the RCC could teach both a lesson on pact making with shite-bags…they’ve been doing it for centuries.

          Hitler’s “alliances” has nothing to do with the idea that he doesn’t want you in a gas chamber.

          But Christians weren’t sent to the gas chambers…so pah!

          Anyways, in my last response, I noted the cohort of horrible reviews the book has, especially from historians.

          But that’s not what your citation supports. It points out where those “cohorts” see flaws. And on the same page two professors in history, one a Catholic and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission. and whose expertise includes Pope Pius XII, the other, a Jew whose expertise is Nazi Germany and who wrote a book on Pius XII…both praise Cornwell’s work. Another two historians, a professor and a doctorate whose expertise as historians are in this area, while critical of Cornwell, also criticise Pius XII.

          Another professor of history at Cambridge….Owen Chadwick praised the book’s scholarly approach and the abundance of new information Cornwell had managed to unearth.

          Umm … but not all books with a few errors have roundly awful reviews, right?

          I don’t see any actual reviews at that page, awful or otherwise. I see complaints about specific portrayals of the pope at particular times.

          You know this, no?

          Know what? That you are a cherry-picking Catholic apologist? I’m getting there.

          Usually a historical book has entirely crap responses from historians when the thesis is total buffoonery.

          But that’s not the case though is it? Some historians have taken issue with certain aspects of the book. The author himself has conceded some points, but other historians have praised the book, so “entirely crap” is your hyperbole fuckwittery. The book covers Pacelli’s career from the beginning, not just during the Nazi era.

          What’s the thesis of the book then?

          Here is Ronald Rychlak’s exposition of Cornwell’s misrepresentations;

          Well I read that review…from a non-historian Catholic apologist…littered with problems of course.

          The first two paragraphs are nothing to do with the antics of Pacelli as portrayed in the book. The third sets out what the reviewer sees as the books thesis, says it “might be” flawed, but offers nothing in refutation to show why it “might be” flawed.

          The next two paragraphs focus on the errors a few newspaper reviewers made when writing up their reviews, nothing to do with the book, and minor details as far as I can see anyway. What mistakes a newspaper book review has to do with the books contents is beyond me.

          The next paragraph is another complaint about newspaper reviewers getting Cornwell’s Catholicism wrong. Irrelevant.

          The next two paragraphs cover Cornwell’s access to to a particular secret file and a letter in it being wrongly being attributed to Pacelli as the author. Rychlak accuses Cornwell as lying about his claim that Cornwell was the only one who has seen that letter. A claim Cornwell never makes in the book.

          Then this jumped out…

          For instance, Cornwell suggests that Pacelli dominated Vatican foreign policy from the time that he was a young prelate.

          No. it really doesn’t. What it says is that he was involved in the Vaticans foreign policy…and he was too.

          One chapter describes the young Pacelli’s hand in the negotiation of a June 1914 concordat with Serbia (he took the minutes), and leaves the impression that he was responsible for the outbreak of World War I.

          Who is misleading who? Pacelli was 38 years old…hardly young. And he did more than just take the minutes. He was involved in the drafting of the concordant in the 18 months previous. He was a Vatican lawyer and diplomat who had the eye of pope at the time. Even your man Dalin admits his role in the negotiations.

          https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FnDoBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=serbian+concordat+1914+monsignor+pacelli&source=bl&ots=kXeEKfbrzf&sig=MzKH3yCrcXkosw8f4DPOumPFNu8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib68WZn_reAhWoRhUIHaCSCgIQ6AEwFHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=serbian%20concordat%201914%20monsignor%20pacelli&f=false

          And only a complete idiot reading the book would come to the conclusion that Pacelli was responsible for the outbreak of WWI ffs. But I guess there is enough of those in the RCC to cause concern.

          Anyway…that review focuses a lot on Cornwell’s attitude to JPII…it doesn’t outline “billions of errors”.

          I’m not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

          Since you thought it was relevant to mention Cornwell is Catholic, here’s an excerpt from the review above;

          Yeah….I read that. So what? Cornwell doesn’t claim to be a practicing Catholic…some of his reviewers did. But he is still a Catholic. Ya see according to the RCC, once a Catholic always a Catholic. There was a period of time when one could leave the Church and have ones name removed, ergo becoming not a Catholic, but the RCC rescinded that process…a wonder why?

          Not very faithful, eh?

          “morally, psychologically and materially better off without a belief in God.”

          Making an honest observation makes one not very faithful does it?

          You do know that there are some very conservative Catholics who oppose the pope…and some very liberals that are considered backsliders?

          https://religionnews.com/2018/04/19/francis-agrees-with-his-critics-a-pope-can-be-wrong/

          The papacy was involved in three attempts to overthrow Hitler.

          I don’t really care, even if true, it doesn’t detract from the other stuff Pacelli was involved in pre-WWII.

          Surely you’ve heard something about the 20 July plot. Riebling, too, had access to the Vatican’s archives, and documents from the archives these assassination attempts.

          So what?….”Look over there, squirrels”…Pacelli fucked up in the 30’s dealing with Hitler, so he was trying to make amends…I get it…but he still wasn’t as vociferous as he coulda been…self preservation I guess.

        • Pofarmer

          It turns out that most of the priests were Polish, not German. From wiki. Of the 2500 and some priests, 1780 of them were Polish.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye…I seen that.

          The massive crimes inflicted against Polish Catholicism took place in the wider context of the Nazi crimes against Poles under Generalplan Ost, as the German regime implanted a general policy of eventually eliminating Poland’s existence. Adolf Hitler himself remarked in August 1939 that he wanted his Death’s Head forces “to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.”

          What did the Vatican do or say about it? It’s not that they were ignorant about what was going on.

          “Many priests are imprisoned, suffering humiliations, blows, maltreatment. A certain number were deported to Germany… Others have been detained in concentration camps… It is not rare to see a priest in the midst of labour gangs working in the fields… Some of them have even been shut up for the night in pigsties, barbarously beaten and subjected to other tortures… The Canon Casimir Stepczynski… was forced in company with a Jew to carry away the human excrement… the curate who wished to take the place of the venerable priest was brutally beaten with a rifle butt.”

          [In the Diocese of Chełmno] It is stated that a large number of priests have been shot, but neither the number nor the details are as yet known, as the occupation authorities maintain an obstinate silence on the subject… The Churches have almost all been closed and confiscated by the Gestapo… all the crosses and sacred emblems by the roadside have been destroyed… 95% of the priests have been imprisoned, expelled, or humiliated before the eyes of the faithful… and the most eminent Catholics executed.

          Hitlerism aims at the systematic and total destruction of the Catholic Church in the rich and fertile territories of Poland which have been incorporated into the Reich… It is known for certain that 35 priests have been shot, but the real number of victims… undoubtedly amounts to more than a hundred… In many districts the life of the Church has been completely crushed, the clergy have been almost all expelled; the Catholic churches and cemeteries are in the hands of the invaders… Catholic worship hardly exists any more… Monasteries and convents have been methodically suppressed… [Church properties] all have been pillaged by the invaders.”

          ~ Excerpts from Cardinal Hlond’s report to the Vatican.

          It would appear, the Pope didn’t say much…he was looking at the bigger picture and didn’t wanna piss Hitler off. Or self-preservation.

          In Pomerania, the Nazi Gauleiter Albert Forster permitted German priests, and believed that Poles themselves could be Germanized. However, under the exceptionally aggressive policies of Arthur Greiser, the Nazi Gauleiter of the Warta region, German Catholics and the Protestant Church suffered a campaign to eradicate the Polish Church, prompting the head of the German Bishops Conference to ask the Pope for assistance, but Pius offered a cautious response.[ Though Pius had assisted with the drafting of the anti-Nazi encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, which remained binding through the war, he did not repeat it during the war, and, wrote Garlinski, he was conscious that Hitler’s expansion brought 150 million Catholics under the control of the Third Reich, and that conditions for Catholics outside of Poland could be adversely affected by his pronouncements. This “restrained and reasoned stance”, wrote Garlinski, though justified in the long term, “did not suit the Poles” who expected more forthright language against the Nazis, Yet, wrote Garlinski:

          “[T]he centuries old ties which bound [Poland] to Rome weakened the force of the occupation. The Church’s role in the nation’s struggle for survival and for its soul was very great and was evident in almost every area of national life. Despite losses and setbacks, the network of parishes covered the whole country and in its ministry brought comfort faith and hope. Despite personal risk, priests used their pulpits for maintaining national spirit and encouraged resistance, the bishoprics were a visible sign of the existence of an organisation, although not governmental and the resistance movement was full of clergy in all sorts of positions…[-]… the Catholic Church emerged from the war victorious, spiritually strengthened, inwardly toughened by its losses, surrounded by universal respect and ready for new and difficult days ahead.

          The Poles were a threat, Catholics were a threat…Protestants were a threat…the clergy were a threat…they supported resistance. Hitler hated resistance. Can’t have that.

        • Pofarmer

          The Poles were a threat, Catholics were a threat…Protestants were a
          threat…the clergy were a threat…they supported resistance. Hitler
          hated resistance. Can’t have that.

          That’s what I took from it, too, that anything deemed a threat was going to be dealt with harshly. But, isn’t it interesting, that the vast, vast minority of Priests in custody were German? And we don’t even know if the remaining priests were of German origin, from that article, they could have been from elsewhere. What the whole argument, shows, to me, is how ineffectual Christianity actually is at preventing moral atrocities. Even now, Christians in the U.S. are cheering the tear gassing of those seeking refuge at our Southern border, while professing how great it is to have “Christ back in Christmas.” The whole thing makes my head spin, really.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ave just been looking at this…Hitler’s “brown priests”…

          “Kevin P. Spicer’s deeply researched and deeply disturbing book, Hitler’s Priests, …is absolutely convincing…. A priest and member of the Congregation of Holy Cross, Spicer has an insider’s grasp of the church’s organization and governance. He has combed through an impressive number of diocesan and government archives to assemble a list of 138 “brown priests,” who were either members of the Nazi party or at least active supporters of the program. His book is devoted to a detailed account of the radical nationalism and virulent anti-Semitism that led these men to believe that they could be followers of both Hitler and Christ…. The question of how representative these brown priests were haunts Spicer’s book.”~ James J. Sheehan, Stanford University

          https://www.ushmm.org/research/publications/academic-publications/full-list-of-academic-publications/hitlers-priests-catholic-clergy-and-national-socialism

          Antisemitic Nazi Catholic priests…who’d have thought it?

        • Pofarmer

          I don’t know what should be considered so disturbing about it. It should be patently obvious that Christianity of any flavor, and especially Catholicism, was absolutely ineffectual at doing anything to combat Nazism. That there were Priests who had dual loyalties shouldn’t have been a surprise either, considering the first to put Jews in Ghetto’s were Catholics in Spain, if I’m remembering right. That Catholics now lay claim to some form of “Objective Morality” really is beyond the pale, and only possible because we’ve largely forgotten, or not been directly exposed to their excesses. I suppose it should be a comfort that the worst that can be drug up on them nowadays is diddling school children. That’s actually an improvement.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Yeah…that’s usually the case when one changes there mind about one thing to another. It is the quality of the evidence that is the question. Yet we all know that the Nazi’s the RCC contrived with each other…that’s a fact.

          https://www.americamagazine…”

          This media ‘article’ can’t even get its grammar right. Give up.

          “Not because they were Christian ya doofus, but because they posed a threat to Hitler’s authority.”

          Just like the homosexuals did, right? LOOl. Amos, I flattened you and you come up with a total excuse once again. I clearly demonstrated Hitler hated Catholics.

          “Why did those clergy get sent to Dachau? Here’s a clue, it wasn’t because they were Christian, or even Catholic…it was because they were deemed to be political opposed to Hitler. If Hitler hated Christians the Reich would’ve been one big concentration camp and there’d have been no fucker left to guard the gates. Even if your nonsense was a wee bit right, every cleric in Germany would have been incarcerated…which clearly wasn’t the case. Wise up with this bullshit.”

          Well of course, you moron, only people who oppose Hitler go to the camps. Of course, it’s just a wonderful coincidence that 95% of the clerics in the camp were Catholic, right? Well … no. That proves … a targetting of Catholicism. You’re a quack. I’m not Catholic, but it’s freaking obvious that Catholics have undergone a ton of oppression and prejudice in the last two centuries.

          “But that’s not what your citation supports. It points out where those “cohorts” see flaws. And on the same page two professors in history, one a Catholic and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission. and whose expertise includes Pope Pius XII, the other, a Jew whose expertise is Nazi Germany and who wrote a book on Pius XII…both praise Cornwell’s work. Another two historians, a professor and a doctorate whose expertise as historians are in this area, while critical of Cornwell, also criticise Pius XII.”

          Ummm … no, Amos, put on your glasses. All the reviews on the Wiki page are amazingly critical. “Errors of fact and ignorance … on almost every page”, and so forth, is how they read. The last sentence here is obviously irrelevant.

          “I don’t see any actual reviews at that page, awful or otherwise. I see complaints about specific portrayals of the pope at particular times.”

          Are you blind? Click on the reference and the review the reference is taken from. They’re all reviews. This is not that hard. Anyways, in your usual pedantry, you ignore the rather critical part of the review I quoted in my last comment … Cornwell isn’t really a Catholic … at all. So you mentioning he’s a “Catholic” has jack relevance to removing concerns of his clear bias. By the way, people are clearly morally and psychologically better off with God. Lower suicide rates, higher charity rates, etc. So not only is Cornwell not much of a Catholic, he’s clearly saying biased fiction against it.

          “I don’t really care, even if true, it doesn’t detract from the other stuff Pacelli was involved in pre-WWII.”

          What stuff? Pope tried to overthrow Hitler three times … quite relevant to showing Cornwell isn’t much concerned with the facts.

          “Pacelli fucked up in the 30’s dealing with Hitler, so he was trying to make amends…I get it…”

          Yet another pseudo explanation for something you got wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This media ‘article’ can’t even get its grammar right. Give up.

          Are you saying the article is wrong because it contains errors in grammar, or that the the Vatican didn’t enter into a concordat with Hitler’s Reich that benefited Hitler, and that the Catholic Center Party didn’t vote to give Hitler dictatorial powers?

          https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1308272248/inline

          Just like the homosexuals did, right?

          Are you serious?

          Homosexuality was illegal in the Wiemar even before Hitler came to power.

          The Nazis persecuted homosexuals as part of their so-called moral crusade to racially and culturally purify Germany. Gay men were targeted for persecution because they did not contribute to the desired growth of the ‘Aryan population’ and were viewed as corrupting German values and culture. Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested for violating Nazi Germany’s law against homosexuality, and of these, approximately 50,000 were sentenced to prison. An estimated 5,000 to 15,000 men were sent to concentration camps on similar charges, where an unknown number of them perished.

          https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/persecution-of-homosexuals-in-the-third-reich

          Homosexuals to this day are seen as problematic to the state in many places…try being a homosexual in Putin’s Russia…Hitler’s Christian Third Reich Germany was no different.

          Amos, I flattened you and you come up with a total excuse once again.

          Holy fuck…you really believe your own delusions. You’ve flattened no one here from what I’ve seen.

          I clearly demonstrated Hitler hated Catholics.

          And I’ve clearly demonstrated that Hitler hated Catholics because they were Catholics that were deemed subversive. While he had no problems with Catholics who weren’t deemed subversive…so it was their subversiveness that was their issue, not the fact they were Catholic. Goebbels was a Catholic. Over 20,000,000 German’s were Catholic…the only ones that got slapped were the ones that crossed the line.

          Well of course, you moron, only people who oppose Hitler go to the camps.

          Way to go in quote-mining what I said ya disingenuous cunt.

          Of course, it’s just a wonderful coincidence that 95% of the clerics in the camp were Catholic, right?

          Because those were the ones that were causing him the most aggro you dopey bastard. As Pofarmer reminded me, the majority were Polish, who actively supported resistance to Hitler’s invasion.

          Well … no. That proves … a targetting of Catholicism.

          For fuck sake…the literature is out there…nice switch and bait though…gone from “hating Catholics” to “targeting of Catholicism”. If Hitler was targeting Catholicism/Catholics because they were Catholics, the numbers of Catholic clerics in Dachau would’ve been far greater.

          There being 6 Archbishops, 19 Bishops and 20,000 Priests…when Hitler came to power…so your argument needs some work on it to be convincing.

          You’re a quack.

          Possibly, but not on this issue…on this issue, you are the quack am afraid.

          I’m not Catholic, but it’s freaking obvious that Catholics have undergone a ton of oppression and prejudice in the last two centuries.

          I don’t believe you are not a Catholic and that nonsense is irrelevant.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I don’t believe you are not a Catholic and that nonsense is irrelevant.”

          AHAH. Typical mythicist mindset. Mythicists are generally crackpots that thinks the reason why every sane person rejects their ideas must have some sort of secret agenda. They genuinely can’t comprehend that people disagree with their inanity.

          Pope Pius XII’s general diplomacy with Germany in 1933, it seems to me, is not quite relevant. It really is just basic diplomacy, and the idea that Pius had any liking or approval towards Hitler’s actions is refuted by overwhelming evidence. Here’s some recently published Vatican documents showing Pius took efforts to saving thousands Jewish refugees.
          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/hitlers-pope-pius-xii-holocaust

          As the link above also explains, the idea of the Pope’s inaction towards the Jews in WW2 originated as Soviet propaganda in the 60’s.

          “Homosexuals to this day are seen as problematic to the state in many places…try being a homosexual in Putin’s Russia…Hitler’s Christian Third Reich Germany was no different.”

          My point went right over your head. In fact, you just helped make my point. “Threat to the state” and “subversive” are the most overused total dictatorship excuses for oppressing a specific group. Preachers here and there never posed a threat to Hitler’s totalitarian regime. Thus, the oppression of the homosexual group was no different from the oppression of the Catholics. Hitler hated them. Simple. P.S. Just found an entire Wiki page on the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church. Read at your own horror.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany

          “Because those were the ones that were causing him the most aggro you dopey bastard. As Pofarmer reminded me, the majority were Polish, who actively supported resistance to Hitler’s invasion.”

          Once again, the oft-repeated excuse of “subversion” used over centuries to enforce your ideology onto your people. Even if 100% of Polish clergy were Catholic in the camps, the other groups also have an overrepresentation of Catholics. The explanation is simple. Nazi’s targetted Catholics. See link above.

          “For fuck sake…the literature is out there…nice switch and bait though…gone from “hating Catholics” to “targeting of Catholicism”.”

          The hell? What makes those mutually distinct? No bait and switch. Both are true, ya nut.

          “There being 6 Archbishops, 19 Bishops and 20,000 Priests…when Hitler came to power…so your argument needs some work on it to be convincing.”

          How many after?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pope Pius XII’s general diplomacy with Germany in 1933, it seems to me, is not quite relevant.

          Yes, I know that’s your view, but the fact is, it is very relevant. Because the Vatican’s diplomatic dealings with Germany were instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers and legitimizing Hitler’s dictatorship. The RCC are not adverse to dictators.

          There was no Pope Pius XII in 1933. His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, Vatican Secretary of State was at the center of dealings.

          It really is just basic diplomacy, and the idea that Pius had any liking or approval towards Hitler’s actions is refuted by overwhelming evidence.

          It wasn’t “just” basic diplomacy ffs. And whether Pacelli “liked” or “approved” of Hitler or his actions is not at issue. The RCC got into bed with the Nazis and Pacelli was instrumental in the process.

          Reichsconcordat…

          Article 32

          In view of the special situation existing in Germany, and in view of the guarantee provided through this Concordat of legislation directed to safeguard the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reich and its component States, the Holy See will prescribe regulations for the exclusion of clergy and members of religious Orders from membership of political parties, and from engaging in work on their behalf.

          Appendix

          Article 32. It is understood that similar provisions regarding activity in Party politics will be introduced by the Reich Government for members of non-catholic denominations. The conduct, which has been made obligatory for the clergy and members of religious Orders in Germany in virtue of Article 32, does not involve any sort of limitation of official and prescribed preaching and interpretation of the dogmatic and moral teachings and principles of the Church.

          http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

          Hitler welshing on the concordat is what turned Pacelli against him. That’s why there is a number of years between the agreeing of the Concordat and Pacelli privately bad mouthing Hitler.

          The Enabling Act supported by the Catholic Center Party headed by Catholic cleric Ludwig Kaas, gave Hitler dictatorial powers on a plate. Hitler gave Kaas a lot of empty promises in return.

          Later that month, from 15 March, he was the main advocate supporting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act in return for certain constitutional and, allegedly ecclesiastic guarantees. Hitler responded positively via Papen. On 21 and 22 March the Centre leadership negotiated with Hitler on the conditions and reached an agreement. A letter, in which Hitler would confirm the agreement in writing, was promised by the government but never delivered.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Kaas

          Ludwig Kaas had a relationship with Pacelli going back to 1920. He was a regular guest of Pacelli in Rome. If anyone believes they never discussed the political dynamics ongoing in Germany at the time, they are naive. Kaas was also involved in the Concordat. Which contains another list of promises from Hitler. One would think that once bitten, twice shy. The Concordat spelled the end of the CCP. Kaas’ colleagues seen him as treacherous and a sell-out.

          It is quite clear that the RCC was prepared to tolerate Hitler and his Nazi regime in return for certain concessions. Did things change when those concessions, no doubt, but the damage had already been done by then.

          Here’s some recently published Vatican documents showing Pius took efforts to saving thousands Jewish refugees.

          Took efforts? He allowed his minions ya mean. What was he gonna say, “No”?

          The complaint is what he did to assist Hitler’s rise before the war, then what he didn’t do during the war.

          Pacelli was happy enough to sign up with Hitler until things went sour, then his attitude changed.

          He wrote that ”evidence of good faith” by the Nazi regime was ”completely lacking” and that ”the possibility of an agreement” with the Nazis was ”out of question for the time being.”

          ”His views, while they are well known, surprised me by their extremeness,” Mr. Klieforth wrote, relating a conversation two years earlier with Cardinal Pacelli. ”He said that he opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel, but as a fundamentally wicked person. He did not believe Hitler capable of moderation.”

          But this was in 1939, some time after Hitler had shown he had no intentions of keeping his promises.

          The Rev. Gerald P. Fogarty, a professor of religious studies and history at the University of Virginia and an expert in Vatican diplomacy, said, ”The documents make clear that from the 30’s, Pacelli was opposed to National Socialism,” primarily because the Nazis violated the rights of the church.

          It’s ALL about the Church.

          Michael R. Marrus, dean of the graduate school at the University of Toronto, who holds a chair in Holocaust studies, said of the documents, ”If there are people out there who still believe, and doubtless there are, that the Vatican was in cahoots with Nazi Germany, then this is a useful finding.

          ”On the other hand,” he said, ”do I think this addresses the issue of the Vatican and the Holocaust? Absolutely not. And these are not trivial matters.”

          https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/us/new-look-at-pius-xii-s-views-of-nazis.html

          It’s funny that all this stuff defending Pius XII, to some degree at least, could never be found to rebut the negative claims against him in the past 70 years.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Yes, I know that’s your view, but the fact is, it is very relevant. Because the Vatican’s diplomatic dealings with Germany were instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers and legitimizing Hitler’s dictatorship. The RCC are not adverse to dictators.”

          Citation certainly needed. Now that’s a strong claim. Citation from a historian, please. I want to know how on planet hell you seriously think the Reichskonkordat, which simply guarantees the rights of the Church in Germany, was “instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers” etc. Hitler ALREADY HAD his dictatorial powers by the time it was signed. And the only reason the concordat ever happened to guarantee these rights is because Hitler had already nullified all the rights of the German citizens and eliminated the Catholic Centre Party. The record seems pretty blatant that Hitler seized power, was not given it.

          “Hitler welshing on the concordat is what turned Pacelli against him.”

          More made up crap. Hitler’s race theory and totalitarianism was the clear cause, as is evidently shown by Pius XII’s 1937 Mit brennender Sorge. You also bluster on the Enabling Act. Both of Germany’s legislative bodies and the German president helped the law pass and had it signed — and this while the non-Nazi members were surrounded by SS and SA members during the vote while the communists members were already suppressed. No one “gave” Hitler his powers, you naive nutcase, he took them by force. Before the Enabling Act was passed, Hitler had passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which had already nullified many of the freedoms of the German citizens.

          “Took efforts? He allowed his minions ya mean. What was he gonna say, “No”?”

          Dishonesty abounding from Amos yet again. Pius didn’t personally walk into Germany and carry off the Jews. Neither did Stalin personally grab a machine gun and blaze the German frontier. Pius took efforts to save the Jews by the exact same definition that Stalin took efforts to fight Germany, that Hitler took efforts to gas the Jews, etc, etc, etc. All leaders do things by proxy of their “minions”, ya dishonest quack.

          “The complaint is what he did to assist Hitler’s rise before the war, then what he didn’t do during the war.”

          ????? Hitler’s rise to power was completed by 1932. What you’re talking about is Hitler’s establishment of a legal dictatorship, not rise to power. What he did thereafter and during the war is this — saved thousands of Jewish refugees, strongly denounced Hitler in the 1937 declaration mentioned earlier, and tried to overthrow Hitler multiple times.

          “Your point was a stupid one. Homosexuals were persecuted for different reasons than those Catholics that got persecuted. Catholics that got persecuted were persecuted for different reasons than the Jews. But while all homosexuals were oppressed for being homosexuals, not all Catholic’s were oppressed because they were Catholics.”

          And yet countless Catholics were oppressed and targeted for their Catholicism, as is documented and not doubted by a single historian. As needs to be explained to you several times, Hitler couldn’t eliminate the Catholics entirely without destroying Germany itself because there was too many of them — so he simply chose option no. 2, eliminating Catholic religion through the elimination of Catholic newspapers, schools, propaganda campaigns, etc. The sheer stupidity of saying “Only Catholics that were deemed subversive” — as I just told you, crackpot, “subversiveness” is the age old excuse of dictators for oppressing a specific group. Obviously no one who conformed to Hitler’s Nazism was going to get gassed.

          “If Hitler hated Catholics so much, why did he not just level the Vatican?”

          LOL! Hitler literally drew up a plan in July 1943 to arrest the Pope and occupy the Vatican. The only reason they weren’t executed is — for some reason you couldn’t figure this out yourself — Hitler feared the resistance of all the too many Catholics had he done this.
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5195584/Vatican-planned-to-move-to-Portugal-if-Nazis-captured-wartime-Pope.html

          As the link above also goes to show, Pius also drew up a plan that — were he to be arrested — he would immediately have resigned himself as the Pope and a new one would be elected, with the Church and its bishops moving to Portugal.

          ” You struggled with the difference between Christian and Christianity”

          Nice total crap. Read the conversation with MNb again, for he ended up looking like a clown for his deliberate games and emotion-laden comments. I easily answered the difference in the first response. Your lack of thinking is astounding.

          “By you argument and logic, there should’ve been none, ya clown. And yet, that wasn’t the case.”

          Even with Stalin there weren’t “none” at the end, so my argument and logic, once again, works perfectly. Once more, how many before and after the war?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Citation certainly needed. Now that’s a strong claim. Citation from a historian, please.

          Hitler had even more reason to be satisfied. The concordat was his first international agreement, and it vastly enhanced his respectability in Germany and abroad. A great moral authority had trusted his word.But did the Vatican . . . really believe that National Socialism would abide by the concordat, was there really much likelihood that the regime would leave untouched a rival organization with its own dogmas and with such sweeping power over education? ~ Fritz Stern, Dreams and Delusions: The Drama of German History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 169.

          want to know how on planet hell you seriously think the Reichskonkordat, which simply guarantees the rights of the Church in Germany, was “instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers” etc.

          The Enabling Act gave Hitler his dictatorial power. The Catholic Centre Party voted in favour of the Enabling Act. The later concordat gave Hitler and his regime a “vastly enhanced respectability” and removed the Church from the political arena in Germany.

          Hitler ALREADY HAD his dictatorial powers by the time it was signed. And the only reason the concordat ever happened to guarantee these rights is because Hitler had already nullified all the rights of the German citizens and eliminated the Catholic Centre Party.

          So why did he bother with the concordat? What was the purpose for Hitler?

          The record seems pretty blatant that Hitler seized power, was not given it.

          So why did he bother dealing with the Catholic Centre Party?

          More made up crap. Hitler’s race theory and totalitarianism was the clear cause, as is evidently shown by Pius XII’s 1937 Mit brennender Sorge.

          And yet in the opening sections of that encyclical it deals with the failure to implement the concordat…go figure.

          “The immediate issue (for the promulgating of this encyclical) is the violation of the terms of the Concordat between the Vatican and the German government, signed in 1933. Pius XI details the Third Reich’s persecution of the Church, in particular, the destruction of religious schools and the cultural associations whose existence had been guaranteed by the Concordat. The pope’s primary concern; however, is to warn German Christians of the religious idolatry that under girds this persecution. The Nazi idolatry is particularly dangerous inasmuch at it offers a counterfeit of Christianity.” ~ “Totality and Idolatry: Rereading Pius XI”, John J. Conley

          There was no Pius XII in 1937…and 1937 was 4 years after the concordat was signed. Pius XI wanted to tear up the concordat, but was convinced against it by Pacelli…the concordat is still in place to this day.

          You also bluster on the Enabling Act. Both of Germany’s legislative bodies and the German president helped the law pass and had it signed — and this while the non-Nazi members were surrounded by SS and SA members during the vote while the communists members were already suppressed. No one “gave” Hitler his powers, you naive nutcase, he took them by force. Before the Enabling Act was passed, Hitler had passed the Reichstag Fire Decree, which had already nullified many of the freedoms of the German citizens.

          None of which detracts from the way that Kaas ordered the Catholic Centre Party to vote in favour of Hitler based on promises he made, so pah!

          And yet countless Catholics were oppressed and targeted for their Catholicism, as is documented and not doubted by a single historian.

          And yet even more Catholics were not oppressed and targeted because they were Catholics…so something else as well as their Catholicism was at play.

          As needs to be explained to you several times, Hitler couldn’t eliminate the Catholics entirely without destroying Germany itself because there was too many of them — so he simply chose option no. 2, eliminating Catholic religion through the elimination of Catholic newspapers, schools, propaganda campaigns, etc.

          So we are back Hitler hated the Catholic religion and persecuted those that promoted it….because? Except where he didn’t.

          The sheer stupidity of saying “Only Catholics that were deemed subversive” — as I just told you, crackpot, “subversiveness” is the age old excuse of dictators for oppressing a specific group. Obviously no one who conformed to Hitler’s Nazism was going to get gassed.

          And that’s why some Catholics got the wrath of Hitler and some didn’t. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

          LOL! Hitler literally drew up a plan in July 1943 to arrest the Pope and occupy the Vatican. The only reason they weren’t executed is — for some reason you couldn’t figure this out yourself — Hitler feared the resistance of all the too many Catholics had he done this.

          So his reason for doing it were only piped by his reasons for not doing it. Hitler didn’t hate Catholics as much as you surmise.

          Even with Stalin there weren’t “none” at the end, so my argument and logic, once again, works perfectly. Once more, how many before and after the war?

          The highest number of priests that were released from Dachau was the 208 German priests. Out of the 447 German priests at Dachau, 100 were transferred to other camps and 94 died in the camp; there were only 45 German priests at Dachau when the camp was liberated.

          The Catholic priests were not sent to Dachau just because they were priests. Catholics and Protestants alike were arrested as “enemies of the state” but only if they preached against the Nazi government. An important policy of the Nazi party in Germany was called Gleichschaltung, a term that was coined in 1933 to mean that all German culture, religious practice, politics, and daily life should conform with Nazi ideology. This policy meant total control of thought, belief, and practice and it was used to systematically eradicate all anti-Nazi elements after Hitler came to power.

          There were around 20 million Catholics and 20,000 priests in Nazi Germany. The vast majority of the German clergymen and the German people, including the 40 million Protestants, went along with Hitler’s ideology and were not persecuted by the Nazis.

          Other priests who were sent to Dachau had been arrested for child molestation or for a violation of Paragraph 175, the German law against homosexuality. The most famous priest at Dachau was Leonard Roth, who had to wear a black triangle because he had been arrested as a pedophile.

          https://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/KZDachau/DachauLife3.html

        • Korus Destroyus

          Now this is good. What you initially wrote;

          “Because the Vatican’s diplomatic dealings with Germany were instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers and legitimizing Hitler’s dictatorship.”

          What your historians quote says;

          “The concordat was his first international agreement, and it vastly enhanced his respectability in Germany and abroad. A great moral authority had trusted his word.”

          Needless to say, you were entirely unable to justify your claim. Nowhere during the 1930’s did a meeting with the Pope help give Hitler his dictatorial powers.

          “The Enabling Act gave Hitler his dictatorial power. The Catholic Centre Party voted in favour of the Enabling Act.”

          That was before the Concordat took place, and needless to say, the fact that a party has the word ‘Catholic’ in it doesn’t make it Catholic. See the current party that leads Germany. Not exactly driven by religion, I would say. The reason why the Enabling Act got by was because Hitler surrounded the non-Nazi members with his militia. Once again, you’d have to be the deepest kind of biased imaginable to think that Christianity or any Church had anything to do with enabling Hitler’s onslaught.

          “And yet in the opening sections of that encyclical it deals with the failure to implement the concordat…go figure.”

          Who said that the Church shouldn’t be angry at the mass oppression of its own people? Of course, Pacelli had no trouble for Hitler’s race antiques and deeply condemned them.

          “And yet even more Catholics were not oppressed and targeted because they were Catholics…so something else as well as their Catholicism was at play.”

          Not really. They just didn’t really practice their Catholicism in any way that contradicted the Nazi’s, so the Nazi’s left them alone. Once again, as I have to explain, eliminating all the Catholics was simply a non-option for Hitler given how many of them there were. Of course, Hitler severely curbed the influence of Catholicism by targetting all Catholic newspapers, schools, etc for destruction before they had even expressed any opposition against him.

          “So his reason for doing it were only piped by his reasons for not doing it. Hitler didn’t hate Catholics as much as you surmise.”

          Of course he did. You asked why Hitler didn’t flatten the Vatican. I just showed Hitler outright made the planets to occupy Vatican, arrest the Pope and everything, and only stopped short because of the sheer resistance that might be expressed from the huge number of Catholic Germans had he done it. The Pope even had to draw an escape plan because the threat was so clear.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Needless to say, you were entirely unable to justify your claim. Nowhere during the 1930’s did a meeting with the Pope help give Hitler his dictatorial powers.

          Probably just as well that’s a claim I never made then.

          Immediately before and after the opening of parliament, Hitler negotiated with the Center Party to get their support for the Enabling Act, which needed a two-thirds margin to pass. The legislation set aside parts of the Weimar Constitution, granting Hitler and his cabinet the right to rule by decree. Hitler personally negotiated with the leaders of the Center Party on March 20 and 22, promising that he would respect their rights and freedoms. He gave the following assurances to entice them to vote for the Enabling Act:

          1. the state governments would continue to function
          2. church schools could continue to operate
          3. the concordats already in force with the German states of Prussia, Bavaria, and Baden would be honored
          4. judges would remain inviolable
          5. the parliament would continue to exist
          6. the president’s rights would continue unmolested.

          The promises helped secure the Center Party’s votes for the Enabling Act. Unfortunately for the Center Party, Hitler would use the power they bestowed on him to violate every one of these promises.

          https://www.historyonthenet.com/enabling-act-1933

          That was before the Concordat took place, and needless to say, the fact that a party has the word ‘Catholic’ in it doesn’t make it Catholic.

          No, conspiring with Hitler to safeguard the Catholic Church’s interests in Germany in return for their support does. That was when Hitler was diplomatically assisted by Roman Catholics and if you believe Kaas didn’t discuss it with Pacelli you are naive. Ludwig Kaas was pivotal in negotiating the later Concordat, he had a history with Pacelli.

          See the current party that leads Germany. Not exactly driven by religion, I would say.

          I could give zero fucks…the Catholic Centre Party of the 1930’s were Catholic, and the religious welfare of the Catholic people of Germany drove them.

          The reason why the Enabling Act got by was because Hitler surrounded the non-Nazi members with his militia.

          But the meetings with Kaas and the promises made were what made Kaas order his party to vote with Hitler ahead of the vote. Funny though, Hitler’s militia was enough to intimidate the Social Democrats to not vote against him.

          Later that month, from 15 March, he was the main advocate supporting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act in return for certain constitutional and, allegedly ecclesiastic guarantees. Hitler responded positively via Papen. On 21 and 22 March the Centre leadership negotiated with Hitler on the conditions and reached an agreement. A letter, in which Hitler would confirm the agreement in writing, was promised by the government but never delivered.

          Hitler’s militia were not there to intimidate the CCP, because they’d already decided to vote with Hitlers supporters. Heinrich Brüning was the main dissenter to supporting the Enabling Act.

          After Adolf Hitler became chancellor on 30 January 1933, Brüning vigorously campaigned against the new government in the March 1933 elections. Later that month, he was a main advocate for rejecting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act, calling it the “most monstrous resolution ever demanded of a parliament.” Having received assurances from Hitler that the Centre Party would not be banned he yielded to party discipline and voted in favour of the bill. With the Communist Party’s deputies already banned from the Reichstag, only the Social Democrats voted against the law.

          Once again, you’d have to be the deepest kind of biased imaginable to think that Christianity or any Church had anything to do with enabling Hitler’s onslaught.

          Because Christianity or any Church would ever do such a thing. Wise ta fuck up. Churches are all about self-preservation, and the RCC is among the worst of them. They’d already just signed a treaty with fascist leader Mussolini a few years before to look after their own interests.

          Who said that the Church shouldn’t be angry at the mass oppression of its own people?

          You made out that his encyclical was not about the the oppression of some of the Catholics that didn’t kowtow to Hitler. It wasn’t “mass” oppression so ya can cram that hyperbole fuckwitery.

          What you said was…

          More made up crap. Hitler’s race theory and totalitarianism was the clear cause, as is evidently shown by Pius XII’s 1937 Mit brennender Sorge.

          No mention of the main reason.

          Of course, Pacelli had no trouble for Hitler’s race antiques and deeply condemned them.

          You’re fucking serious, aren’t you. National Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are not named in the document. The term “Reich Government” is used.

          Historians and scholars have pointed out that it was a wishy washy document that wasn’t nearly as scathing than that of the encyclical a short time later condemning communism.

          However, whereas the encyclical Divini Redemptoris mentioned Communism in Russia, Mexico and Spain directly by name, at the suggestion of Faulhaber the formulation of the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge was not polemical, but accused National Socialism above all indirectly, by a description of the foundations of the Catholic Church….As things were every hearer knew what was meant when it mentioned ‘public persecution’ of the faithful, ‘a thousand forms of organized impediments to religion’ and a ‘lack of teaching which is loyal to the truth and of the normal possibilities of defence’. Even if National Socialism was not mentioned by name, it was condemned clearly and unequivocally as an ideology when the encyclical stated ‘Anyone who makes Volk or state or form of state or state authorities or other basic values of the human shaping of society into the highest of all norms, even of religious values…perverts and falsifies the divinely created and divinely commanded order of things’ and that “The time of open confrontation seemed to have arrived. However, it very soon emerged that the encyclical was open to different interpretations. It could be understood as a last and extreme way by which the church might maintain its rights and its truth within the framework of the concordat; but it could also be interpreted as the first step which could be and had to be followed by further steps..The leader of the German Bishops conference, Cardinal Bertram, sought to blunt the impact of the encyclical by ordering that critical passages be not read out”. He took the view that “introductory thoughts about the failure of the Reich government to observe the treaty are meant more for the leaders, not for the great mass of believers. ~Klaus Scholder, was a German ecclesiastical historian, professor of history at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen university.

          ….

          Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical “condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)”. Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as “not a heatedly combative document” as the German episcopate, still ignorant of the real dimension of the problem, still entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result, the encyclical was “not directly polemical” but “diplomatically moderate”, in contrast to the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.

          But like I’ve said, the encyclical is irrelevant, the damage was done already.

          Not really. They just didn’t really practice their Catholicism in any way that contradicted the Nazi’s, so the Nazi’s left them alone.

          Bingo!

          It wasn’t the practicing of their Catholicism that was at issue. Like I keep stating, it was the deemed subversion that “contradicted” the Nazis..

          Once again, as I have to explain, eliminating all the Catholics was simply a non-option for Hitler given how many of them there were.

          So what was it about the Catholics that got oppressed that drew the ire of the Nazis, Sparky?

          Of course, Hitler severely curbed the influence of Catholicism by targetting all Catholic newspapers, schools, etc for destruction before they had even expressed any opposition against him.

          When?

          Nah…you are making shit up now. Who printed the 300,000 copies of the encyclical in 1937?

          In April 1938 The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano would display for the first time “the historic headline” of “Religious Persecution in Germany” and reflect that what Pius XI had published in Mit brennender Sorge was now being clearly witnessed: “Catholic schools are closed, people are coerced to leave the Church..religious instruction of the Youth is made impossible.. Catholic organisations are suppressed..a press campaign is made against the Church, while its own newspapers and magazines are suppressed..”

          Even the Wiki source you supplied on Nazi oppression of RC’s doesn’t support your bullshit. The Enabling Act and Reichsconcordat were signed in 1933…four years elapsed before the Vatican was pissed enough to speak out. There was a steady errosion of institutions Hitler seen as a threat to his power in that time. He was playing for time. Because, guess what? 20,000,000 German Catholics needed bring onboard with his National Socialism.

          Of course he did.

          Nope…you’ve not demonstrated that. Hitler was indifferent. If someone was being an upstart, they got his wrath, Lutherans included. It’s just that more Catholics on the ground were being upstarts.

          Likewise, Hitler frequently tailored his statements on religion to appeal to various sectors of German society. Because German and Austrian society was still overwhelmingly Christian (split between Lutherans and Catholics) between 1933 and 1945, Hitler—who was, in Weikart’s words, “a religious chameleon, a quintessential religious hypocrite”—made statements that praised Germany’s Christian roots so as not to not alienate his supporters. An accomplished scholar of German history, Weikart notes that pragmatism has for years characterized many Germans’ approach to Christianity, and even today it’s not uncommon for Germans who have long abandoned faith in the transcendental realm to still pay the Church tax to secure their children spots in prestigious Catholic schools.

          You asked why Hitler didn’t flatten the Vatican.

          And you didn’t answer convincingly.

          I just showed Hitler outright made the planets to occupy Vatican, arrest the Pope and everything, and only stopped short because of the sheer resistance that might be expressed from the huge number of Catholic Germans had he done it.

          Yeah…but when? And he didn’t do anything about it. He could’ve raised the Vatican at any time during the Nazi retreat. He didn’t. He was a madman…but he wasn’t that stupid…his response was measured, because he was indifferent.

          The Pope even had to draw an escape plan because the threat was so clear.

          And what? The threat that didn’t materalize…because???

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Probably just as well that’s a claim I never made then.”

          You did, I quoted you. You also keep on trying to use the Enabling Act, which is irrelevant. The Vatican’s concordat with Hitler happens after the Enabling Act, and so could have had no relevance to its passing. The “Centre Catholic Party”, despite the name, wasn’t the most Catholic party in the world. To see how the names of any party aren’t particularly relevant to what it actually advocates for, see the current Christian Democratic Union ruling Germany. Making up things like “the religious welfare of the Catholic people of Germany drove them” isn’t going to help.

          “No, conspiring with Hitler to safeguard the Catholic Church’s interests in Germany in return for their support does.”

          Except for that Hitler never goes the Vatican’s support in return.

          “Funny though, Hitler’s militia was enough to intimidate the Social Democrats to not vote against him.”

          You’re right, the SS and SA wasn’t enough to intimidate the SDP. Of course, what happened after …

          After the passing of the Enabling Act, dozens of SPD deputies were arrested, and several more fled into exile. Those that remained tried their best to appease the Nazis. They voted in favour of Hitler’s foreign policy statement of 19 May, in which he declared his willingness to renounce all offensive weapons if other countries followed suit. They also publicly distanced themselves from their brethren abroad who condemned Hitler’s tactics. It was to no avail. Over the course of the spring, the police confiscated the SPD’s newspapers and property. The party was finally banned on June 19, 1933.[37]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic_(1918%E2%80%931933)

          “You made out that his encyclical was not about the the oppression of some of the Catholics that didn’t kowtow to Hitler. It wasn’t “mass” oppression so ya can cram that hyperbole fuckwitery.”

          Actually, it WAS mass oppression. The annihilation of all Catholic schools and newspapers, Nazi reprimanding of a THIRD of all the priests in all of Germany, etc, etc, etc. Hell, Hitler was about to occupy the Vatican itself. The only thing that separated the Catholics from the concentration camps were their numbers.

          “You’re fucking serious, aren’t you. National Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are not named in the document. The term “Reich Government” is used.”

          LOOOOOOL. Who, exactly, do you think is the Reich Government? You then make my point with a very long quotation. The Church unequivocally condemned Hitler, by your own quote. The fact that it wasn’t explicitly mentioned is irrelevant, the Church and everyone, including Hitler, was full aware who was being totally condemned.

          “It wasn’t the practicing of their Catholicism that was at issue. Like I keep stating, it was the deemed subversion that “contradicted” the Nazis..”

          Of course it was. Catholicism was purged from the public view. Once again, the only thing that separated them from the concentration camps was their numbers. Simple.

          “So what was it about the Catholics that got oppressed that drew the ire of the Nazis, Sparky?”

          Huh? Write a coherent question, please.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Needless to say, you were entirely unable to justify your claim. Nowhere during the 1930’s did a meeting with the Pope help give Hitler his dictatorial powers.

          Citation where I said Hitler met the Pope…in the event that you provide such a citation, I’ll apologize and then affirm he didn’t…not that it matters.

          The Vatican’s concordat with Hitler happens after the Enabling Act, and so could have had no relevance to its passing.

          You keep repeating this like first, I’m unaware of it, and second, it is relevant.

          The Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler in the Enabling Act…that’s a fact…they did it because Hitler promised then concessions to the Catholic position in Germany …that’s a fact…the Enabling Act gave Hitler dictatorial powers…that’s a fact…the Concordat proposed and agreed to, by Hitler some months later, consolidated his position with regards to the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany and gave him an air of legitimization on the worlds political stage, exactly what he was trying to achieve. The Holy See was sold a pup….wise ta fuck up.

          The “Centre Catholic Party”, despite the name, wasn’t the most Catholic party in the world.

          I don’t give a fucking damn. It was the most Catholic party in Nazi Germany and it represented the Catholic population of Germany on the political scene on things Catholic. Ffs…you are really clutching at straws.

          Here, ya love Britannica….

          https://www.britannica.com/topic/Centre-Party-political-party-Germany

          But also….

          In terms of ideology and class, the Catholic Center Party (Zentrum, or, Z) was more diverse than any of its Weimar rivals. Its one area of uniformity was its commitment to protect the interests of Germany’s Catholics; about 34% of the population. Thus, it is not surprising that the largest number of Center Party supporters were Catholic, although Protestants also supported the party and were included in its legislative delegation. Even some of Germany’s Jews (1% of the population) voted for the Catholic Center party. Catholic women voted for the party in very high numbers. While it had a left-liberal trade union wing, and a right-conservative nationalist wing, the weight of its support placed the party at the center of the political spectrum. The Center Party was vital to the stability of the Republic, and it was a part of every Weimar government. Its leaders served as chancellors for nine administrations and were included in each of the twenty-one cabinets that ruled during the fourteen years of the Republic. With the change in leadership of the party in 1928, it drifted towards its more conservative wing which had evolved into the Bavarian People’s Party.(BVP). Independent of the national Catholic Center party, the BVP often positioned itself in opposition to the Weimar government.

          https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/weimar-political-parties

          But I don’t even give a fuck about any of that…at the time of signing of the Enabling Act….it was all about the Catholics in Germany.

          To see how the names of any party aren’t particularly relevant to what it actually advocates for, see the current Christian Democratic Union ruling Germany. Making up things like “the religious welfare of the Catholic people of Germany drove them” isn’t going to help.

          Look, ya fuckwit, the US democrats were once the conservatives and the Republicans were once the liberals….the fact remains, the Catholic Centre Party via Ludwig Kaas, entered into an agreement with Hitler on the proviso of promises for concessions to the German Catholics in exchange for support in the vote for the Enabling Act…an act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers….fact.

          Except for that Hitler never goes the Vatican’s support in return.

          Holy fuck, you really are demented. That’s the fucking point. Hitler welshed. While the Vatican thought the Concordat gave the Vatican what they wanted in Germany, it didn’t….but the Concordat gave Hitler what he wanted in Germany and on the world stage, legitimacy and an air of respectability. It took the Vatican four years to realise they had been hoodwinked….well probably less than that, but at least that long for the bunch of cunts to officially speak up about it anyway.

          You’re right, the SS and SA wasn’t enough to intimidate the SDP. Of course, what happened after …

          And that had a relevance on the vote and what the CCP did, how? Jaysus KD, you are starting to lose it big time.

          Actually, it WAS mass oppression. The annihilation of all Catholic schools and newspapers, Nazi reprimanding of a THIRD of all the priests in all of Germany, etc, etc, etc. Hell, Hitler was about to occupy the Vatican itself. The only thing that separated the Catholics from the concentration camps were their numbers.

          Have a look in the mirror…you are reduced to slavering now.

          Some of that happened in 1933-34-35-36-37-39….why? Why? Why?

          Though Hitler felt a particular urgency and hatred when dealing with Jews and Communists, he viewed the Catholic Church as a pernicious opponent, a deeply-entrenched threat that must be controlled and eventually uprooted from German life in order to establish his promised Thousand-Year-Reich.

          https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/nazi-policy-and-the-catholic-church.html

          Hitler hated the Jews, he endeavored to exterminate every German one. Hitler hated the Bolsheviks, he endeavored to exterminate every one. Hitler hated those Catholics that were subversive to his regime…guess what, he didn’t even exterminate try to exterminate all of those.

          LOOOOOOL. Who, exactly, do you think is the Reich Government? You then make my point with a very long quotation. The Church unequivocally condemned Hitler, by your own quote. The fact that it wasn’t explicitly mentioned is irrelevant, the Church and everyone, including Hitler, was full aware who was being totally condemned.

          Hey, you are the cunt that demands facts and what historians think about what happened, why are you shooting the messenger when it doesn’t stack up with your fuckittery?

          Historians and scholars alike think the encyclical was wishy washy. Take it up with them.

          Of course it was. Catholicism was purged from the public view.

          No, it wasn’t. Wise ta fuck up, moron.

          Even after the encyclical was read from pulpits all over the state Catholicism wasn’t purged from the public view ya cretin. You just love making shite up in spite of evidence ya feckin’ dickhead.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_bishops_in_Nazi_Germany

          Catholics were attending their mass weekly without oppression for the most part.

          Once again, the only thing that separated them from the concentration camps was their numbers. Simple.

          Cretinous nonsense pulled outta yer arse. Support, or shut ta fuck up.

          Huh? Write a coherent question, please.

          Well, I thought it was pretty straight forward.

          Most Catholics who were German nationalists that were allowed to go about their merry way, some Catholics were not….what was the defining factor?

          Most Protestants who were German nationalists that were allowed to go on their merry way, some Protestants were not….what was the defining factor?

          What was it that those German’s that Hitler oppressed had in common vis a vis those he didn’t? It isn’t rocket science.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Citation where I said Hitler met the Pope…in the event that you provide such a citation, I’ll apologize and then affirm he didn’t…not that it matters.”

          Pedantic crap yet again. Once more, I challenge, where is your citation for the fact that this concordat gave Hitler his dictatorial powers? Come on now, it can’t be that hard.

          “The Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler in the Enabling Act…that’s a fact…they did it because Hitler promised then concessions to the Catholic position in Germany …that’s a fact…”

          That’s a lie. Nice job at boiling down a pretty complex set of gaurantees and stripping the rest away to this. In fact;

          The Centre Party, whose vote was going to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the President’s Office retaining veto power, religious liberty, its involvement in culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party.

          In other words, since it was obvious Hitler was reaching for full dictatorial powers and was getting it whether or not anyone liked it, the Centre Party did the last thing they could and tried to get Hitler to agree to preserving the bare tricklets of humanity they could get out of him. Of course, it failed, and Hitler’s grab for power (not given to him by anyone — you’d have to be a jackarse if you think anyone, including the Centre Party, could have stopped Hitler) cut right through this.

          Which means your entire attempt to clutch at the Centre Party fails.

          “But I don’t even give a fuck about any of that…”

          No one gives a damn what you give. This isn’t about you, ya knob.

          “Look, ya fuckwit, the US democrats were once the conservatives and the Republicans were once the liberals….”

          LOL

          “but the Concordat gave Hitler what he wanted in Germany and on the world stage, legitimacy and an air of respectability. It took the Vatican four years to realise they had been hoodwinked.”

          Actually, Hitler’s “respectability” evaporated overnight and by the time the Concordat happened, he had already acquired all his dictatorial power. Which means it played no role in any of Hitler’s onslaughters … fact.

          As I demonstrated, the Socialist kooks voted against Hitler and then got annihilated. Which once again curbstomps your argument. If the Centre Party voted against Hitler, he would have simply crushed it and then taken power anyways. Incredible how such a simple point went over your head. LOL. Then, in my last response, I overwhelmingly demonstrated Hitler’s hatred for Catholics. You provide a quote from catholiceducation.com that, inadvertedly, proves exactly my point — Hitler wanted to extinguish Catholicism. You then, in your total failure, repeat a point I debunked ages ago;

          “Hitler hated those Catholics that were subversive to his regime…guess what, he didn’t even exterminate try to exterminate all of those.”

          Once again, try reading. The reason why Hitler couldn’t do that is because there were too many of them. Which was also the sole factor of why he didn’t occupy the Vatican. This is something I proved a long time ago.

          “Historians and scholars alike think the encyclical was wishy washy. Take it up with them.”

          Fail. Your own quotes show that historians think it unambiguously condemned Hitler. It isn’t rocket science.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pedantic crap yet again. Once more, I challenge, where is your citation for the fact that this concordat gave Hitler his dictatorial powers? Come on now, it can’t be that hard.

          I see I’m going to have to break this down for you. Let’s look at what I said in the offending comment….

          “Because the Vatican’s diplomatic dealings with Germany were instrumental in giving Hitler his dictatorial powers and legitimizing Hitler’s dictatorship. The RCC are not adverse to dictators.”

          Now…where in that comment did I say the concordat gave Hitler his dictatorial powers or that Hitler met with the pope?

          Hitler got his dictatorial powers with the assistance of the Catholic Centre Party…that’s a fact. The leader of the CCP, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, long time friend and associate of Pacelli, a man that was well aware of the Vatican’s longstanding interest in consolidating a concordat with Germany, agreed to support Hitler in the vote for the Enabling Act. Kaas met Hitler a number of times ahead of the vote and was promised concessions for Catholics if he could rely on the party’s support.

          Kaas was on a train to Rome straight after the act was passed. Within a week the Vatican sent word for the Catholic bishops in Rome to get behind Hitler and his regime.

          Within 5 months, Hitler agreed a concordat with the Vatican, something the Vatican had trying to get for 14 years from the Wiemar government, but the Germans wanted none of it. Hitlers concordat with the Vatican was the treaty that gave legitimization to the Nazi regime.

          Anthony Rhodes regarded Hitler’s desire for a concordat with the Vatican as being driven principally by the prestige and respectability it brought to his regime abroad whilst at the same time eliminating the opposition of the Centre Party. Rhodes took the view that if the survival of Catholic education and youth organisations was taken to be the principal aim of papal diplomacy during this period then the signing of the concordat to prevent greater evils was justified. Many of the Centre Party deputies were priests who had not been afraid to raise their voices in the past and would almost certainly have voted against Hitler’s assumption of dictatorial powers. The voluntary dissolution of the Centre Party removed that obstacle and Hitler now had absolute power and brought respectability to the state: “within six months of its birth, the Third Reich had been given full approval by the highest spiritual power on earth”. Ian Kershaw considered the role of the Centre Party in Hitler’s removal of almost all constitutional restraints as “particularly ignominious.”

        • David Cromie
        • Ignorant Amos

          KD thinks it’s all “fake news”.

          He doesn’t get it…that even if he could demonstrate Hitler hated Catholics, which he can’t, it doesn’t even matter. The Catholics wanted Hitlers favor and had no problems getting into bed with him at the time it suited Hitler.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s a lie.

          Well show me where those two facts are lies?

          Nice job at boiling down a pretty complex set of gaurantees and stripping the rest away to this. In fact;

          The Centre Party, whose vote was going to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the President’s Office retaining veto power, religious liberty, its involvement in culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party.

          Like I said, a list of concessions…particularly favoring the RCC…which was my point.

          In other words, since it was obvious Hitler was reaching for full dictatorial powers and was getting it whether or not anyone liked it, the Centre Party did the last thing they could and tried to get Hitler to agree to preserving the bare tricklets of humanity they could get out of him.

          Ah…hindsight is a wonderful thing, ain’t it?

          So you’re saying that Kaas convinced the dissenters to support the Nazis because they were fucked anyway? Riiiiigggghhht. Then he jumped on a train, headed to the Vatican…next thing ya know…the pope is instructing Catholics to support Hitler…then bingo! That illusive concordat the Vatican has had a hardon for is suddenly on the table. Your a funny guy, a gullible cunt, but a funny guy.

          Of course, it failed, and Hitler’s grab for power (not given to him by anyone — you’d have to be a jackarse if you think anyone, including the Centre Party, could have stopped Hitler) cut right through this.

          Well we’ll never know, will we? Because the CCP were convinced by Kaas to vote with him. One wonders why Hitler went to all the hassle of negotiating with Kaas if the Enabling Act was such a farce.

          Which means your entire attempt to clutch at the Centre Party fails.

          What was it that historian Ian Kershaw said about it?

          …the role of the Centre Party in Hitler’s removal of almost all constitutional restraints as “particularly ignominious.”

          But I don’t even give a fuck about any of that…at the time of signing of the Enabling Act….it was all about the Catholics in Germany.

          “But I don’t even give a fuck about any of that…”

          No one gives a damn what you give. This isn’t about you, ya knob.

          Ah…the disingenuous tactic of the quote-mine. And I think you’ll find there are plenty that gives a damn what I give….ya knob….so pah!

          Actually, Hitler’s “respectability” evaporated overnight and by the time the Concordat happened,…

          Well that’s just not the case, is it? But I’ll take a citation that supports your fuckwittery if ya have one?

          …he had already acquired all his dictatorial power.

          Yeah….I know….he got those with the help of the CCP’s vote in the Enabling Act a few months earlier…didn’t I already tell you that?

          Which means it played no role in any of Hitler’s onslaughters … fact.

          Scholars disagree.

          Why did he make it then in your view, soft boy? Why did the Vatican agree to it? And why did they maintain it when Hitler welshed on it?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Like I said, a list of concessions…particularly favoring the RCC…which was my point.”

          Nope, you lied. You claimed “”The Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler in the Enabling Act…that’s a fact…they did it because Hitler promised then concessions to the Catholic position in Germany …that’s a fact…”” Actually, that’s total bull. The actual list, the list by the Centre Party, actually contains numerous items, only a single one of which is related to religious tolerance. Which means you intentionally didn’t mention the other ones to try to make this look like a religious demand, in and out, even though it was literally nothing of the sort. Any rational minded human would have had religious liberty as part of the concessions.

          “So you’re saying that Kaas convinced the dissenters to support the Nazis because they were fucked anyway? Riiiiigggghhht.”

          Of course he was. That’s why he made those list of demands. Since he realized it was going down all the way for him and the other parties anyways, he did the last thing that he could have: make a list of concessions, which would cover human liberty, before voting. In order so that once Hitler ultimately gained power, which was inevitably clearly (again, Hitler had his militia in the room when the guys were voting — not exactly a sign of someone who would happily admit defeat and just try to get a different bill passed), that he would at least go by this promise — the one attempt of insurance they were in position of getting.

          “next thing ya know…the pope is instructing Catholics to support Hitler”

          Oooops, another blunder. The concordat doesn’t support Hitler, it just gives religious rights in Germany. It was totally irrelevant to Hitler’s grab of power, since he already had his full power by then. As I pointed out, your attempt to clutch at the Centre Party failed. You then respond by quoting a historian (not because you’ve read their work, all your quotations are obviously pulled from atheist quack websites) claiming that the Centre Party did an “ignominious thing” by voting for the act .. Another victory for the eternal red herrings of Ignorant Amos.

          “Why did the Vatican agree to it?”

          The concordat? Maybe because … ughhhh … the Vatican didn’t want its church getting oppressed by Hitler and all? Perhaps that is a possibility? Looool.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope, you lied.

          You need to support that assertion.

          You claimed “”The Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler in the Enabling Act…that’s a fact…

          Is that not a fact? Show me?

          …they did it because Hitler promised then concessions to the Catholic position in Germany …that’s a fact…””

          Is that not a fact? Show me?

          Actually, that’s total bull.

          It will be when you can demonstrate it with evidence.

          The actual list, the list by the Centre Party, actually contains numerous items, only a single one of which is related to religious tolerance.

          Is this you trying the pedantic-semantic two-step shuffle…or can you not read your own citation?

          The Centre Party, whose vote was going to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the President’s Office retaining veto power, religious liberty, its involvement in culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party.

          These mainly included respecting the President’s Office retaining veto power,…

          Would that not benefit Catholics or religious tolerance? Perhaps not…you can have that one.

          …religious liberty,

          That would definitely benefit the Catholics and religious tolerance. One for me.

          …its involvement in culture,…

          That would definitely benefit the Catholics and religious tolerance. Two ta me.

          … schools and education,…

          Oh goody, a twofer…given your complaint of Hitlers persecution of Catholic schools and education, am claiming that these concessions were about Catholic schools and education…ergo religious tolerance. Two more for me…four so far.

          …the concordats signed by German states…

          What were the concordats that Kaas got guarantees with? How many are we talking about? Which countries were covered?

          Seems to me that guaranteeing treaties signed with the RCC would be beneficial to the RCC and demonstrate religious tolerance…at least to the RCC. Since I can only claim Prussia and Austria for sure, I’ll just add two. That’s six concessions.

          …and the existence of the Centre Party.

          Are you going to try and tell me that the political party that represented Catholic interests in Germany maintaining its existence would not be beneficial to Catholics and show religious tolerance?

          Your citation also includes the caveat “mainly included”, so there may have been other concessions made by Hitler to garner support, no matter…two is enough to support my term “concessions”…I win again.

          Which means you intentionally didn’t mention the other ones to try to make this look like a religious demand, in and out, even though it was literally nothing of the sort.

          Nope…I intentionally left nothing out…because I didn’t include a list ya dopey bastard. You did. Do you not get fed up being hoist by yer own petard?

          Any rational minded human would have had religious liberty as part of the concessions.

          Indeed…and if you could read your own source instead of slavering like a triggered rabid dog…you’d see that it is your own citation. Hoist again.

          Like shooting fish in a barrel.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “So you’re saying that Kaas convinced the dissenters to support the Nazis because they were fucked anyway? Riiiiigggghhht.”

          Of course he was.

          I was being sarcastic and facetious. Heinrich Brüning
          and the dissenters voted with the party as a demonstration of party unity…not because he believed they were fucked anyway.

          After Adolf Hitler became chancellor on 30 January 1933, Brüning vigorously campaigned against the new government in the March 1933 elections. Later that month, he was a main advocate for rejecting the Hitler administration’s Enabling Act, calling it the “most monstrous resolution ever demanded of a parliament.” Having received assurances from Hitler that the Centre Party would not be banned he yielded to party discipline and voted in favour of the bill.

          That’s why he made those list of demands. Since he realized it was going down all the way for him and the other parties anyways, he did the last thing that he could have: make a list of concessions, which would cover human liberty, before voting. In order so that once Hitler ultimately gained power, which was inevitably clearly …

          …(again, Hitler had his militia in the room when the guys were voting — not exactly a sign of someone who would happily admit defeat and just try to get a different bill passed), that he would at least go by this promise — the one attempt of insurance they were in position of getting.

          You are all over the place on this…it’s very sad…if they knew they were fucked, what was the point of the agreement? They already knew, according to you, that this was not an insurance they were getting. For the umpteenth time, Hitlers militia were not there for the CCP…he had their vote already. That point was moot by the vote taking. You are speculating. Kaas believed the promise he got from Hitler, hindsight is a wonderful thing. The CCP could have abstained, the vote gets passed, the CCP save face…but Kaas thought he was getting something in return.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The concordat? Maybe because … ughhhh … the Vatican didn’t want its church getting oppressed by Hitler and all? Perhaps that is a possibility? Looool.

          The Vatican had been pursuing a concordat with the German Wiemar governments for a decade before Hitler came to power.

          Three years before Hitler became Chancellor, the Vatican were interested in a treaty.

          In March 1930, the new Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli, gave indications that the Vatican would be interested in a concordat with the Reich in the event of any reforms of the Reich’s constitution having an adverse effect on the validity of the concordats already agreed between the German states and the Vatican.

          My point is, within 5 months of Hitler becoming dictator, the Vatican went ahead and signed a treaty with him anyway. They knew what he was like. But I’m glad you agree that the reason was….

          Maybe because … ughhhh … the Vatican didn’t want its church getting oppressed by Hitler and all? Perhaps that is a possibility?

          The Vatican was a self-serving bunch of cunts. Kaas did it in March 1933…Pacelli did it 4 months later July 1933It was all about the concessions for the Catholics. They didn’t care much about anything else at the time. And in there fervor to get deals, they sold their souls to the devil. Which is what I’ve said all along.

          Looool.

          Yeah…we are…at you ya dipstick.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Thanks for the quote, since it proves my claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

          “Three years before Hitler became Chancellor, the Vatican were interested in a treaty.

          In March 1930, the new Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli, gave indications that the Vatican would be interested in a concordat with the Reich in the event of any reforms of the Reich’s constitution having an adverse effect on the validity of the concordats already agreed between the German states and the Vatican.”

          In other words, I was exactly right. The Vatican only made the concordat with Hitler to keep its churches from being oppressed.

          “My point is, within 5 months of Hitler becoming dictator, the Vatican went ahead and signed a treaty with him anyway. They knew what he was like.”

          Which is why they wanted the concordat. To stop him from oppressing their churches. If you were the leader of an institution that represented a billion people, and found that some country might be trying to really oppress some of them, wouldn’t you want assurance of their protection?

          You go on to say some lunatic nonsense about the Catholic church selling their souls to the devil or other crackpottery like that for, as far as I can tell, no comprehensible reason.

          “Heinrich Brüning and the dissenters voted with the party as a demonstration of party unity…not because he believed they were fucked anyway.”

          Actually, that’s exactly what it was. Not a single one of them thought that they had the chance to stop Hitler. Which is why they so readily accepted any supposed assurance towards rights or something to vote for the Enabling Act — it’s all they had. See;

          Both Cardinal Pacelli, and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, leader of the Center Party, knew the Center Party, in the existing circumstances, was doomed; whatever they did, it would not survive. A bargaining chip is something you possess and the other wants. But the continuing existence of the Center Party was not something that Pacelli and Kaas possessed. And they knew Hitler knew. (McDonnell, Kilian. Truth and Fiction in Hitler’s Pope. Wiley Blackwell, 2000, 285)

          In other words, the idea that a democratic vote could have stopped Hitler in 1933 is wishful thinking. If Hitler could gas the Jews, then he could tell his militia, in the room during the vote, to arrest every dissenter if he lost and then take power anyways.

          “if they knew they were fucked, what was the point of the agreement?”

          Because that’s all they had. What were they going to do, toss out the smallest, tiniest possibility of success and throw in the towel? Well, just because you would have given up, doesn’t mean they would’ve.

          Anyways, you now jumble mumble around, gosh, this is embarrassing;

          These mainly included respecting the President’s Office retaining veto power,…

          Would that not benefit Catholics or religious tolerance? Perhaps not…you can have that one.

          …religious liberty,

          That would definitely benefit the Catholics and religious tolerance. One for me.

          …its involvement in culture,…

          That would definitely benefit the Catholics and religious tolerance. Two ta me.

          … schools and education,…

          Oh goody, a twofer…given your complaint of Hitlers persecution of Catholic schools and education, am claiming that these concessions were about Catholic schools and education…ergo religious tolerance. Two more for me…four so far.

          Sorry, poor Amos, but just because the Catholic Church exercises its rights doesn’t make every single right preserved related to the Catholic Church. In fact, this is just a fairly basic list of rights that are preferable to any secular government. All four for me. Not a single right assured by the Enabling Act had any specific relevance to the Catholic Church, demonstrated by the fact that the Pope felt it necessary to sign the concordat later in 1933.

          And this short comment, by itself, refutes all the endless claptrap you wrote in response. Incredible how a short, concise, accurate comment can take out any pedantic, long-winded furious conspiracy theorist (which is what Hitler’s Pope is all about) very easily.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As I demonstrated, the Socialist kooks voted against Hitler and then got annihilated.

          YOU demonstrated? Wise ta fuck up.

          It seems to have gone right over your head. They weren’t intimidated by the militia is the point, so not very intimidating then. That they got “annihilated” after is not relevant, they had the balls to vote against Hitler and not sell themselves out for false promises.

          The CCP were later “annihilated” too, and them spineless bastards capitulated.

          Which once again curbstomps your argument. If the Centre Party voted against Hitler, he would have simply crushed it and then taken power anyways.

          Coulda, shoulda, woulda….no one knows what woulda happened, because the power to annihilate came with the Enabling Act that the Catholics supported by thinking about themselves ya clown.

          Incredible how such a simple point went over your head. LOL.

          It’s amazing how everything goes right over your head. Hitler wanted the Enabling Act to democratically endorse his regime and facilitate his becoming a dictator. Catholics were complicit in it because religion. Whether Hitler coulda moved forward anyway, we’ll never know, because there was no need…HE WON THE FUCKING VOTE WITH THE HELP OF THE CATHOLIC CENTRE PARTY….A FACT.

          Then, in my last response, I overwhelmingly demonstrated Hitler’s hatred for Catholics.

          No..you are deluded…you showed fuck all of the sort. Hitler could possibly have hated all Catholics…doubtful owing to his friends that were Catholic…Hitler could easily be said to have hated all sorts, you can no more demonstrate he hated all Catholics than anyone else….professor of history and Hitler buff, Richard Weikart wrote a whole book on it… Hitler was indifferent…he hated Catholics that posed a perceived political problem…most Catholics were permitted to go about their religious Catholicism without any impedance. Hitler was a religious hypocrite.

          Weikart is “skeptical about anything Hitler professed” religiously and argues that he would lie “whenever he thought it would benefit him”. Labeling Hitler “a savvy politician,” Weikart finds that Hitler learned from the mistakes of other politicians, such as Georg von Schönerer, whose Pan-German Party lost many adherents when it embarked upon an anti-Catholic crusade . Hitler felt Germans should be left to pursue the religion of their choice as long as it did not create divisions among them.

          You provide a quote from catholiceducation.com that, inadvertedly, proves exactly my point —

          Only in your deluded pea-brained mind. But that’s because you are a dumb fuck that can’t read for fuck.

          Hitler wanted to extinguish Catholicism.

          Hitler, apparently, wanted to eradicate all organised religion eventually and replace it with his own. But that is not the same as hating all Catholics ya dickhead.

          You then, in your total failure, repeat a point I debunked ages ago;

          In your deluded dreams perhaps. But keep at it ya slavering cretin…your train wreck comments are an hilarious sight to behold.

          Once again, try reading. The reason why Hitler couldn’t do that is because there were too many of them. Which was also the sole factor of why he didn’t occupy the Vatican. This is something I proved a long time ago.

          You are actually serious about this…that is the frightening bit. Hitler took on the world. Too many?

          When did Hitler ban Catholicism? When did he close down all the chapels and cathedrals? When did he incarcerated the hierarchy…the bishops of Germany…presumably there wasn’t too many of them. Oh…that’s right, he didn’t.

          Ya see, historians are all over the place on this…and for good reason, Hitler was also. His views were zeitgeist.

          But none of this fuckwittery is relevant. It matters less what Hitlers views were on religion or Catholicism for that matter, it was the RCC hierarchy and their approach to Hitler is what is important…and they were prepared to suck Hitlers dick for their purposes until it was clear that Hitler had shafted them…and even then they were hedging their bets.

          Fail. Your own quotes show that historians think it unambiguously condemned Hitler. It isn’t rocket science.

          Only because you are an imbecile at reading.

          The historian Eamon Duffy wrote:

          The language of Divini Redemptoris was stronger than that of Mit brennender Sorge, its condemnation of Communism even more absolute than the attack on Nazism. The difference in tone undoubtedly reflected the Pope’s own loathing of Communism as the “ultimate enemy.

          Carlo Falconi wrote:

          So little anti-Nazi is it that it does not even attribute to the regime as such, but only to certain trends within it, the dogmatic and moral errors widespread in Germany. And while the errors indicated are carefully diagnosed and refuted, complete silence surrounds the much more serious and fundamental errors associated with Nazi political ideology, corresponding to the principles most subversive of natural law that are characteristic of absolute totalitarianisms. The encyclical is in fact concerned purely with the Catholic Church in Germany and its rights and privileges, on the basis of the concordatory contracts of 1933. Moreover the form given to it by Cardinal Faulhaber, even more a super-nationalist than the majority of his most ardent colleagues, was essentially dictated by tactics and aimed at avoiding a definite breach with the regime, even to the point of offering in conclusion a conciliatory olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence. Nevertheless, even within these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope’s courage astonished the world. It was, indeed, the encyclicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it possessed.

          Even Catholics have criticized the weight of the encyclical ffs.

          Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical “condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)”. Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as “not a heatedly combative document” as the German episcopate, still ignorant of the real dimension of the problem, still entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result, the encyclical was “not directly polemical” but “diplomatically moderate”, in contrast to the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.

          Now would ya do us all a favor and fuck away off with your mindwankery and give my head peace.

        • Pofarmer
        • Ignorant Amos

          Because that’s exactly it…stupid.

        • epeeist

          How can he not get this?

          Delusions of adequacy.

        • You have great patience, Grasshopper. Truly, this is your superpower.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha…I’ll take that as a compliment Master Po.

          The invested time is getting to the point where KD is becoming no longer worth the effort. He totally ignores points refuted, evidence, or just hand-waves other details away.

          The replies are getting well into the Tl;dr area too….and no doubt boring for most.

          For a self-proclaimed history buff, KD doesn’t seem to grasp it is all about probabilities. Some areas have a consensus which helps, though that can be fraught with problems too.

          Then there are facts that aren’t facts at all. I’ve seen accounts of incidents that I’ve been personally involved in, but erroneously reported. My favorite go-to example of the same is the SAS incident involving B20 (Bravo Two Zero). Five contradictory books written.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Two_Zero

          Anyway…Susan used to get a bit of craic from my fiskings back in the days we shared at RDFRS, so I guess if even just one gets a laugh, or picks up something they didn’t previously know, it’s worth it.

        • Didn’t I hear that the killing of Osama bin Laden has several contradictory versions, all by eyewitnesses?

          KD seems to have unjusified confidence. Even historians disagree on some issues.

        • Ignorant Amos

          KD seems to have unjusified confidence.

          This is his major malfunction. He finds a source that in some way supports his bias, to the exemption of all others, then claims his source as authority. That’s when not just making shit up of course.

          Even historians disagree on some issues.

          Exactly…and the more vague the subject, data, and variety of ways to interpret the evidence, the more disagreement there is among them.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “It seems to have gone right over your head. They weren’t intimidated by the militia is the point, so not very intimidating then.”

          Actually, you cuck, they were intimidated. A number of them failed to even show up to the vote because they were already in hiding.

          The Reichstag had adopted the Enabling Act with the support of 83% of the deputies. If all SPD deputies had been present, it would have still passed with 78.7% support.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

          Ah, so for some reason, many SPD members didn’t show up … you must be a grade A moron if you don’t think Hitler was intimidating anyone with his militia in the building when the vote took place.

          “Coulda, shoulda, woulda….no one knows what woulda happened, because the power to annihilate came with the Enabling Act that the Catholics supported by thinking about themselves ya clown.”

          Nope, Hitler already had the power to annihilate. Obviously, doing things “legally” just helps clear trouble. I can’t even imagine someone could be stupid enough to think a bad vote was stopping Hitler. Sheesh.

          “Whether Hitler coulda moved forward anyway, we’ll never know, because there was no need…HE WON THE FUCKING VOTE WITH THE HELP OF THE CATHOLIC CENTRE PARTY….A FACT.”

          SOMETHING THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CATHOLICISM … A FACT … EVERY PARTY, EXCEPT THE SPD, VOTED FOR THE ENABLING ACT, A FACT …

          You go on to admit Hitler wanted all religion eradicated. Finally, after I clearly demonstrated Hitler hated Catholics with the targetting of Catholic schools, newspapers, etc. After I point out the well known, obvious fact that I gave several documenting links for, the fact that Hitler obviously didn’t try to annihilate the Catholics altogether because there were too many, your little unthinking self responded “Hitler took on the world. Too many?” Yeah, no. Unless Japan and Italy, two other top powers at the time, aren’t counted as part of “the world”. Secondly, Hitler attacked external enemies. Given the fact that 30% of Germany was Catholic at the time, Hitler wouldn’t have had much success if he exterminated a third of his own nation. You know, he might have needed a little of their help when it came to manpower, factories, etc. Too bad Hitler wasn’t as dumb as you, otherwise the war would have been won pretty rapidly.

          As I pointed out, your own quotes show the Mit brennendar Sorge unambiguously condemned Hitler. Realizing you screwed up, your then give a second quote which only says that the Pope was more scathing towards communism than Nazism. Umm, who the hell cares which one the Pope loathed more? It’s obvious, by your own quotes, both were unambiguously condemned, even if in a “diplomatic” tone. Gosh.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Actually, you cuck, they were intimidated. A number of them failed to even show up to the vote because they were already in hiding.

          Bwaaahahaha…the ones that voted against Hitler weren’t that intimidated enough not to stand against him…are you actually this stupid? Do you really not know the meaning of the word “intimidated”? The best you can say is that some of them were intimidated enough to stay away, if you could demonstrate that was their reason for staying away.

          Otto Wels (SPD) in his speech in the Reichstag said as follows:

          “At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and Socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible … From this new persecution too German Social Democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future.”

          Speaking directly to Hitler, Wels proclaimed,

          “You can take our lives and our freedom, but you cannot take our honour. We are defenseless but not honourless.”

          Those are not the words of someone who is intimidated ya idiot.

          The Reichstag had adopted the Enabling Act with the support of 83% of the deputies. If all SPD deputies had been present, it would have still passed with 78.7% support.

          I’m losing the will to live here ffs…you really are this dense. Read your citation back to yerself and try and work out all by yourself why it is you being stupid and why it shoots you in the foot. If you need it explained because you are too dumb a fuck to work it out for yerself…let me know.

          Ah, so for some reason, many SPD members didn’t show up … you must be a grade A moron if you don’t think Hitler was intimidating anyone with his militia in the building when the vote took place.

          And you are definitely a grade A moron, because even after it has been explained to you that the reason for citing those that did show up, weren’t intimidated, you are still flogging the dead horse. The CCP were not intimidated, there was no need, because get this you daft bastard, they’d already agreed to vote in favor of the act ahead of time… the militia wasn’t there to intimidate the CCP, Hitler knew he had their backing already. Even Bruning and his group of dissenters voted in favour of the act as a sign of party solidarity, they could’ve abstained or stayed away, they didn’t, they supported Hitlers act…and that is an undisputed fact. That Hitler coulda seized power anyway is irrelevant to the fact that he didn’t need to.

          But you open up an interesting question. Here Hitler demonstrates the kind of person he is…and yet the RCC still entered into an agreement with him 5 months later…hmmmm? His being a cunt and getting his dictatorial powers in the undemocratic way you seem to imagine didn’t phase the RCC enough to not want to be in bed with him only months later. So either way…self-serving religious bastards. Like I said before, the RCC have a history of cock-sucking dictators to their own ends.

          Nope, Hitler already had the power to annihilate. Obviously, doing things “legally” just helps clear trouble.

          No shit Sherlock. And you are just making up your own history now.

          Hitler had the power to push laws, but chose the more respectable route of democracy to legitimize his position. Whether he coulda annihilate all opposition by force and maintained his position, remains debatable. There was dissent too among his supporters, hence The Night of the Long knives. If he’d used force to “annihilate” the opposition he couldn’t guarantee the outcome. The reaction of the people for support. So he chose the option he did, by getting the dictatorial powers first, then “annihilate” the opposition. Getting the vote of the CCP was crucial to this route. He got the CCP to vote with him by bribing them with concessions.

          Had he not won the Enabling Act, history woulda been different, in what way, no one knows, because it happened the way it did, and the RCC assisted. So coulda, shoulda, woulda…is irrelevant. Suck it up soft boy.

          This is what is taught in schools…

          In conclusion, the Enabling Act was not essential to Hitler but it provided him with an easier and faster route to absolute power than relying on the support or submission of smaller parties. An even faster route to power for Hitler would have been to gain an overall majority in the 1933 general election, after which he would have been able to pass any law without the need for an Enabling Act. It was more important to Hitler that the Enabling Act gave him symbolic power rather than actual power because he was still second to Hindenburg in the eyes of the public. He could pass whatever laws he wanted anyway, but he could also be sacked by the President, something which he keenly sought to change. The Enabling Act and The Night of the Long Knives eclipse the significant but modest consolidation of power by Hitler arousing out of the Reichstag Fire, which remains controversial.

          Finally, when President Hindenburg died of natural causes on 19th August 1934, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer: jointly President, Chancellor and Head of the Armed Forces.

          But since you are fond of Britannica as a source…

          Enabling Act, law passed by the German Reichstag (Diet) in 1933 that enabled Adolf Hitler to assume dictatorial powers. Deputies from the Nazi Party, the German National People’s Party, and the Centre Party voted in favour of the act, which “enabled” Hitler’s government to issue decrees independently of the Reichstag and the presidency. It gave Hitler a base from which to carry out the first steps of his National Socialist revolution.

          https://www.britannica.com/topic/Enabling-Act

          Another historian…

          https://www.historyonthenet.com/enabling-act-1933

          I can’t even imagine someone could be stupid enough to think a bad vote was stopping Hitler. Sheesh.

          What part of this whole discussion is it you are toiling with. No where is it my argument that Hitler was being stopped by a “bad” vote. No one knows what woulda happened because it happened the way it did…all one can do is speculate.

          “My argument is that the CCP assisted Hitler to get his dictatorial powers using a democratic process which gave him the air of legitimacy he craved and they did so by way of a fucking bribe.”

          If there is something inaccurate in that statement, point it out. What alternative history that woulda, coulda, shoulda happen, is of no consequence to my point.

          SOMETHING THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CATHOLICISM … A FACT … EVERY PARTY, EXCEPT THE SPD, VOTED FOR THE ENABLING ACT, A FACT …

          Holy fuck…now you are exasperating in your idiocy. The SPD refused to be intimidated, the KPD were not allowed to vote. The others either agreed with the actt, or were intimidated into voting for it. The Catholic Centre Party were bribed into voting for it…part of the bribe HAD TO DO WITH THEIR CATHOLICISM…FACT.

          Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members’ votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party’s chairman, Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest, finalising an agreement by 22 March. Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for assurances of the Centre Party’s continued existence, the protection of Catholics’ civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party. It has also been suggested that some members of the SPD were intimidated by the presence of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) throughout the proceedings.

          Hitler had the CCP vote in his pocket ahead of time. Hitler knew who he needed to manipulate and how to do it…he didn’t give a fuck about the SPD and he openly said so…because he hated them and their vote wasn’t needed.

          Hitler spat “You are sissies, Gentlemen, and not worthy of this age….”. Then declared, “I can only say to you: I do not even want you to vote for it! Germany will be liberated, but not by you!”. Hitler had secured the BVP’s vote the day before in secret negotiations, and thus had no reason to pretend to want the SDP’s support. Instead he continued to harass them and fuel their defiance. In the end, the SDP voted against the act, not to prevent it from passing, but to make a statement and stand by its beliefs.

          You go on to admit Hitler wanted all religion eradicated. Finally, after I clearly demonstrated Hitler hated Catholics with the targetting of Catholic schools, newspapers, etc.

          Hitler wanted religion eradicated in his own good time. Hitler hated mainstream institutions that he deemed a threat. That included the RCC, but NOT all Catholics…your inability to separate the two is your major fuck up. So no, you haven’t demonstrated that Hitler hated Catholics. Catholics that didn’t oppose Hitler were allowed to go on about their business…that was most of the 20,000,000 German Catholics, but not exclusively just German Catholics.

          He targeted Catholic schools, newspapers, etc…why? And why not them all, from the get go.

          After I point out the well known, obvious fact that I gave several documenting links for, the fact that Hitler obviously didn’t try to annihilate the Catholics altogether because there were too many, your little unthinking self responded “Hitler took on the world. Too many?” Yeah, no. Unless Japan and Italy, two other top powers at the time, aren’t counted as part of “the world”.

          Look soft boy…Hitler needed the institution of the Catholic Church until he had the support of his people who were Catholic, but when that happened, he had no used for the institution or its influence.

          In April 1940, the Pope received a communication from a Papal messenger in Berlin that priests were being openly hostile to the Nazi government:

          “Some of the clergy have adopted an almost openly hostile attitude towards Germany at war, to the extent of wanting a complete defeat. This attitude arouses not only the displeasure of the Government but gradually that of the whole people, as they are almost all enthusiastic about their leader, which makes me afraid that a painful reaction will one day follow which will divide the clergy and even the Church from the people.”

          The Japanese were a distraction to the war in Europe taking much needed logistics away from that theatre, and you do realise that the Italians were mostly Catholic…right? It was called World War II for a reason, your pedantic attempt at obfuscation is noted. Do you think Hitler was going to share his world domination with the Italians and Japanese once he’d sorted out the Eastern and Western fronts?

          Secondly, Hitler attacked external enemies.

          Indeed he did…so who among them did he target specifically for being Catholic then?

          Given the fact that 30% of Germany was Catholic at the time, Hitler wouldn’t have had much success if he exterminated a third of his own nation. You know, he might have needed a little of their help when it came to manpower, factories, etc. Too bad Hitler wasn’t as dumb as you, otherwise the war would have been won pretty rapidly.

          FFS…he didn’t need to, because by the beginning of the war he had won most of them’s loyalty on nationalistic grounds…he didn’t hate those Catholics because they were not causing him any anguish. He persecuted Catholics that were deemed countering his regime.

          As I pointed out, your own quotes show the Mit brennendar Sorge unambiguously condemned Hitler.

          Holy fuck…you are retarded. First of all, you created a straw man…nowhere did I say anything about the encyclical being “ambiguous”…like a said initially, that’s your reading comprehension is jack shit again.

          What I claimed was that it was “wishy-washy”. Look it up ya Dime Bar.

          Realizing you screwed up,…

          You can’t read, but I screwed up? Go take yer head for a shite.

          …your then give a second quote which only says that the Pope was more scathing towards communism than Nazism.

          Have ya looked up “wishy-washy” yet? Compared to the condemnation of the Communists, Mit bremner Sorge was more wishy-washy…historians and scholars agree…I win.

          Umm, who the hell cares which one the Pope loathed more?

          Certainly not me. The historian in question was using the comparison to show that the one to the German Catholics condemning the regime in Germany was more wishy-washy that the one criticizing the the communists. So the encyclical sent to Germany was seen as wishy-washy …simples, I win.

          It’s obvious, by your own quotes, both were unambiguously condemned,…

          Well then, it’s just as well that is not an argument I was making, isn’t it?

          …even if in a “diplomatic” tone. Gosh.

          Indeed…wishy-washy.

          Many writers, influenced in part by the violent reaction of the Nazi government to the papal pronouncement, have hailed the encyclical letter Mit brennender Sorge as a decisive repudiation of the National Socialist state and Weltanschauung. More judicious observers have noted the encyclical was moderate in its tone and merely intimated that the condemned neopagan doctrines were favored by the German authorities. It is indeed a document in which, as one Catholic writer has put it, “with considerable skill, the extravagances of German Nazi doctrine are picked out for condemnation in a way that would not involve the condemnation of political and social totalitarianism..While some of Pius’ language is sweeping and can be given a wider construction, basically the Pope had condemned neopaganism and the denial of religious freedom – no less and no more.

          Like I said…wishy-washy in comparison to others.

          Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical “condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)”. Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as “not a heatedly combative document” as the German episcopate, still ignorant of the real dimension of the problem, still entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result, the encyclical was “not directly polemical” but “diplomatically moderate”, in contrast to the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.

          Definitely wishy-washy.

          Now…give it up already…I win.

        • Korus Destroyus

          P.S. Forgot to tell you.

          “YOU demonstrated? Wise ta fuck up.”

          Not an argument. Try again. I demonstrated that Hitler took out the Socialists after, in fact. The reason why you haven’t been entirely smothered and dispensed with at this point, like what happened in the university and Carrier debates, is because you’ve managed to infuriate me enough to take away my attention from my cold, hard-reasoned debates to this pipe crap of slinging ad hominems, as is your typical style of discussion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I demonstrated that Hitler took out the Socialists after, in fact.

          For the love of dag…it doesn’t matter ya soft headed Dime Bar. The point is, they were not intimidated by Hitlers threats, nor his militia, at the time of the vote…regardless of what Hitler did in hindsight. Maybe they actually had the idea that the CCP would do the decent and moral thing and not support Hitlers Enabling Act…I don’t give a shite.

          The reason why you haven’t been entirely smothered and dispensed with at this point, like what happened in the university and Carrier debates, is because you’ve managed to infuriate me enough to take away my attention from my cold, hard-reasoned debates to this pipe crap of slinging ad hominems, as is your typical style of discussion.

          More delusional pish. You lost both those arguments for fuck sake. You haven’t smothered or dispensed with anyone here. Wake up ya dimwit.

          You’ll need to up your game if you think your disengenuous lying crap can smother and dispense folk around here…but keep banging away…it’s very funny and the fact that it is you that’s getting “triggered”, makes my day.

          And go learn what an ad hominem is ffs. Something else you appear not to know the meaning of…surprise, surprise…not.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “The point is, they were not intimidated by Hitlers threats, nor his militia, at the time of the vote…”

          They were. That’s why they bolted as soon as they could after voting against Hitler.

          “More delusional pish. You lost both those arguments for fuck sake. You haven’t smothered or dispensed with anyone here. Wake up ya dimwit.”

          At this point, it looks like I have smothered you again, though. It started going very smoothly for me once I just started ignoring all the ad hominems on your side.

        • Pofarmer

          Wow, just Wow.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anno….it’s flabbergasting isn’t it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          My point went right over your head.

          Your point was a stupid one. Homosexuals were persecuted for different reasons than those Catholics that got persecuted. Catholics that got persecuted were persecuted for different reasons than the Jews.

          In fact, you just helped make my point. “Threat to the state” and “subversive” are the most overused total dictatorship excuses for oppressing a specific group.

          But while all homosexuals were oppressed for being homosexuals, not all Catholic’s were oppressed because they were Catholics. This is the elephant in the room. Only Catholics that were deemed subversive were getting oppressed, most Catholics were not. That means that their being Catholic was not the reason why they were being oppressed.

          Preachers here and there never posed a threat to Hitler’s totalitarian regime.

          That’s right, but preachers here and there speaking out against the regime were breaking the law. Preachers here and there who didn’t, or who supported the regime, were left alone.

          Between 1939 and 1945 more than 17,000 Catholic German priests and seminarians were conscripted into Hitler’s Wehrmacht. Men who had devoted their lives to God found themselves advancing the cause of an abhorrent regime. Lauren Faulkner Rossi draws on personal correspondence, official military reports, memoirs, and interviews to present a detailed picture of Catholic priests who served faithfully in the German armed forces in the Second World War. Most of them failed to see the bitter irony of their predicament.

          http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674598485

          Thus, the oppression of the homosexual group was no different from the oppression of the Catholics.

          Yes it was ya dumb fuck. It was illegal to be a homosexual, it wasn’t illegal to be a Catholic.

          Hitler hated them. Simple.

          And yet millions who kowtowed to the party line, or said nothing, were permitted to go on their merry way. Go figure.

          P.S. Just found an entire Wiki page on the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church. Read at your own horror.

          I’ve read that Wiki more than once before, perhaps you should try it yourself.

          Prominent Catholic lay leaders were murdered, and thousands of Catholic activists were arrested.

          In all, an estimated one third of German priests faced some form of reprisal in Nazi Germany and 400 German priests were sent to the dedicated Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp.

          One third means two thirds were not….why? And 400 out of a total of 20,000….the Nazis were more efficient than that. How did they miss so many Catholic clergy there in plain sight? No horror experienced. You’re a dumbarse.

          Once again, the oft-repeated excuse of “subversion” used over centuries to enforce your ideology onto your people.

          Well, yeah…moron…

          Even if 100% of Polish clergy were Catholic in the camps, the other groups also have an overrepresentation of Catholics.

          Now who is completely losing the point?

          The explanation is simple. Nazi’s targetted Catholics.

          Yes….Catholics who were deemed to be speaking out against the regime. Other Catholics who didn’t, were not targeted at all.

          In both German churches there were members, including clergy and leading theologians, who openly supported the Nazi regime. With time, anti-Nazi sentiment grew in both Protestant and Catholic church circles, as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them. In turn, the Nazi regime saw a potential for dissent in church criticism of state measures. When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning concern”) was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country.

          See link above.

          No need, it supports my position.

          If Hitler hated Catholics so much, why did he not just level the Vatican?

          The hell? What makes those mutually distinct? No bait and switch. Both are true, ya nut.

          You’re the nut job on here. You struggled with the difference between Christian and Christianity, now you’re doing the same thing with Catholicism and Catholics. I hate Catholicism, but do not hate Catholics…well not all of them at least. Catholicism was hated by Hitler…when it suited him…Catholics, not so much.

          How many after?

          By you argument and logic, there should’ve been none, ya clown. And yet, that wasn’t the case.

        • Meepestos

          How could one not recognize that the long history of anti-Semitism within the Catholic Church and how it played a key role in the echoing of H1tler’s passionate hatred towards Jews.

          There was no lack of Christians in German during the 1930s being so anti-Judaism to the point of being anti-Semitic, brings to mind how I can recall as late as the nineteen sixties some influential clergy going on shamelessly about how Hitler had the right idea about ridding Germany of Judaism and Jews, but emphasized he went too far. Over the years I noticed the things that come out of the mouths of clergy among themselves greatly differs than that of what they speak of around their flock; such is the nature of organized religion.

          Christians were the majority of Germany yet not enough were at front and centre to assist the Jews due to the large numbers of Christians H1tler counted on that fell for Nazi ideology not to mention Social Darwinism, negative eugenics, and antisemitism. He had no shortage of those folk like many of the Roman Catholics, which comprised a large portion of Germany’s population after the annexation of Austria, which was about 40 percent of the population. The numbers of 1.5 million to 3 million Catholics sent to camps would make it about 2 to 4 percent of Germany’s overall population or about 11 percent of the Catholic population at that time. I’m sure the Naz1s or for that matter the Catholic hierarchy realized Catholics were a demographic required for soldiers within Germany and for their occupations abroad. Who knows if it would have made a difference if the Vatican had Hitler assassinated considering many folk in that locale and times fell for ideas that would back their theologically based and non theologically based views in justifying and believing other races can be superior to others.

        • Pofarmer

          This Mark Riebling Mark Riebling (@rieblingmark). Author in Residence, Wetherfield Institute. New York, NY.

          who writes for the Wethersfield Institute?

          The purpose of Wethersfield Institute
          is to promote a clear understanding of Catholic teaching and practice
          and to explore the cultural and intellectual dimensions of the Catholic
          faith. The Institute does so in practical ways that include seminars,
          colloquies and conferences, especially as they pursue our goals on a
          scientific and scholarly level. The Institute has published some of its
          proceedings.

          https://www.wethersfieldgarden.org/wethersfield-institute.html

        • Korus Destroyus

          Oh come on Pofarmer, certainly you don’t there are people who are unbiased, right? Everyone is biased. There’s a nice thing in this world called academic review. If Riebling’s book contorted the data because Riebling was such a biased cuck, the academic reviews would be pretty negative … and yet, they’re positive. Riebling seems to have gotten his facts right. There are many Catholic historians who, in support of their religious beliefs, have written excellent scholarly monographs. Take James Hannam and Thomas Woods, for example.

        • Pofarmer

          The book isn’t peer reviewed, dumbass.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Neither is that crap “Hitler’s Pope”. And yet Riebling’s book has strong academic reviews. Not an academic source, but pretty good information no doubt.

          “dumbass.”

          The hell? Haven’t I refuted you enough times for you to get some sense in describing me? If I’m a “dumbass”, then are you a neanderthal?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And yet Riebling’s book has strong academic reviews. Not an academic source, but pretty good information no doubt.

          And so does Cornwell’s “Hitler’s Pope”…so pah!

          Not everyone sees Riebling’s book as flawless…

          Church of Spies is an extremely readable and interesting work on Catholic influence on German resistance efforts. However, the book does not provide a sufficient level of evidence to counter the perceptions of papal silence towards atrocities committed against Europe’s Jews. Although Riebling shows how the highest levels of Vatican leadership stoked the fires of the German resistance through acting as diplomats to the Western Allies and through providing the moral justification to assassinate Hitler, he falls short of convincing the reader that any meaningful action to counter the Holocaust was taken directly by the Vatican. Rather, the Vatican and Pius seem to have placed a higher value on official silence in order to minimize reprisals to Catholics in Europe at the expense of Hitler’s Jewish victims. However, the book does convincingly portray the important roles played by numerous Catholic citizens as well as German Catholic clergy. Ultimately, Riebling presents an important counter argument to Cornwell and other critics of the Vatican and Pius’s lack of action in WWII, making this is a valuable work that sheds light on the role of organized religion in modern warfare, politics, and international relations.

          Another reviewer, while mostly praising the quality of Riebling’s work, points out the problems therein with things like the reliability of his sources…

          https://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2015/12/review-of-mark-riebling-church-of-spies-the-vaticans-secret-war-against-hitler/

          And goes further, by pointing to Pius XII’s failings.

          Yet Riebling does not let Pius off the hook completely. “Judging Pius by what he did not say,” he writes, “one can only damn him.” (28). He had the duty to speak out – and on the whole did not. “During the world’s greatest moral crisis,” he notes, “its greatest moral leaders seemed at a loss for words” (28). Nor does he exonerate German Catholics. That it was the pontiff who would have to become involved in such plots speaks volumes about the fact that too few Catholics lower in the hierarchy chose a course of opposition.

          Anyway, I’m not arguing the positive things Pius XII might have been actively engaging in during Hitler’s reign of power, I’m arguing Cornwell’s accounts of his negative things he, and the RCC, was actively involved in that assisted Hitler gaining his power in the first place. If you can refute those, that would be nice.

        • epeeist

          Galileo actually offered no evidence for heliocentrism

          Galileo published his observations of the phases of Venus in his Letters on Sunspots in 1613. This is sufficient to falsify the Aristotelian geocentricism, which was an article of faith with the Catholic church. This was enough to have him condemned. As Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Father Foscarini:

          I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe.

          This led to the meeting of eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office on 24th February 1616 to consider the theological qualifications:

          1. The sun is the centre of the universe and absolutely immobile in local motion.
          2. The earth is not the centre of the universe; it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

          They unanimously censured 1. as “foolish, absurd in philosophy and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as
          likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

          On 26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summoned Galileo and before witnesses commanded him in the name of the Pope and of the whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon the position in question and no more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy Office.

          Now observation of the phases of Venus is not sufficient to demonstrate heliocentricism, but it is evidence in its favour. As your source notes the evidence also supports other possibilities, such as the geoheliocentricism of Capella, Tycho Brahe or Nicolaus Reimers.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Apparently I forgot to respond to this comment. It already has 4 upvotes, all of which are from the usual suspects. Except for some ‘Susan’.

          As I wrote earlier, Galileo offered no evidence for heliocentrism. There’s no such thing as “Aristotelian geocentrism” that the phases of Venus disproved. The phases of Venus disproved Ptolemaic geocentrism, and Galileo’s observations of sunspots disproved Aristotle’s idea of quintessence. And yet, none of this offered any evidence for heliocentrism. That’s because the idea that Venus revolves around the sun — demonstrated by the observations of the phases of Venus — are fully compatible with Tycho’s theory of geocentrism, which was the accepted model of Galileo’s day.

          You also quote, and misrepresent (unintentionally, probably) Bellarmine’s position. Bellarmine’s notes on the theological justification of geocentrism were based on the scientific consensus. More words on Bellarmine below. That’s because in Galileo’s day, there was overwhelming scientific evidence against heliocentrism — and no evidence for it. If the sun is in the center and the Earth goes around it, why does the moon go around the Earth? Today, the answer is ‘gravity’. But Galileo had never heard of gravity, nor anyone else in his century, because Newton hadn’t discovered it yet. See Christopher Graney’s Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science Against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (University of Notre Dame Press 2015) for the overwhelming scientific case against heliocentrism. There would be no evidence for the theory until James Bradley observed stellar aberration.

          Back to Bellarmine. Bellarmine clearly stated that if it could actually be shown that the Earth goes around the sun, he would just … reinterpret the Bible. Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini;

          “I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers

          (12 April, 1615)”

          In other words, to put it simply, Galileo had no evidence for heliocentrism in his day. All his observations could be explained by the Tychonian theory of geocentrism. In fact, until Newton and Bradley, heliocentrism was a theory full of holes and the scientific evidence was stacked against it. Thus, the Church simply supported the scientific consensus of its day. The Church, as Bellarmine clearly shows (the guy you tried to cite), was quite willing to change its position if a demonstration of heliocentrism was to take place. The problem is, at that time, it didn’t, and the rejection of Galileo’s heliocentrism was based on science. Galileo’s trial had nothing to do with science, furthermore, it was a political trial because Galileo attacked the Pope in his heliocentric writings — the same writings, by the way, that the Pope gave him his support in publishing (until the attacks of course — Galileo was a huge arsehole).

        • epeeist

          As I wrote earlier, Galileo offered no evidence for heliocentrism.

          And as I pointed out, the observation of the phases of Venus is a point in its favour. If you want to do it in Bayesian terms, it increases the posterior probability of the hypothesis. As I also said, it isn’t enough to eliminate other possible hypothesis, viz. geoheliocentric systems.

          There’s no such thing as “Aristotelian geocentrism” that the phases of Venus disproved. The phases of Venus disproved Ptolemaic geocentrism

          You think that people took Ptolemy as a correct description of the solar system and not as an instrument for calculation? I suggest that you have a look at Aquinas on the subject or Apian’s Cosmographia:

          https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/images/upload_library/46/Swetz_2012_Math_Treasures/Oklahoma/Apian/Apian-1545-00b1-9.png

          That’s because in Galileo’s day, there was overwhelming scientific evidence against heliocentrism — and no evidence for it.

          Strangely enough, evidence that you don’t actually mention.

          So as well as asking what this is let us also ask, what is the evidence for either an Aristotelian or a Ptolemaic solar system?

          If the sun is in the center and the Earth goes around it, why does the moon go around the Earth?

          If the earth is in the centre why do all the planets, stars etc. go around the earth?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And as I pointed out, the observation of the phases of Venus is a point in its favour. If you want to do it in Bayesian terms, it increases the posterior probability of the hypothesis. As I also said, it isn’t enough to eliminate other possible hypothesis, viz. geoheliocentric systems.”

          I’ve never seen such an incoherent response in my life. Bayes Theorem didn’t exist in Galileo’s day, bucko. Good God. And please read your own words, including my own. As I wrote, Galileo couldn’t offer the tiniest, smallest pint of evidence for heliocentrism. The phases of Venus … are not evidence for heliocentrism. Because they’re compatible with geocentrism as well. Which means … it doesn’t favor heliocentrism over geocentrism … which means it’s not evidence for any position.

          “You think that people took Ptolemy as a correct description of the solar system and not as an instrument for calculation? I suggest that you have a look at Aquinas on the subject or Apian’s Cosmographia:”

          Oops, you mixed up your facts. It was Copernicus’s heliocentric system that was initially taken as a sheer calculation model, not Ptolemy’s, deer epeeist.

          “Strangely enough, evidence that you don’t actually mention.”

          Ah, I thought you were well informed on at least this little point. The most recent scholarly work on the overwhelming evidence against heliocentrism in the days of Copernicus and Galileo is Christopher Graney’s Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science Against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (University of Notre Dame Press 2015). The scientists in those days pointed out if heliocentrism was true, there would be a Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect we know exists today, but was only discovered in 1835 and originated as a scientific, anti-Copernican argument. Scientists pointed out if Copernicus was right, parallax would be observed. It took until 1838 for parallax to be observed. It also took until Newton discovered gravity to relieve heliocentrism of many other, at the time, fatal flaws — such as this; if the Earth goes around the sun, why does the moon go around the Earth? Why not the sun? Gravity explains this, but no one in the days before heliocentrism was demonstrated in 1728 had heard of such a thing.

          “You are in favour of imprisoning people because they are arseholes?”

          No, you crackpot clown. Galileo was never imprisoned, he went under house arrest. And I’m not “supporting” it — if you weren’t such a moron, you’d have realized I was pointing out the entire affair had to do with politics, not science, like you emotionally want it to be. That’s because Galileo is the crowning jewel of the conflict thesis — the outdated historical model that science and religion have been historically separate and antagonistic. Without Galileo, let alone its other myths, this highly useful propaganda hypothesis crumbles.

        • epeeist

          I’ve never seen such an incoherent response in my life. Bayes Theorem didn’t exist in Galileo’s day, bucko.

          Strangely enough I was aware of that fact. So why can’t I use the theorem today? As it is I am perfectly happy to talk in terms of instantia crucis if you want something more contemporary. As it this raises a side question, what did Rameses II die of?

          The phases of Venus … are not evidence for heliocentrism. Because they’re compatible with geocentrism as well.

          You are going to have to draw me a diagram here, one that shows how a geocentric model of the type given in the drawing from Peter Apian allows such phases.

          Oops, you mixed up your facts.

          Oops, you failed to answer my point about Ptolemy, did you think I (and others) wouldn’t see you transparent piece of avoidance.

          It was Copernicus’s heliocentric system that was initially taken as a sheer calculation model

          Well yes, I am perfectly well aware that only Giovanni Benedetti, Thomas Digges and Giordano Bruno (whatever happened to him?) took the model as a description rather than a method of calculation. But of course this doesn’t answer the question as to whether Ptolemy’s model was taken as a description or a method of calculation.

          Ah, I thought you were well informed on at least this little point.

          Having actually read De revolutionibus then I am familiar with the objections to his own model that Copernicus points out. Shall we say I had some doubts as to your knowledge and understanding of the subject.

          The scientists in those days pointed out if heliocentrism was true, there would be a Coriolis effect.

          The Coriolis effect has nothing to do with heliocentricism, only with the the rotation of the earth on its axis. To use your own phrase, it is “compatible with geocentrism” as well as heliocentricism. You can find writings on the topic in the works of John Buridan and Nicholas Oresme.

          Scientists pointed out if Copernicus was right, parallax would be observed.

          Scientists? You can’t use that word, it was only invented in the 19th century by William Whewell. Yes, this is a point raised against the model by Copernicus.

          if the Earth goes around the sun, why does the moon go around the Earth?

          I see you also avoided the question as to why the planets, stars etc. rotate around the earth in a geocentric model.

          Oh, and I also note that you failed to provide any evidence that supports a geocentric model.

          Trying to put myself into the mindset of the time, perhaps the reason that the moon circles the earth is the same reason that the moons of Jupiter circle that planet.

          Galileo was never imprisoned, he went under house arrest.

          Not too far from where I live is Bolton Castle where Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned. She still had around fifty servants and attendants including an embroiderer, secretary, doctor, apothecary and two cooks, as well as her personal maids so she lived in relative luxury but it was imprisonment nevertheless.

          It would seem that Galileo’s accusers took the same view, although he was placed in the same sort of situation they stated that:

          We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.

          if you weren’t such a moron, you’d have realized I was pointing out the entire affair had to do with politics, not science, like you emotionally want it to be.

          Ah, so you want to intimate that Galileo (and presumably Copernicus before him) were raising a heliocentric model for political reasons…

          I am quite happy to accept that there were political reasons involved, but this was because the church and its authority that were being threatened.

          As for the conflict hypothesis, I have never had time for it.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Strangely enough I was aware of that fact. So why can’t I use the theorem today? As it is I am perfectly happy to talk in terms of instantia crucis if you want something more contemporary. As it this raises a side question, what did Rameses II die of?”

          You can’t use Bayes theorem today because … I’m not disputing heliocentrism. Are you daft? The point, which I’m required to repeat over and over, is that Galileo, in his day, had absolutely no evidence for heliocentrism. Since Bayes’ theorem comes long after Galileo, my point remains quite intact.

          “You are going to have to draw me a diagram here, one that shows how a geocentric model of the type given in the drawing from Peter Apian allows such phases.”

          No one here, epeeist, is talking about Apian’s model of geocentrism but yourself. The phases of Venus show that Venus goes around the sun. Tychoe’s geocentric includes Venus (and all the other planets) going around the sun, and the sun goes around the Earth. Another geocentric model from those days that the phases of Venus were compatible with was Heraclidean geocentrism, which proposed that only Mercury and Venus circled the sun, whereas the sun and all the other planets circled the Earth. So the phases of Venus weren’t evidence for heliocentrism.

          “Oops, you failed to answer my point about Ptolemy, did you think I (and others) wouldn’t see you transparent piece of avoidance.”

          Oops, it does, actually. Ptolemy’s model was not a method for calculation. Copernicus’s was. I thought that was a rather obvious implication of my words.

          “Scientists? You can’t use that word, it was only invented in the 19th century by William Whewell. Yes, this is a point raised against the model by Copernicus.”

          Sorry epeeist, you’d need a brick in your head if you don’t think, in the vernacular of modern historiography, that natural philosophers can’t be simply referred to as scientists for the sake of convenience.

          You also clearly evaded my point, I wonder why. One of the evidences against heliocentrism in Galileo’s day was the lack of observation of any parallax. This was a serious scientific criticism of heliocentrism that, until observed parallax was observed in 1838, couldn’t be answered. Which means Galileo, in his day, had pretty big holes in his ideas.

          “I see you also avoided the question as to why the planets, stars etc. rotate around the earth in a geocentric model.”

          No, dishonest quack, I didn’t “avoid” this since you hadn’t asked me about it earlier. The explanation for this is simply in Aristotelian physics — these circular orbits around the Earth were simply the natural movements of the planets.

          “Oh, and I also note that you failed to provide any evidence that supports a geocentric model.”

          Another lie, since I was talking about something entirely different. In any case, this can be easily supplied. For example, if the Earth isn’t the center of the cosmos … why does everything fall downwards? Why don’t we all fall up towards the sun, which is really the center? No heliocentrist really had a clue until gravity came along. So not only in Galileo’s day was there no evidence for heliocentrism and good evidence against it, but there was also good evidence for geocentrism.

          “Not too far from where I live is Bolton Castle where Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned. She still had around fifty servants and attendants including an embroiderer, secretary, doctor, apothecary and two cooks, as well as her personal maids so she lived in relative luxury but it was imprisonment nevertheless.”

          And now, poor epeeist, traps himself in his attempts of semantics. “House arrest”, as in being confined into your house, is different from “imprisonment”, being confined in a prison. You also happen to touch on something nice to mention — Galileo’s house he was arrested in was more like a comfortable mansion. Sorry, but misreprsenting the facts of Mary, queen of the Scots, wont help you. She, also, was never imprisoned. She was just held in custody in various castles. The accusers of Galileo actually didn’t think they were imprisoning Galileo, because despite the loaded Inquisition language, he was … never actually put in a prison. This stuff isn’t hard man. Harvard University Press actually published a book close to a decade ago with the neat little title Galileo Goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion. And now, after painfully dealing with all that, let’s dispense with your final claim.

          “Ah, so you want to intimate that Galileo (and presumably Copernicus before him) were raising a heliocentric model for political reasons…
          I am quite happy to accept that there were political reasons involved, but this was because the church and its authority that were being threatened.”

          All this is, of course, false. No honest reader of my comments could possibly conceive I said that the reasons Galileo and Copernicus came up with their theories was politics. No, the point is that Galileo’s entire trial, the trial itself dear sir, was because of politics, not science. As is a known fact, the authority of the Church was actually never threatened by Galileo’s ideas. As I demonstrated earlier, Cardinal Bellarmine specifically stated he would have no trouble reinterpreting the Bible if any evidence for heliocentrism could be produced (of course, he and Galileo knew full well there was none). Indeed, it was all politics. Galileo, after the Pope himself supported his publication of his heliocentric tracts, basically pulled a fast one and portrayed the Pope himself and many of the leading theologians are morons. Galileo, if you weren’t aware, was a huge arsehole. And that’s why he was convicted. The obvious proof for the point that it literally had nothing to do with religion or science is that … Galileo wasn’t even formally charged with heresy. That simply wasn’t the charge.

          And the obvious proof for the fact that Galileo had no evidence for heliocentrism is the following. The one evidence he did propose was the tides of the Earth. And yet, it was clear to Galileo’s own contemporaries that Galileo was just manipulating the data. And earlier this year, even more evidence of Galileo’s dishonesty emerged.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06769-4

          You really do love the conflict thesis, don’t ya? It’s obvious.

        • epeeist

          Because I’m not disputing heliocentrism.

          No, and you aren’t answering questions that are being put to you either. I note the fact that you haven’t given me any reason why I can’t use Bayes theorem. Yet another example of you dissembling when you are unable (or unwilling) to respond. Oh, and Ramases II, according to the literature he died of tuberculosis, but according to your “logic” we can’t say that since Koch only discovered the bacillus in 1882.

          At first, you gave me the appearance of actually knowing the history we’re talking about. No one here, poor epeeist, is talking about Apian’s model of geocentrism … but yourself.

          The model under discussion is the one against which Galileo wrote and as a consequence was condemned. This would of course be system that is documented by Apian, if you don’t like that version here is a Ptolemaic view from Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andreas Cellarius

          http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/cellarius/images/hm/hm_03.jpg

          Note the facts that the orbits are circular, we’ll come back to that later.

          I note that once again you are guilty of dissembling, this time because you are incapable of producing the picture I asked for.

          Some geocentric models in Galileo’s day, like Tychoe’s, includes Venus going around the sun.

          Which I have already accepted would show Venus having phases, but this isn’t the model under discussion.

          Oops, it does, actually. Ptolemy’s model was not a method for calculation.

          Two things, the first and obvious one is that the diagram above shows circular orbits, not ones that include epicycles. The second thing is that if it were the case that the Ptolemaic model was a description then one would expect that the values of the eccentrics, deferents, equants and the number of epicycles would be fixed. In actuality they are not, one is free to choose independent scale factors or increase the number of epicycles to increase the accuracy. In other words Ptolemy was effectively simply curve fitting (his procedure is equivalent to using a Fourier series). This much is apparent from the brief biography in Britannica.

          I think we can close this one off, Ptolemy’s work was indeed a method of calculation and not a description.

          What total, pedantic crap. You’d need a brick in your head if you don’t think, in the vernacular of modern historiography, that natural philosophers can’t be simply referred to as scientists for the sake of convenience.

          And yet you would deny me the use of Bayes theorem as an explanatory mechanism.

          The explanation for this is simply in Aristotelian physics — these circular orbits around the Earth were simply the natural movements of the planets.

          Ah yes, and the sleep-inducing properties of opium stem from its “virtus dormitiva”.

          Obviously this is no explanation at all.

          In fact the geocentric model is simply another example of the passive empiricism of Aristotle, where one puts forward based on observation but doesn’t put it to test. For example if we go back to Aristotle and Ptolemy, the idea that the planets trace circular orbits around the earth is simply an assumption based as much as anything else on aesthetics, the Pythagorean idea of the sphere as the most perfect figure.

          However we will put it down, once more, as you dissembling and being incapable of responding to a question put to you.

          Another dishonest little lie, since my original statement was that there were countless scientific holes in heliocentrism at the time.

          But a hole in one theory is not evidence for another theory. All theories stand on their own merits.

          We’ll put this one down as a lack of understanding of science and its methodology on your part.

          For example, if the Earth isn’t the center of the cosmos … why does everything fall downwards?

          But if the earth is the centre of the cosmos why does everything fall downwards?

          EDIT: Accidentally pressed the “Submit” button.

          “House arrest”, as in being confined into your house, is different from “imprisonment”, being confined in a prison.

          You seemed to have missed this sentence from my previous post:

          We condemn thee to the PRISON of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure;

          I have capitalised it as well as emboldened it to help you out.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “No, and you aren’t answering questions that are being put to you either. I note the fact that you haven’t given me any reason why I can’t use Bayes theorem.”

          Actually, I did, poor epeeist. My point is that in Galileo’s day, there was no evidence for heliocentrism. A later theory sorely helps to fix that. As I pointed out later, as well, Bayes theorem actually doesn’t provide any evidence at all for heliocentrism based on Galileo’s observations. That’s because, hint hint, the phases of Venus were fully compatible with Tycho’s theory as well, and so in relation to the geocentric models available at the time that were still being promulgated, the probability of Galileo’s theory wasn’t an inch higher.

          “The model under discussion is the one against which Galileo wrote”

          Nice try, but a total lie. The “model” under discussion is not any specific model — rather geocentrism in general. In fact, given my numerous references to Tycho’s model, that should have been a pretty clear hint that this wasn’t the topic under discussion. There’s no doubt that the Ptolemaic model for geocentrism, which is essentially the one that was refuted by the observations of Galileo. The Tychonian and Heraclidean ones, however … weren’t. Because they both have Venus going around the sun.

          “I note that once again you are guilty of dissembling, this time because you are incapable of producing the picture I asked for.”

          When the hell did you ask me for a picture? And why should I care to produce a picture, either? If you want to post a picture, post the picture. I don’t even know what picture you want. The Appian crap? Remember, bucko, you’re the only one talking about that.

          “The second thing is that if it were the case that the Ptolemaic model was a description then one would expect that the values of the eccentrics, deferents, equants and the number of epicycles would be fixed. In actuality they are not, one is free to choose independent scale factors or increase the number of epicycles to increase the accuracy.”

          Of course this was allowed. The Ptolemaic model was never a rigid orthodoxy, and could be varied here and there depending on the whichever author was writing. But it was obviously not a “method for calculation”, the essential ideas were taken very seriously, and in the Islamic world for example, Islamic scholars spent centuries trying to tune Ptolemy’s model so that they could achieve its accuracy (and better) without things like the equant and the endless epicycles and whatnot, which they viewed as too complex to be true.

          “Ah yes, and the sleep-inducing properties of opium stem from its “virtus dormitiva”.

          Obviously this is no explanation at all.”

          It was an explanation, actually, given the fact that Aristotelian physics was accepted back then. Asking me for an “accurate” explanation is just a little trap since we both know that the model, in general, was wrong. But the “explanation” was quite available. On the other hand, on heliocentrism, no one really had a clue what was going on for many details and holes in the theory until around 1800.

          “In fact the geocentric model is simply another example of the passive empiricism of Aristotle, where one puts forward based on observation but doesn’t put it to test.”

          Yes, epeeist, Aristotle was wrong. We know that now. Thanks for the hint. Ptolemy’s model was accepted for so long because it achieved, for the most part, the golden aim of any naturalistic theory. It could explain the observations. In fact, Ptolemy’s model was within 1 degree of accuracy. That is a pretty good reason to accept it, anyone living before the 16th century would have had to agree.

          Anyways, as I pointed out, a pretty giant hole in heliocentrism is, if the sun is in the center, why does everything fall downwards? Once again, we get a similar reply from before;

          “But if the earth is the centre of the cosmos why does everything fall downwards?”

          Once again, sir, Aristotelian physics. Heavier elements, like earth and water, stay down. Wind goes around, and fire rises. Quintessence is just out there in the heavens. Aristotelian physics had obviously never been verified, but until the time, neither was it disproven. And even if it wasn’t demonstrated, it still provided a rationalistic explanation for the phenomenon. On the other hand, heliocentrism did not have this in the least. Your greatest flaw, one that’s clearly the block between you and admitting you’re entirely wrong, is using your 21st century information about all this science as if it applies to what people knew in the 17th. No, sir, if we’re discussing whether or not heliocentrism or geocentrism was the better model in Galileo’s day, we’re assuming the knowledge of Galileo’s day. If you can’t show, as is obvious you will never be able to show, that given that knowledge, heliocentrism isn’t far off worse, then I’m utterly correct in my position — Galileo had no evidence in the least and heliocentrism was fatally flawed and would be for nearly a century after Galileo’s death. Until James Bradley, of course.

          “I have capitalised it as well as emboldened it to help you out.”

          Perhaps I should also capitalize to help you out.

          DESPITE THE LOADED INQUISITION LANGUAGE, GALILEO WAS NOT ACTUALLY PUT IN A PRISON. THAT’S QUITE AN IMPORTANT DETAIL, AS IT TURNS OUT.

          Sheesh.

        • epeeist

          My point is that in Galileo’s day, there was no evidence for heliocentrism.

          You keep asserting that:

          P1. If it is the case that the solar system is heliocentric then Venus will show a complete set of phases;

          P2. Venus does show a complete set of phases

          C: The hypothesis that the solar system is heliocentric is veridcal

          In other words, the phases of Venus are evidence for a heliocentric system. As I have pointed out multiple times, they are also evidence for a geoheliocentric system as well.

          Bayes theorem actually doesn’t provide any evidence at all for heliocentrism based on Galileo’s observations.

          Of course it doesn’t. That is because it is a technique for assessing the credence we should place on an hypothesis based on the available evidence. Even the simplest formulation shows this:


          Pr(H | E) = Pr(E | H) . Pr(H) / Pr(E)

          Nice try, but a total lie. The “model” under discussion is not any specific model — rather geocentrism in general.

          Since it is Galileo we are discussing then the two models in his Dialogo are the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic and Copernican. Geoheliocentric models, such as Tycho’s, are a red herring.

          The Appian (sic) crap? Remember, bucko, you’re the only one talking about that.

          I’m the one talking about the models in the Dialogo and using contemporary references. You are the one trying to shift the conversation.

          Of course this was allowed. The Ptolemaic model was never a rigid orthodoxy, and could be varied here and there depending on the whichever author was writing.

          So what are you proposing here, author dependent reality?

          The point is that Ptolemy’s model merely saves the appearances, one is free to choose the parameters as one wishes. Want the deferent of Mercury to be larger than that of Saturn? No problem, given that the model depends not on the values of deferent and radii of epicycles but on their ratio. If the values are arbitrary then how can it be anything but instrumental?

          It was an explanation, actually, given the fact that Aristotelian physics was accepted back then.

          Oh, I accept that this is all there was and that it saves the appearances. Saving the appearances is not the same as providing an explanation though.

          Once again, sir, Aristotelian physics.

          Oh, I know about the five elements but this does not explain why everything falls down if the earth is the centre of the solar system but not if the sun is the centre of the solar system.

          DESPITE THE LOADED INQUISITION LANGUAGE, GALILEO WAS NOT ACTUALLY PUT IN A PRISON.

          Noting that the Holy Office condemned him to prison is hardly loaded language. The question is why he was confined to his villa rather than placed in prison and you provide the answer, he was too old and infirm.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “In other words, the phases of Venus are evidence for a heliocentric system.”

          Sorry, semantics aren’t my favorite hobby. When I’m talking about evidence regarding competing theories in Galileo’s day, it’s clear that heliocentrism, in relation to geocentric theories like Tycho’s, had no support. A theory can only have support or evidence over another when it is consistent with something the other isn’t.

          “Since it is Galileo we are discussing then the two models in his Dialogo are the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic and Copernican. Geoheliocentric models, such as Tycho’s, are a red herring.”

          Another attempt to escape, now that I’ve clearly got you in a corner. No, the discussion, almost from the very beginning, is about Tycho’s model in specific. We’re talking about Galileo’s time, not the specific models Galileo just so happened to have mentioned in his writings. In comparison to Tychonian geocentrism (and other variations of geocentrism in Galileo’s time), heliocentrism was in big trouble given the available evidence.

          “I’m the one talking about the models in the Dialogo and using contemporary references. You are the one trying to shift the conversation.”

          Yes, you tried to bring in the model in the Dialogo even though it was an irrelevant shift of the conversation since, again, I’m talking about geocentrism in Galileo’s time and you’re the one trying to restrict this conversation to one specific model. The reason why you’re trying to do this is obvious. You realized you were wrong and, instead of honestly admitting so, trying to clutch at something so you don’t feel embarrassed.

          “So what are you proposing here, author dependent reality?”

          When I clicked on that link and was taken to that Wikipedia page, I was almost stunned that you misinterpreted my comment in such a crazy way. Let me try writing this again. Ptolemy’s model was never taken as a rigid orthodoxy, and many writers — in both Europe and the Arab world — took freely to manipulating and changing aspects of the model to make it better/more coherent.

          “The point is that Ptolemy’s model merely saves the appearances, one is free to choose the parameters as one wishes.”

          That is literally the point I’m trying to make the entire time.

          “Oh, I know about the five elements but this does not explain why everything falls down if the earth is the centre of the solar system but not if the sun is the centre of the solar system.”

          That’s a pretty big “if” in Galileo’s day. Let me try phrasing it this way. Geocentrism, when including Aristotle’s physics, had a coherent explanation for why things fall down towards the Earth before gravity. Heliocentrism was just clueless. Again, there were many observations back in the day that were incomprehensible on heliocentrism and had a perfectly fine geocentric explanation.

          “Noting that the Holy Office condemned him to prison is hardly loaded language. The question is why he was confined to his villa rather than placed in prison and you provide the answer, he was too old and infirm.”

          Finally, you admit you’re wrong and I’m right — Galileo was never sent to jail, despite the loaded Inquisition language.

        • epeeist

          Something isn’t evidence for a particular theory if it fits other theories as well.

          Which particular orifice did you pull that out of? Have you never heard of the term “necessary and sufficient”?

          For both the heliocentric and geoheliocentric models it is necessary that Venus shows a full set of phases but this is not sufficient to show which hypothesis is correct.

          If I say the ball is blue, and you say the ball is
          red, and it turns out there’s a ball, there isn’t any more evidence for your hypothesis in relation to mine.

          Seriously? You are putting this forward as an example of a scientific hypothesis?

          This is all much of a muchness of the lack of understanding you have demonstrated here. You claimed that the only evidence that Galileo had for heliocentricism was “the waves of the ocean”, this is wrong; what Galileo did was to produce model for the tides on the assumption of an heliocentric solar system, what he didn’t do was to argue that the tides showed that the solar system was heliocentric. You also claimed that the Coriolis effect was an effect of heliocentricism, this is wrong, the effect is merely a consequence of the rotation of the earth. At the same time you missed out the principle objections to heliocentricism, namely the implications of the rectilinear motion of the earth through a plenum. Admittedly you did raise one counter-argument, namely the lack of annual parallax. This is one that Copernicus discussed in the Commentariolus.

          Another attempt to escape, now that I’ve clearly got you in a corner.

          In your dreams. Actually the attempt to escape is yours, if we go back to this post we can see that the subject of discussion is the trial and conviction of Galileo for the publication of the Dialogo. Tycho’s geoheliocentricism (not geocentricism, you need to get your terms right) is a side issue to this.

          “The point is that Ptolemy’s model merely saves the appearances, one is free to choose the parameters as one wishes.”

          Finally, you seem to be getting it.

          Which is more than can be said for you. If it is the case that the deferent and radii of the epicycles can be chosen arbitrarily then they cannot correspond to physical observables. Which once again shows that Ptolemy’s model is instrumental.

          The five elements ideas of Aristotle actually does explain this, as I explained in my last comment.

          Things really need to be spelt out for you don’t you. We would agree that at the time it was thought that the laws that applied in the celestial sphere were different to those that operated on Earth. So what is that means these laws apply in a geocentric case but cease to apply in the heliocentric (or geoheliocentric) case?

          Galileo was never sent to jail, despite the loaded Inquisition language.

          I never mentioned the inquisition, that was you.

          1. Was Galileo tried and convicted? Yes

          2. Did the Holy Office condemn him to prison? Yes

          3. Was the sentence commuted to house-arrest because of his age and infirmity and so that he could be close to his doctors? Yes.

          4. Was he cabin’d, cribbed, confined to his home for the rest of his life, unable to fulfil his duties as mathematician and philosopher of the grand duke of Tuscany? Yes

          But you want to ignore all this purely on the semantic issue of him not being in jail. If you want to go that route then you presumably wouldn’t consider those incarcerated in Colditz Castle during WW II as prisoners because it was a camp and not a prison.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The prick is frustrating, if nothing else, eh?

        • epeeist

          The prick is frustrating, if nothing else, eh?

          Indeed, I suspect that he doesn’t realise just how much he is exposing his lack of understanding and his dishonesty to the world though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bingo!

          And one of your closing blockquote html tags needs fixing.

        • Pofarmer

          It seems like they think that if they issue forth bullshit with authority that’s all it takes. After all, that’s what they’re used to.

        • epeeist

          It seems like they think that if they issue forth bullshit with authority that’s all it takes.

          One thing does strike me. He claims to be a “trained researcher” and yet offers little in the way of references to back up his claims. In my case he has cited a single book but has not quoted from it. It is almost as though he hasn’t read it…

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Which particular orifice did you pull that out of? Have you never heard of the term “necessary and sufficient”?
          For both the heliocentric and geoheliocentric models it is necessary that Venus shows a full set of phases but this is not sufficient to show which hypothesis is correct.”

          I’m well aware that Venus orbiting the sun is a necessity of heliocentrism. What this quite doesn’t show is that heliocentrism, in relation to geocentrism at the time, had any more evidence for it during Galileo’s day. Because it didn’t. This is a little game of semantics you’re trying to pull when in fact there wasn’t the slightest valid scientitic reason to be a geocentrist until 1727.

          “Seriously? You are putting this forward as an example of a scientific hypothesis?”

          Strawman — an analogy, not a scientific hypothesis. Seriously? If you claimed there were red and blue balls in a bag, and I said there were red and green balls in a bag, and someone pulled a red ball out of the bag, neither theory has more justification or evidence in relation to the other.

          “You claimed that the only evidence that Galileo had for heliocentricism was “the waves of the ocean”, this is wrong; what Galileo did was to produce model for the tides on the assumption of an heliocentric solar system, what he didn’t do was to argue that the tides showed that the solar system was heliocentric.”

          Actually, he did exactly that. Galileo claimed that the tides of the Earth demonstrate that the Earth undergoes a combination of rotation and orbital motion; critics like Giovanni Battista Baliani pointed out that his data in no way implied any of these two things, and that if anything, his claims would imply the Earth circles the moon, not the sun. So yes, he clearly did use it as evidence for heliocentrism.

          “Admittedly you did raise one counter-argument, namely the lack of annual parallax. This is one that Copernicus discussed in the Commentariolus.”

          And, you forgot to mention, failed to adequately answer.

          “In your dreams. Actually the attempt to escape is yours, if we go back to this post we can see that the subject of discussion is the trial and conviction of Galileo for the publication of the Dialogo. Tycho’s geoheliocentricism (not geocentricism, you need to get your terms right) is a side issue to this.”

          Ooops. That comment doesn’t mention or discuss the Dialogo, nor is that comment even a response to you — it’s a response to Pofarmer. This topic, from the beginning, has been about geocentrism, as is conclusively proven by the fact that I mentioned Tycho’s model in my first response to you.

          “3. Was the sentence commuted to house-arrest because of his age and infirmity and so that he could be close to his doctors? Yes.”

          Where did the Inquisition say that the sentence was commuted because of his age and infirmity? Nowhere. Whoops. Just another one of your ‘inferences’. As I keep telling you, the word ‘imprisoned’ in that Inquisition text is hyperbole. If you can’t produce the document where the Inquisition says that Galileo’s sentence is being commuted from imprisonment to house arrest, you’ll have to concede that house arrest was the topic the entire time.

          “But you want to ignore all this purely on the semantic issue of him not being in jail.”

          That’s not semantics, that’s actually a totally different thing than house arrest.

          “If you want to go that route then you presumably wouldn’t consider those incarcerated in Colditz Castle during WW II as prisoners because it was a camp and not a prison.”

          My guy, concentration camps ARE PRISONS, LOL. That’s why you can actually find people in them referred to as prisoners anywhere you look. No such finding is possible with people under house arrest.

        • epeeist

          We have a series of visitors over the next week for whom I will have to cook. We are then going to friends in Canterbury (you might care to look at what tertiary educational establishment is based there and what its history is) so I doubt I will be posting here until well into January.

          But before I go I think this comment about Colditz Castle shows your level of competence as a “trained researcher”.

          My guy, concentration camps ARE PRISONS, LOL.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “But before I go I think this comment about Colditz Castle shows your level of competence as a “trained researcher”.”

          My guy, when have I claimed to be a “TRAINED RESEARCHER”? I’m a layman history buff and published some article once upon a time, but nowhere have I made such a claim.

          You also might want to check your response to me again. All you do is quote me saying “My guy, concentration camps ARE PRISONS, LOL.” and your comment ends there. I’ll assume you accidentally deleted most of your response before posting or something like that. Either way, I’ll give you as long as you need to cook for your friends.

        • epeeist

          I got a new oven just before Christmas (one of the reasons I was only posting sporadically; don’t ask). Anyway I am now putting it through its paces. Spelt and yoghurt bread with a black onion seed topping and a tomato and herb bread:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7fc795270d999fbd9894011e74e75c10443162fc4fd091d62e799e7de7dfce61.jpg

        • Greg G.

          I think I could be there by tomorrow. Will there be anything left?

        • epeeist

          Ah well, Christmas is over for another year as is our visit to my old friend the now retired deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Kent. What, you didn’t think I would be back? You somehow thought you had “extinguished” me?

          I’m well aware that Venus orbiting the sun is a necessity of heliocentrism. What this quite doesn’t show is that heliocentrism, in relation to geocentrism at the time, had any more evidence for it during Galileo’s day.

          You keep asserting this, even though you were unable to rebut my pseudo modus ponens and the fact that it is a classic example of Hempel’s D-N covering law. Certainly others take it as evidence for heliocentrism, for example Drake, S. Galileo, Kepler and the Phases of Venus. Journal for the History of Astronomy Vol 15, Issue 3, (1984) 198-208/

          Let’s take a modern example. In 1919 Arthur Eddington and his collaborators measured the deflection of light by the sun. The agreement of the observed value with that predicted by the general theory is necessary to confirm the theory but insufficient between it and, say, Brans–Dicke theory. Are you saying that Eddington’s measurements were not evidence for GR?

          Strawman — an analogy, not a scientific hypothesis. Seriously? If you claimed there were red and blue balls in a bag, and I said there were red and green balls in a bag, and someone pulled a red ball out of the bag

          An analogy so poor that you have had to change it. As it is your new example is little better, for one thing there are only two outcomes and secondly the situation is capable of proof, something that is not possible for scientific theories.

          neither theory has more justification or evidence in relation to the other.

          Indeed, one might say that the hypotheses are under-determined by the data.

          Actually, he did exactly that. Galileo claimed that the tides of the Earth demonstrate that the Earth undergoes a combination of rotation and orbital motion; critics like Giovanni Battista Baliani pointed out that his data in no way implied any of these two things, and that if anything, his claims would imply the Earth circles the moon, not the sun. So yes, he clearly did use it as evidence for heliocentrism.

          He did? And yet you have provided nothing to warrant your assertion. As it is I suggest that you read Palmieri, P. Re-examining Galileo’s Theory of Tides. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 53 (1998) 223–375

          And, you forgot to mention, failed to adequately answer.

          Why should I need to answer it? The distance to the stars was unknown at the time of Galileo, what is wrong with Copernicus making the assumption that they were too far away for annual parallax to be observed? (As it is Galileo’s observations of stars offers some support for this assumption)

          Ooops. That comment doesn’t mention or discuss the Dialogo, nor is that comment even a response to you — it’s a response to Pofarmer. This topic, from the beginning, has been about geocentrism, as is conclusively proven by the fact that I mentioned Tycho’s model in my first response to you.

          So why the concentration on Galileo? If all you want to discuss is the cosmology of the time then Galileo appears as someone whose observations undermine a geocentric cosmology and provide support for heliocentric and geoheliocentric theories, his personal circumstances don’t matter. If however you want to discuss the history of the trial and condemnation of Galileo then the Dialogo is of primary importance and Tycho’s cosmology is a side issue. Of course if your aim is to protect the reputation of the Catholic church then I can see why one would want to conflate the two issues.

          Where did the Inquisition say that the sentence was commuted because of his age and infirmity? Nowhere. Whoops. Just another one of your ‘inferences’.

          Actually I got my information from the Galileo Project website at Rice University and from the article on Galileo in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so not my inference at all.

          As I keep telling you, the word ‘imprisoned’ in that Inquisition text is hyperbole. If you can’t produce the document where the Inquisition says that Galileo’s sentence is being commuted from imprisonment to house arrest, you’ll have to concede that house arrest was the topic the entire time.

          And if you don’t warrant your claim that the “imprisoned” in the quotation I gave is hyperbole then why should I not take it literally? As it is I suggest that you read the letter from Commissary-General Vincenso Firenzuola to Cardinal Francesco Barverini in which he says:

          Today I think of examining him in order to obtain the said confession; and having, as I hope, received it, it will only remain to me further to question him with regard to his intention and to receive his defence plea; that done, he might have [his]house assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.

          My guy, concentration camps ARE PRISONS, LOL. That’s why you can actually find people in them referred to as prisoners anywhere you look. No such finding is possible with people under house arrest.

          You would have thought a “history buff” would know that Colditz castle was not a concentration camp, but there you go.

          So a “camp” is a prison and hence can hold prisoners but someone’s house assigned as a prison is not a prison and presumably therefore cannot hold prisoners. Which would mean Galileo wasn’t imprisoned and could move freely in and out as he wished.

          Your name is Humpty-Dumpty and I claim my £5.00.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ah, poor epeeist is back. Let’s try this again.

          “You keep asserting this, even though you were unable to rebut my pseudo modus ponens and the fact that it is a classic example of Hempel’s D-N covering law. Certainly others take it as evidence for heliocentrism, for example Drake, S. Galileo, Kepler and the Phases of Venus. Journal for the History of Astronomy Vol 15, Issue 3, (1984) 198-208/”

          Actually, that paper talks about how Galileo thought of it as evidence, but only ended up formally concluding that it rendered Ptolemy’s model untenable. Whatever Hempel’s D-N covering law’s law is, perhaps it’s time to conclude this point since you seem intent on stretching out the semantics of this question to sheer uselessness. Obviously, I’m completely right about the fact that this provided no new evidence for heliocentrism in relation to Tychonian geocentrism. That would require something fitting on heliocentrism that doesn’t fit with geocentrism. What the phases of Venus do removed some of the arguments against heliocentrism, thus increasing its prior probability — an irrelevant concept in Galileo’s time. Since the facts are clear, and since Galileo had not a hint of observation that could make his theory look more credible than geocentrism, we can agree on the facts and leave the useless semantics. Clearly, Eddington’s findings in relation to Brans–Dicke theory are of no relevance.

          “An analogy so poor that you have had to change it. As it is your new example is little better, for one thing there are only two outcomes and secondly the situation is capable of proof, something that is not possible for scientific theories.”

          Complete fantasy. Analogies aren’t identical to what you’re comparing against, so the entire latter section of the response is irrelevant. My situation isn’t also capable of proof at all, unless you mean “proof” in a generic sense. Nothing, but logic and maths, are capable of proofs. Eliminating these complete red herrings, of course, the situation perfectly demonstrates the point that you genuinely seem unable, or unwilling, to understand. Two hypotheses make the same prediction. The prediction is confirmed. Neither hypothesis is better off in relation to the other. Plain. Done. Simple.

          “He did? And yet you have provided nothing to warrant your assertion. As it is I suggest that you read Palmieri, P. Re-examining Galileo’s Theory of Tides. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 53 (1998) 223–375”

          Actually, I blatantly demonstrated that. Looks like you didn’t see the other response I made after that one.

          A third example of some of the particularly interesting arguments from the 126 is pro-Copernican argument number 48, regarding the tides of the sea. This is Galileo’s famous argument from the Dialogue. In presenting the argument, Riccioli relates Galileo’s theory: tides “are explained by no other more suitable and evident manner, or at least not adduced by
          a more probable cause, than through unequal motion of the Earth arising by reason of the combined diurnal and annual motion.” (Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority, 112)

          There you have it. Galileo argued (and was refuted) that the tides reveals heliocentrism. Graney goes on to show (same page) how Galileo’s contemporaries refuted him, showing that not only was Galileo’s observations in error, but they pointed out his observations would sooner show the Earth rotated around the moon than the sun.

          As I pointed out, you were ridiculously trying to restrict the conversation to some specific model and exclude Tycho’s, even though, from the very beginning, I made it dead clear that my point was Galileo failed to show to any of his contemporaries that there was any scientific evidence to overturn geocentrism. This, in turn, helps quite nicely show the absurdity of the conflict thesis myth that Galileo was tried for science rather than, say, clearly politics. You respond;

          “So why the concentration on Galileo?”

          Ummm … because the point is that Galileo failed to overturn geocentrism, like so many claim, and that his trial had nothing to do with science (the science was quite clearly against him overall, actually).

          “Of course if your aim is to protect the reputation of the Catholic church then I can see why one would want to conflate the two issues.”

          Protect the reputation of the Catholic Chuch? Clear paranoia.

          “Actually I got my information from the Galileo Project website at Rice University and from the article on Galileo in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so not my inference at all.”

          Umm … OK … quote it. Where do they say that Galileo’s sentence was ever commuted because of his age and infirmity? Your exact words very recently;

          “3. Was the sentence commuted to house-arrest because of his age and infirmity and so that he could be close to his doctors? Yes.”

          Oddly, a quick look at the Stanfard encyclopedia article on Galileo shows that they never ascribe the commuting of his sentence to age and infirmity at all. As I pointed out, this is only your own sheer addition to the facts. And the fact that you seem to just admit that Galileo went to house arrest refutes the relevance of that quote you gave earlier of the Inquisition sentencing him to being imprisoned — in fact, he was never imprisoned, precisely as I said, and only went under house arrest.

          Hilariously, you quote that little quote again;

          “he might have [his]house assigned to him as a prison, as hinted to me by your Eminence, to whom I offer my most humble reverence.”

          In fact, Galileo’s sentence, as we’ve just seen, was commuted. The main point I’m making seems to be confirmed, once again, beyond dispute. No imprisonment for Galileo. At all.

          “You would have thought a “history buff” would know that Colditz castle was not a concentration camp, but there you go.”

          What are you even talking about this time? Colditz castle wasn’t a concentration camp, it was a prisoner-of-war camp. So what?

          “Your name is Humpty-Dumpty and I claim my £5.00.”

          Ughh .. OK … Your name is Epeeist the KooKoo Quack, and I claim your apology for being wrong.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ah, and just to double up on the point that Galileo did, in fact, use the tides as an evidence for heliocentrism, here are the words of David Lindberg on the subject, certainly one of the foremost historians of science in the world (along with others like Ronald Numbers, Lawrence Principe, Peter Harrison ..);

          Crucial to his positive case was an argument from the tides, which claimed that the only adequate explanation of the tides was to see them as the sloshing of water in the great sea basins owing to the double motion of the earth (annual about the Sun and daily on its
          axis). (Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers, eds. When science and Christianity meet. University of Chicago Press, 2003, 52.

          Not only did he produce the tides as only adequately explained on heliocentrism as Lindberg notes, but it was even a crucial component to his case. How awful when it was easily refuted, then.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Also forgot to respond to this;

          “Your author. Look it up, dumbass.”

          Are you daft, dude? Each chapter in the Galileo goes to jail book has a different author. It’s an edited monograph, not a standard research book. Which author wrote this coming of age book?

        • Ignorant Amos

          But when it supports you…big thumbs up…when it doesn’t…well, wtf….a bit like a holy scripture.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Well, xtians were opposed to Ben Franklin’s lightning rods and fire departments, much less Lloyds of London, because all were an “attempt to flout dawg’s will”

      Hmmm, also, didn’t Michelangelo have to study anatomy (muscles / bones) in secret because of church prohibitions on desecration of the body?

      • Noel Bullock

        No, Michelangelo didn’t have to do that. Check out “Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion.” Myth 5 debunks the myth that the church prohibited dissection. And — more in response the blog than your comment — the author’s quote from Bad Medicine (which is an excellent book!) misleads the reader into thinking that the medical practice’s therapeutic lag behind scientific advance had something to do with Christian conviction. It didn’t. I strongly recommend reading Bad Medicine for anyone who wishes a clearer picture of the development of modern medical practice.

      • Korus Destroyus

        No, Michaelangelo didn’t have to study anatomy in secret … at all. Dissection was flourishing in the time of Michelangelo. What “church prohibitions” on the desecration of the body? None … ever existed. It’s a common, fanciful myth that Christianity ever placed restrictions on dissection because of some sort of body desecration.

  • L.Long

    Hospitals are number 1 a business and not much about religion.
    Hospitals that WORK at healing use science NOT Prayer!
    As the post points out mom teresa set up religious hospitals that did little to nothing medically and loved seeing people suffer and die!
    And the ONLY part of hospitals that are religious are the parts (abortion) that FORBIDS treatment to help the patient!
    Using hospitals as an example of religion being good is a flat out fail!!

  • TheNuszAbides

    “until the invention of antibiotics in the 1930s doctors, in general, did their patients more harm than good.”

    President Garfield’s assassination might have been a mere attempt (a) if Yankee doctors had yet joined the “wash your hands!” bandwagon and/or (b) if they hadn’t bungled the use of a prototype metal detector:

    … Garfield was carried back to the White House. Although doctors told him
    that he would not survive the night, the President remained conscious
    and alert. The next morning his vital signs were good and doctors began to hope for recovery. … Doctors continued to probe Garfield’s wound with dirty, unsterilized fingers and instruments, attempting to find the location of the bullet. Alexander Graham Bell devised a metal detector
    specifically for the purpose of finding the bullet lodged inside
    Garfield. He was unsuccessful, partly because Garfield’s metal bed frame
    made the instrument malfunction, and partly because Bliss allowed Bell
    to use the device only on Garfield’s right side, where Bliss insisted
    the bullet had lodged. …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield#Treatment_and_death

  • Korus Destroyus

    Since I took the time to demolish the post on universities for a near mortifying lack of historical knowledge, I decided to click on this one as well. Bob, you really have done historical research a bigger disservice than I could have imagined.

    After a few misrepresentations of biblical texts, we start off with a nice red herring — that the father of medicine is Hippocrates. And yet, not a single person that this article is hypothetically replying to has claimed that medicine itself has origins rooted in Christianity. The first medical revolution (that is to say, the beginning of the study of medicine itself) certainly comes from Egyptian, Roman and Greek civilization. The second medical revolution, however, is entirely owed to Christianity. Something our friend Bob never bothers to address (since, in all likelihood, he has little understanding of anything to do with the history of medicine). Albert Jonson writes;

    The second great sweep of medical history begins at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first Christian hospital at Caesarea in Cappadocia, and concludes at the end of the fourteenth century, with medicine well ensconced in the universities and in the public life of the emerging nations of Europe. (Albert Jonson. A Short History of Medical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2000, 13.)

    What, exactly, was the second medical revolution in history? Pretty simple, actually. There were virtually no hospitals in Greece and Egypt, and in the Roman empire, the only people who had any access to hospitals were soldiers. That’s because Rome only ever bothered to build hospitals in military fortresses. Not a single civilian hospital has been discovered anywhere in the Roman empire before the Christian era. Once Christianity comes along, however, everything changes. Starting with Basil of Caesarea founding the first Christian hospital in the end of the 4th century, and by the 5th century in the Christian east, civilian hospitals became ubiquitous due to the actions of private Christian individuals. See Vivian Nutton’s Ancient Medicine, pp. 314-315. Christianity, as Jonson says, is the progenitor of the second medical revolution in history — the reason why, almost anywhere you live, you can reasonably expect to find a nearby hospital in times of trouble, is because Christians made them common. Oddly, Bob never addresses this, rather just talks about medieval hospitals which I’ve never seen cited when it comes to Christianity’s contributions to medicine. Hospitals were obviously not just “places” to die like Bob ignorantly claims, rather in hospitals would supply food, water, and care for the needs of the patient. Basic care to ill patients, by itself without even the requirement of modern medicine, has significantly positive effects on the health outcome of the patient.

    Did Christian medicine advance past Galen? It did, obviously, with the revival of dissection in the 11th/12th centuries (after a thousand year hiatus since the pagans in Rome decided to stigmatize it). That helped out quite a bit, and the culture the medieval world placed around medicine lead to the progress of Renaissance men such as Vesalius. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the progress of medieval medicine is aware of this. But, of course, Bob, to prove otherwise, cites a random blog entry by some random guy named ‘Jim Walker’ to claim otherwise. Even noted historical quack Richard Carrier thinks Jim is a moron. Bob claims that Christianity set medicine centuries behind — besides the fact that I can’t even think of a more dishonest claim if I tried, historian Nancy Girisai writes “But the emergence o Christian society of the early medieval West did not result either in the abandonment of such ancient medical knowledge as was available or in the disappearance of secular medical practitioners” (Medieval & Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice, University of Chicago Press 1990, 7).

    “but because in Europe at that time, pretty much everyone was Christian.”

    And yet that fails to explain why there were no civilian hospitals in the entire pagan era of Roman history, and once Christianity comes around, it takes a few decades for them to become ubiquitous. The worst section in this entire article is “Christianity’s poor attitude toward learning.” The history is so bad that I must write out a full response article elsewhere. Aside the fictional quote from Martin Luther, incredible cherry-picking of Peter Harrison’s words and series of other problems, Christianity is responsible for the second medical revolution in human history.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Since I took the time to demolish the post on universities for a near mortifying lack of historical knowledge,…

      Yeah…nope, that’s not what you did. I realise that’s what you think you did, but no, ya really didn’t. Something to do with your fantasy world you must live in, I guess.

    • Ignorant Amos

      — that the father of medicine is Hippocrates.

      There’s that shite reading for comprehension rearing it’s ugly head again.

      Let me help…again….

      — that the father of western medicine is Hippocrates.

      • Korus Destroyus

        Amos, already back from the grandstanding whooping I gave you on the medieval universities? Your vast absurdities never fail to impress me. Perhaps this time around you won’t feel too bad when I correct the hordes of unreliable Wikipedia pages you’re bound to pilfer me.

        Hippocrates is the father of western medicine … and medicine in general. Bob’s weird attempt to relegate his status to just western history should be irrelevant to my response.

        Hippocrates, (born c. 460 BCE, island of Cos, Greece—died c. 375 BCE, Larissa, Thessaly), ancient Greek physician who lived during Greece’s Classical period and is traditionally regarded as the father of medicine.

        https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hippocrates

        Anyways, this little tiny point is obviously irrelevant to almost everything I wrote, so you shouldn’t feel bad for blundering it. What do you think about Bob’s citations of fictional quotes from Martin Luther? Or total failure to address what people and historians actually claim is Christianity contribution to medicine? Or Bob’s crackpot claims that Christianity set medicine centuries behind that I wiped out with a nice academic reference?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Amos, already back from the grandstanding whooping I gave you on the medieval universities?

          Nah…ya didn’t do that either ya deluded cunt.

          Perhaps this time around you won’t feel too bad when I correct the hordes of unreliable Wikipedia pages you’re bound to pilfer me.

          And then you go and quote an online encyclopedia. No matter.

          You misquoted…that’s as far as I was prepared to read. No time for your nonsense, got a plane to catch…bye-bye now.

        • Greg G.

          Did you notice that KD got an upvote for the post you replied to? It was from himself?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed a did…nothing like being so far up oneself’s own arse that ya have to pat yerself on the back for doing what you think was an excellent job…especially when it wasn’t…feckin’ self-deluded dickhead.

        • Korus Destroyus

          I did, in fact, wipe the floor with you on the universities. Poor guy, I can tell you still don’t like the fact that I was responsible for literally editing your own source so it didn’t verify your claim. Probably didn’t expect me to be a timed Wiki editor, did ya?

          “And then you go and quote an online encyclopedia. No matter.”

          You don’t think Britannica is reliable? If you want an academic reference, I won’t keep you from it. See Simon Hornblower’s The Greek World: 479-323 BC, pg. 195.

          “You misquoted…”

          I wasn’t misquoting Bob. I was correcting him. Hippocrates’ title doesn’t only reside to western medicine.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I did, in fact, wipe the floor with you on the universities.

          Like I said, I know you think that’s what happened, it must be the part of your brain that helps you square that other delusion you hold too.

          Poor guy, I can tell you still don’t like the fact that I was responsible for literally editing your own source so it didn’t verify your claim.

          Did you ever get around to changing ALL the instances where Wiki asserts those early Islamic universities as universities?

          What about the non-Wiki sources that assert those establishments as universities…because, like, to most people that can see it, they are universities?

          Did you contact The Guinness Book of Records to inform them of their error?

          Probably didn’t expect me to be a timed Wiki editor, did ya?

          I could give zero fucks…as you are so keen to point out, any dopey cunt can go onto Wiki and edit, so pah!

          Though I am amused that you take the time to edit a source you have zero respect for, or have yet to master the skill in using…apparently.

          I wasn’t misquoting Bob. I was correcting him. Hippocrates’ title doesn’t only reside to western medicine.

          Nope…for Bob’s purpose, he wasn’t in error. Bob didn’t claim Hippocrates’ title only resided in western medicine…that was your presumption. Bob’s article was focusing on western medicine, so to point out that a certain person was the forefather of that area, is not a mistake.

          Queen Elizabeth II is queen of the commonwealth, but in a conversation about Northern Ireland, I would not need correcting if I stated she was queen of that place. You were just being a nit-picky smart Alec and being a stupid dick in the process.

          But all that is superfluous anyway.

          “The Father of Western Medicine was Hippocrates, not Jesus.”

          Is in no way erroneous a claim. I’ll try not to use any Wiki pages…

          Unique distinction: The father of Western medicine or the “Father of Early Medicine”, the author of the humoral theory of temperaments.

          https://geniusrevive.com/en/hippocrates-of-cos-the-father-of-western-medicine/

          https://www.thesmilecenter.com/the-father-of-western-medicine-and-dentistry/

          https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/holistic-medicine-and-western-medical-tradition/2008-03

          https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hippocrates-father-of-Western-medicine_fig3_265516818

          You don’t think Britannica is reliable?

          I’m not the one who has the issue with online encyclopedias as sources. Britannica is only as good as it’s sources like anything else, and it too makes mistakes.

          My advice is to make the wiser, cheaper choice, one that will prove more helpful to your kids in the long run: Pay nothing to Britannica and teach your young ones to use Google and Wikipedia. While there are many legitimate complaints to be leveled at Wikipedia (rarely, it gets things wrong; sometimes, its entries are vandalized), the free, crowdsourced encyclopedia is better than Britannica in every way. It’s cheaper, it’s bigger, it’s more accessible, it’s more inclusive of differing viewpoints and subjects beyond traditional academic scholarship, its entries tend to include more references, and it is more up to date.

          But your bias and hypocrisy is duly noted. Your sources are great when they are your sources…a get it.

          If you want an academic reference, I won’t keep you from it. See Simon Hornblower’s The Greek World: 479-323 BC, pg. 195.

          No need…I wasn’t disagreeing with your quote, just your two-faced fuckerism in using an online pedia as a source. Especially when you could’ve just as easily referenced Hornblower’s book.

          Let’s look at your citation again…

          Hippocrates, (born c. 460 BCE, island of Cos, Greece—died c. 375 BCE, Larissa, Thessaly), ancient Greek physician who lived during Greece’s Classical period and is traditionally regarded as the father of medicine.

          But…Hippocrates, (born c. 460 BCE, island of Cos, Greece—died c. 375 BCE, Larissa, Thessaly), ancient Greek physician who lived during Greece’s Classical period and is traditionally regarded as the father of [western] medicine. is also correct.

          Especially given that there was an eastern medicine that Hippocrates was not the father of, which is still popular today…even though imo, both were wrong.

          So no, you have not wiped the floor with me sonny boy…you are deluded. Again.

        • Amos, already back from the grandstanding whooping I gave you on the medieval universities?

          With all that dick swinging, Korus is clearly well endowed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          At best, Korus can find scholars that agree with his opinion. There are others that do not. KD thinks that gives the wining of the argument position to KD. A lot of history relies on opinion. That’s a bit of a problem.

          Definitions seem to be another issue in this area too. KD’s scholars want to hyper-define a university…nobody really gives a fuck but KD’s “experts”…a madrassa as those early Islamic universities have been described, were to all intents and purposes, Muslim universities.

          madrassa: a Muslim school, college, or university that is often part of a mosque

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madrassa

          If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…and all that jazz.

        • epeeist

          Definitions seem to be another issue in this area too.

          Yes, he forgets (or doesn’t realise) that dictionaries document usage rather than prescribe usage. On top of that he is using a modern (American?) dictionary, which means that he is getting a modern definition for institutions that have been around for centuries.

        • David Cromie

          Thank goodness for the OED, which is everything the Webster mockery of a dictionary is not.

    • Thanks for sharing many insults. My response would be to pretty much rewrite the original post, and you didn’t read that the first time, so I won’t bother.

      • Korus Destroyus

        Well, I did read it. Your post contains misattributed quotes to Martin Luther. You quote Peter Harrison saying that “curiosity” was discouraged for a long time. It’s very sad for me to see Harrison, one of my favorite historians of science, have his views utilized to support a general idea (Christianity setting the medicine of science back centuries) that he would shudder at reading. Harrison writes, elsewhere in his works;

        When examined closely, however, the historical record simply does not bear out this model of enduring warfare [between science and religion]. For a start, study of the historical relations between science and religion does not reveal any simple pattern at all. In so far as there is any general trend, it is that for much of the time religion has facilitated scientific endeavour and has done so in various ways. Thus, religious ideas inform and underpin scientific investigation, those pursuing science were often motivated by religious impulses, religious institutions frequently turn out to have been the chief sources of support for the scientific enterprise and, in its infancy, science established itself by appealing to religious values. (The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 4.

        You should read the entire book to understand this information. Harrison is, himself, the editor of the book, and the author of the introductory chapter (which this quote comes from).

        • David Cromie

          Early medicine was folk, or herbal, in character, and developed by trial and error among the ordinary people who knew nothing of science. Monks did try to systematise it, especially after they obtained the Classical Greek texts from the Arabs – Morocco to Spain, for example (it was a way of making money from treating sickness, ineffectually, in too many cases). A hospital (sometimes called Domus Dei) was mostly reserved for the rich, in any case.

          But after the Moors were thrown out by christian Spain, there was not much in the way of medical advances, or a proliferation of hospitals for the masses. Medieval superstitions about treating illness survived largely intact until the end of the 18th cent., and herbalism was part of a doctor’s training until the early years of the 19th cent. Advances in medicine were not down to the religion of the practitioners, in fact they were often in direct opposition to many christer beliefs on the subject of cause (we still have chrsters, even today, who will claim that illness and disease are the punishment for ‘sin’ exacted by their supposed ‘god!).

        • Korus Destroyus

          Thanks for the largely irrelevant comment. Perhaps I need to outline my point a little more clearly, given the fact that it totally flew over your head.

          In the time of pagan Rome, Greece, etc, civilian hospitals simply didn’t exist. It’s really that simple. Then, Rome becomes Christians. From there, it takes only a few decades for hospitals to become ubiquitous. While the medicine to treat people didn’t exist, basic care (shelter, food, etc) obviously does help those being treated. Secondly, without the Christianity to make hospitals ubiquitous … hospitals wouldn’t have become ubiquitous. Simply imagine a world today where there were almost no, if any, civilian hospitals in the world. That would be quite behind what we have now. This is truly a medical revolution, as described by historians, all thanks to Christianity.

          There is one part of your comment, however, that is egregiously false;

          “A hospital (sometimes called Domus Dei) was mostly reserved for the rich, in any case.”

          Ah, well, not even close. Given the fact that one of the names of these early Christian hospitals was a “poorhouse”, you seem to be sorely mistaken. The only so-called ‘Domus Dei’ I’m aware of is that massive 13th century hospital in Britain. Allow you to digest the reality as painted by Viven Nutton;

          By contrast, from the middle years of the fifth century onwards, hospitals, xenodokeia, are ubiquitous in the East. Church law codes in Syriac repeatedly enjoined the provision of hospitals in the local community, even if they were no more than a room off the courtyard of a church or monastery. They are found even in remote spots. To the legislators they were a necessary form of public charity, manifestations of Christian concern for those in need… In an emergency, as in the famine of 500–1 and the ensuing plague outbreaks, they were supplemented by beds set up in public colonnades to house sufferers who had flocked from the countryside in search of aid. As time went on these hospitals became ever larger and more complex. [Here Nutton just gives many examples to show that, over time, these hospitals became larger and larger in size] The variety of names used for these institutions – hospice, hostel, poorhouse, sick-house, orphanage, home for the elderly, hospital – indicates a variety of overlapping, and at times competing, aims within the overall ideology of shelter and Christian charity. Some institutions may have specialised in one type of inmate – transient pilgrims, for example, particularly in Rome, Constantinople and the Holy Land – but often this exclusivity was confined to their title. Early Christian hospitals promoted a combination of charitable activities, not just one. (pp. 307-308)

          Ah, so early Christian hospitals, the first several centuries after Christians were the ones in charge, were acts of charity where people from countryside during the plague in 500 (i.e. people who, in modern terms, can be called “those in total abject poverty”) flocked into the hospitals, these places were orphanages (hmmm … I wonder how the baby is paying up), poorhouses, home for the elderly, etc. So the evidence seems clear. The early Christian hospitals were for absolutely everyone.

        • David Cromie

          Dark Ages ‘hospitals’, where such existed, were more into ‘curing souls’ than curing illness, since the latter was quite beyond their abilities in any case. One might compare them to the antics of that old fraud, Mother Theresa (‘suffering is beautiful’), in India.

          On the question of universities, they were dedicated almost exclusively to instilling the dogma of the ‘one true church’, rather than scientific research, or even learning, in any meaningful way (see what happened to Galileo when he showed that Copernicus was indeed correct).

        • Ignorant Amos

          (see what happened to Galileo when he showed that Copernicus was indeed correct).

          He got sent to a holiday villa for nine years. That it was against his will and he was censored had little relevance according to KD.

          KD dreams of being put under house arrest under such conditions, house arrest and being imprisoned are not nearly the same according to him.

        • David Cromie

          I seem to remember that the only person allowed to visit Galileo in his prison was his daughter.

        • Ignorant Amos

          On the question of universities, they were dedicated almost exclusively to instilling the dogma of the ‘one true church’, rather than scientific research, or even learning, in any meaningful way (see what happened to Galileo when he showed that Copernicus was indeed correct).

          Ya have to wonder what the RCC apologised for…

          Since then, the Church has taken various steps to reverse its opposition to Galileo’s conclusions. In 1757, Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” was removed from the Index, a former list of publications banned by the Church. When the latest investigation, conducted by a panel of scientists, theologians and historians, made a preliminary report in 1984, it said that Galileo had been wrongfully condemned. More recently, Pope John Paul II himself has said that the scientist was “imprudently opposed.”

          “We today know that Galileo was right in adopting the Copernican astronomical theory,” Paul Cardinal Poupard, the head of the current investigation, said in an interview published this week.

          https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

        • Korus Destroyus

          I see that Greg G, as well as a certain ‘Robert’ gave you a nice little upvote for this comment, showing that the three of you love bathing in historical illiteracy. After I demonstrated a stunning error in your last coment, you just go on, pretending nothing happened, simply rolling out your other claims hoping one of them will eventually stick. Unfortunately, just more stunning errors of almost unbelievable scale.

          “On the question of universities, they were dedicated almost exclusively to instilling the dogma of the ‘one true church’, rather than scientific research, or even learning, in any meaningful way (see what happened to Galileo when he showed that Copernicus was indeed correct).”

          Actually, the universities were … not dedicated to that, in the comprehensible least. Only a tiny minority of students who attended universities ever took theology courses, because the prerequisites for attending a theology course was so high. All students were educated in the trivium of course; grammar, rhetoric and logic, as well as the quadrivium; arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy — the trivium and quadrivium forming the basis of higher education in the Middle Ages. Once you completed all these, you could go on to study theology, or perhaps other options, such as civil and canon law, medicine, philosophy, etc. In other words, you are truly full of crap.

          Every detail (seriously, all of them) you make is … wrong. Take the little statement “see what happened to Galileo when he showed that Copernicus was indeed correct”. Actually, Galileo didn’t show Copernicus was correct. He had no evidence for heliocentrism, at all, and none would emerge until James Bradley in 1729, nearly a century after Galileo’s death. What happened to Galileo? It’s irrelevant, since the entire Galileo trial had nothing to do with religion or science, only politics. And there goes the crowning myth of the long dismissed conflict thesis by historians of science.

          Please try replying again once you know a clue what you’re talking about. Or at least phrase your next response as a series of questions for me, to make it look like you’re trying to learn, instead of running the risk of making another swathe of totally ridiculous statements.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I see that Greg G, as well as a certain ‘Robert’ gave you a nice little upvote for this comment, showing that the three of you love bathing in historical illiteracy.

          You assume you know the reason why every individual gives an upvote…demonstrating what a cockwomble you actually are…Dime Bar.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You assume you know the reason why every individual gives an upvote…demonstrating what a cockwomble you actually are…Dime Bar.”

          Since I don’t know what a cockwomble is, I’ll happily agree. The reason for giving an upvote is obvious. You agree with the comment, or at least its thrust. And to agree with that comment of David is deeply scary.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Since I don’t know what a cockwomble is, I’ll happily agree.

          Figures…preferring to wallow in ignorance rather than do a simple search.

          The reason for giving an upvote is obvious.

          Not that obvious apparently. There is more than one reason for upvoting.

          You agree with the comment, or at least its thrust.

          Not necessarily. So something else you are ignorant about.

          And to agree with that comment of David is deeply scary.

          And since you don’t know why I upvoting David’s comment, your blatant obnoxious arrogance is deeply scary, so pah!

          Btw, you haven’t demonstrated anything wrong with David’s comment, yet.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In the time of pagan Rome, Greece, etc, civilian hospitals simply didn’t exist. It’s really that simple.

          I’m loving your disingenuous use of the caveat “civilian”…but apparently that’s still wrong…at least according to historian of science and medicine in pre-modern India, Dominik Wujastyk…

          “The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments”: The Evidence for EarlyHospitals in South Asia

          The earliest surviving encyclopedia of medicine in Sanskrit is the Compendium of Caraka (Skt. Carakasaṃhitā). This is the text with which clas-sical medicine in India really begins. Before this text, we are reduced tosearching through books on other – mainly religious – subjects, lookingfor oblique references which may tell us something about the position of medicine at the time. But with Caraka’s
          Compendium we emerge, so to speak, into the clear light of real medical practice. The text is of special interest to us because it describes the building of a hospital. To give the description a chronological context, we can say that this description dates from the period between 100 BCE and CE 150. I shall give more detail on the reasons for this dating below. Here is what the Compendium
          says about the hospital:

          Then, Rome becomes Christians. From there, it takes only a few decades for hospitals to become ubiquitous.

          Citation required. When was the first hospital in Great Britain?

          Secondly, without the Christianity to make hospitals ubiquitous … hospitals wouldn’t have become ubiquitous.

          Nonsense.

          Simply imagine a world today where there were almost no, if any, civilian hospitals in the world. That would be quite behind what we have now. This is truly a medical revolution, as described by historians, all thanks to Christianity.

          Because the hospital model didn’t exist until Christians got control of Rome…except it did, so pah!

        • Pofarmer

          How the hell do you obtain and maintain this kind of blinkered worldview?

        • epeeist

          How the hell do you obtain and maintain this kind of blinkered worldview?

          Oh, that’s easy. You start with your conclusion and select and adjust the evidence to fit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Tireless engagement with certain types has fucked me right up…//s

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I’m loving your disingenuous use of the caveat “civilian”…but apparently that’s still wrong…at least according to historian of science and medicine in pre-modern India, Dominik Wujastyk…”

          Your quote actually fails to contradict me at all, Sparky. Please re-read what I wrote and then re-read your quote. A hospital in 180 BC India … is not the same as a hospital in Greece or Rome, which happens to be exactly what I was referring to. Secondly, where does your scholar say this was a civilian hospital? It …. doesn’t. Ooops. Which means in no way is my point scathed in the least.

          As for a reference for no civilian hospitals until Christian era;

          The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (“Roman Medicine” in Blackwell’s A Companion to the Roman Empire, 2006, 505

          And them becoming ubiquitous;

          By contrast, from the middle years of the fifth century onwards, hospitals, xenodokeia, are ubiquitous in the East. (Vivien Nutton, Ancient Medicine, 307

          Nutton explains at length the rise of the Christian hospital through the decades, as they emerged throughout the empire — in Constantinople and many other cities, as they grew over time, and how they were acts of Christian charity for the poor, sick, old, orphans, etc. Since your response to the final point of mine you quote makes no sense, I’ll just repeat it.

          Simply imagine a world today where there were almost no, if any, civilian hospitals in the world. That would be quite behind what we have now. This is truly a medical revolution, as described by historians, all thanks to Christianity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your quote actually fails to contradict me at all, Sparky. Please re-read what I wrote and then re-read your quote. A hospital in 180 BC India … is not the same as a hospital in Greece or Rome, which happens to be exactly what I was referring to.

          Ach, now you are just making an complete eejit out of yourself.

          In the time of pagan Rome, Greece, etc, civilian hospitals simply didn’t exist.

          What did ya mean by “etc,”?

          Secondly, where does your scholar say this was a civilian hospital? It …. doesn’t. Ooops. Which means in no way is my point scathed in the least.

          Well it doesn’t…nor does it say it wasn’t a civilian hospital. But since you appear incapable…

          Note that these treatments are intended for,“the king, royal personages, and those having great wealth” (v.18). The poor are advised to follow the same evacuation treatment but with simpler equipment.

          https://www.academia.edu/1262042/_The_Nurses_should_be_able_to_Sing_and_Play_Instruments._The_Evidence_for_Early_Hospitals_in_South_Asia

          I’m guessing that your “civilian” fuckwittery doesn’t extend to Roman slaves… ya lousy bastard?

          As for a reference for no civilian hospitals until Christian era;

          The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (“Roman Medicine” in Blackwell’s A Companion to the Roman Empire, 2006, 505

          Ah…you are doing that thing ya love to do….you are conflating “civilian” with the “general public”…which is disingenuous and my citation refutes it.

          And them becoming ubiquitous;

          By contrast, from the middle years of the fifth century onwards, hospitals, xenodokeia, are ubiquitous in the East. (Vivien Nutton, Ancient Medicine, 307

          But you didn’t say “everywhere in the East”, you said “From there, it takes only a few decades for hospitals to become ubiquitous.”…and “ubique” being my regimental motto means that I know your first statement was a lie ya dumbarse.

          Nutton explains at length the rise of the Christian hospital through the decades, as they emerged throughout the empire — in Constantinople and many other cities, as they grew over time, and how they were acts of Christian charity for the poor, sick, old, orphans, etc. Since your response to the final point of mine you quote makes no sense, I’ll just repeat it.

          I don’t care…they were not “everywhere”, not even throughout the Roman Empire, within decades of Christianity gaining power.

          Simply imagine a world today where there were almost no, if any, civilian hospitals in the world. That would be quite behind what we have now. This is truly a medical revolution, as described by historians, all thanks to Christianity.

          Repeat it till you are blue in the face, the nonsense you are trying to assert is that without Christianity, hospitals wouldn’t exist. So had Christianity not gained power, would there be no hospitals?….bullshit. Cultures well before Christianity had what were called temple healing rooms…ffs the the Egyptians had them…and as cited, the Indians had hospitals before the Roman Empire got all Christian.

          In ancient cultures, religion and medicine were linked. The earliest documented institutions aiming to provide cures were ancient Egyptian temples.

          You are doing that same nonsense you keep doing…it’s ridiculous to think that until Christianity humans were not looking after one another, medically.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “What did ya mean by “etc,”?”

          Not bad, Amos. I’ll concede that one. And yet, my general point survives. Where’s the evidence that the hospital you referred to was actually a civilian hospital? This is a question even I don’t know, but just because I don’t know (clearly you haven’t a clue yourself) doesn’t mean it satisfies my challenge. One thing I will admit is that despite the major history buff that I am, India’s history is a gaping hole in my knowledge.

          “Note that these treatments are intended for,“the king, royal personages, and those having great wealth” (v.18). The poor are advised to follow the same evacuation treatment but with simpler equipment.

          https://www.academia.edu/12…”

          You provide this quote, and then with a link. So I checked the link to read what the guy is saying. It’s a 30-page paper. I read through the first 20, and then just hit a search function to see if this quote even exists in the paper. It doesn’t. What on Earth are you quoting? I would have reprimanded you for your nonsense if the paper wasn’t so interesting.

          “Ah…you are doing that thing ya love to do….you are conflating “civilian” with the “general public”…which is disingenuous and my citation refutes it.”

          Your citation literally has nothing to do with it. No, I’m not conflating “civilian” with “general public”. My citation makes it obvious, civilian hospitals failed to exist at the time. No hospitals for the general public. Which means the exact same thing as no civilian hospitals. Since you’re so incompetent at the English language, here’s an even more clear quote.

          The first Roman military hospitals (valetudinarium) started in the first century AD, and set high standards of medical equipment and architectural design; but most civilians (and slaves) were treated at home. The first civilian hospitals appeared after Christianization in the mid-fourth century AD; there was one in Rome but far more in the eastern Empire, and the great Christian capital of Constantinople in the eastern Empire. (Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. Oxford University Press, 2008, 142)

          Your response to the second quote is downright incoherent. When I was talking about them becoming ubiquitous .. OF COURSE I meant in the East. Since you seem to be an ignoramus about it, I should inform you that by the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire were now two different empires. The last emperor who ruled them both was Theodosius I, and he died in 395 if my memory serves me. So yes, quack Amos, the place where civilization was falling apart did not have ubiquitous hospitals. What a discovery. The East, of course, did within a few decades. Guess why.

          “Repeat it till you are blue in the face, the nonsense you are trying to assert is that without Christianity, hospitals wouldn’t exist.”

          Amos reveals how much he enjoys lying once again. No, you disgusting quack, the statement is that Christianity is the cause of the second medical revolution of human history — the cause of what caused hospitals to first become a common property of society. Please try reading.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You provide this quote, and then with a link. So I checked the link to read what the guy is saying. It’s a 30-page paper. I read through the first 20, and then just hit a search function to see if this quote even exists in the paper. It doesn’t. What on Earth are you quoting? I would have reprimanded you for your nonsense if the paper wasn’t so interesting.

          Look KD, if your ability to read is so fucking shite, it’s no wonder you are such a major fuck up in these discussions. You don’t know the crap you are writing and can’t read for Jack shit what others are writing. And now you are showing that ya can’t even read a source or use a search facility.

          I copy and pasted that citation into Google and guess what appeared? The paper at the link I provided…yeah that’s right….my fucking source.

          Now, because you are such a useless gimp, I will tell you exactly where to find it. It is at the bottom of page 14, ya Dime Bar.

          Call me old fashioned, but I’m going with the idea that at least some of the royal household and the wealthy being referred to, are civilians. It is a reasonable assertion to make on the face of it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your citation literally has nothing to do with it. No, I’m not conflating “civilian” with “general public”. My citation makes it obvious, civilian hospitals failed to exist at the time.

          Try learning the definition of words and terms you are using. As I’ve demonstrated. In India there were civilian hospitals, they just were not for the general public.

          No hospitals for the general public. Which means the exact same thing as no civilian hospitals.

          Only in KD land. Go learn the definition s and then work out why you are wrong.

          Since you’re so incompetent at the English language,…

          One of us is showing an incompetence…I’ll leave it to the general public on here to decide which of us that is from the comments.

          …here’s an even more clear quote.

          Your myopic reading and interpretation of sources never ceases to amaze me.

          And as usual, it isn’t as clear cut as you would have everyone believe.

          More than just the military were treated in valetudinarium.

          http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/valetudinaria

          https://thehospitalleader.org/what-was-the-first-hospital-origin-story-from-roma/

          You have to do that thing you love to do together your position fulfilled. Hyper specific definition of what constitutes a hospital. The Basilides. But then lots of institutions we call hospitals, even today, would fall outside that definition.

          Anyway, it was the Muslims that were doing the first proper hospitaling as we know it today, so stick yer nonsense.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Another easy comment to destroy.

          “More than just the military were treated in valetudinarium.

          http://broughttolife.scienc

          https://thehospitalleader.o…”

          Check those links again, since you just ended the debate on yourself. First link says “There is less evidence of civilian hospitals during this period – there were no buildings devoted entirely to the care of the sick until well into the Christian era.” Done.

          “Try learning the definition of words and terms you are using. As I’ve demonstrated. In India there were civilian hospitals, they just were not for the general public.”

          “Anyway, it was the Muslims that were doing the first proper hospitaling as we know it today, so stick yer nonsense.”

          Ummm … no. The Christians did.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Another easy comment to destroy.

          And yet ya didn’t address half the comment and failed with the rest ya delusional dickhead.

          Check those links again, since you just ended the debate on yourself.

          Unlike you, I can read a link and comprehend a source. No debate ended on myself ya daft fecker.

          First link says “There is less evidence of civilian hospitals during this period – there were no buildings devoted entirely to the care of the sick until well into the Christian era.”

          In common parlance, “less” and “no” are not synonymous. Other sources show that slaves were indeed treated in such buildings…slaves are civilian. And I’ve already shown that there were “hospitals” pre-Christian Rome.

          In your rush to quote mine, you’ve left out some relevant info.

          From the same source…

          They are thought to have been for the relief of slaves and soldiers, and to have provided hospitality for travellers.

          So “slaves” and “travellers”…who are not “soldiers”….i.e, they are “civilians”.

          However, it is not completely clear that the valetudinaria were hospitals in the way we understand the idea. The archaeological and written evidence does not make clear how they were used.

          So the subject isn’t even settled.

          Valetudinaria may have been places used to house visitors to Roman camps, or even barracks. Very few appear to have had latrines or what might have been operating theatres. They may simply have been storehouses.

          So…coulda, shoulda, woulda!

          Done.

          Yes ya have…up like a kipper ya cretin.

          As to the second link….*crickets*

          “Try learning the definition of words and terms you are using. As I’ve demonstrated. In India there were civilian hospitals, they just were not for the general public.”

          Yeah…that’s what I said.

          “Anyway, it was the Muslims that were doing the first proper hospitaling as we know it today, so stick yer nonsense.”

          Ummm … no. The Christians did.

          Says some fuckwit on the internet…but…ummmm, no. The Muslims did, says western, largely Christian, authorities.

          The hospital was one of the great achievements of medieval Islamic society. The relation of the design and development of Islamic hospitals to the earlier and contemporaneous poor and sick relief facilities offered by some Christian monasteries has not been fully delineated. Clearly, however, the medieval Islamic hospital was a more elaborate institution with a wider range of functions.

          https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/islamic_medical/islamic_12.html

          Yeah, destroyed my comment…my arse…dream on wee boy.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “In common parlance, “less” and “no” are not synonymous. Other sources show that slaves were indeed treated in such buildings…slaves are civilian. And I’ve already shown that there were “hospitals” pre-Christian Rome.”

          Except academic parlance isn’t “common parlance”. As should be obvious.

          “So “slaves” and “travellers”…who are not “soldiers”….i.e, they are “civilians”.”

          Semantics on drugs from Ignorant Amos, again. Soldiers are also civilians. Already forgot? The difference between a civilian hospital and a non-civilian hospital is that civilian hospitals are open to all civilians. If only select people are let into the hospital, it’s not a civilian hospital.

          “However, it is not completely clear that the valetudinaria were hospitals in the way we understand the idea. The archaeological and written evidence does not make clear how they were used.

          So the subject isn’t even settled.”

          Doesn’t that quote shoot you in the leg, since it suggests the valetudinaria might not even have been hospitals at all?

          “The hospital was one of the great achievements of medieval Islamic society. The relation of the design and development of Islamic hospitals to the earlier and contemporaneous poor and sick relief facilities offered by some Christian monasteries has not been fully delineated. Clearly, however, the medieval Islamic hospital was a more elaborate institution with a wider range of functions.

          https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exh…”

          Checked out the link. Not an academic source on history. Whoops. Just a website with a bunch of medical papers and a short blog summary of Islamic hospitals. Whoopsee daisy. Anyways, I’ll now prove that they were in fact hospitals in the Christian pre-Muslim world from an academic source you tried to quote earlier (before I turned it on you);

          During the so-called golden age of the urban episcopate in Byzantium, which
          stretched from the fourth to the sixth centuries, the promotion and expansion of
          Church activities led to the gradual development of a welfare state, including the
          foundation of a wide range of charitable institutions including churches,
          almshouses, hostels, orphanages, and hospitals.
          (Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals. Oxford University Press 1999. 81

          And who helped get the earliest Muslims hospitals off the ground in the first place?

          “Many of the prominent early Islamic hospitals were founded with assistance by Christians such as Jibrael ibn Bukhtishu from Gundeshapur.[44][45]”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

          Easy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Except academic parlance isn’t “common parlance”. As should be obvious.

          And it makes a difference here because. In academic parlance, “less” is still not synonymous with “no”…but feel free to demonstrate that it is indeed the case.

          Semantics on drugs from Ignorant Amos, again.

          The only thing on crack here is you.

          Soldiers are also civilians. Already forgot?

          No, they are not…wise ta fuck up. Soldiers can be members of the general public, they are not civilians. The very word civilian is used to denote non-military. I was a soldier for many years, so I think I’d know.

          The difference between a civilian hospital and a non-civilian hospital is that civilian hospitals are open to all civilians.

          What ta fuck is a “non-civilian” hospital?

          You are a cretin…go learn what “civilian” means…until ya do, there’s nothing else to say.

          If only select people are let into the hospital, it’s not a civilian hospital.

          Only because you are too stupid and don’t know the definition of the word civilian ya dumb cunt.

          If only select people are let into the hospital, it’s not a public hospital.

          Fixed that for you.

          Doesn’t that quote shoot you in the leg, since it suggests the valetudinaria might not even have been hospitals at all?

          Only because you can’t read. And lowered yerself to the quote mine tactic.

          However, it is not completely clear that the valetudinaria were hospitals in the way we understand the idea. The archaeological and written evidence does not make clear how they were used.

          But I really don’t care, it was your citation that called them “military hospitals” that didn’t treat civilians. Other sources say that even though they were built for the military, they treated civilians too. Other sources claim that some slave owners built them to look after their slaves. And others claim that we are not sure what they were used for. But different valetudinaria may well have been used for a variety of purposes. And the reference was to show that. But because you can’t read, your myopic brain pulled the comment out of context.

          Checked out the link. Not an academic source on history. Whoops. Just a website with a bunch of medical papers and a short blog summary of Islamic hospitals. Whoopsee daisy.

          And if you knew what an ad homenim was, you’d really understand my problem with that comment.

          Cradle of Islamic medicine and prototype for today’s hospitals, bimaristans count among numerous scientific and intellectual achievements of the medieval Islamic world. But of them all, when ill health or injury strikes, there is no legacy more meaningful. ~ David W. Tschanz has advanced degrees in history and epidemiology

          https://www.aramcoworld.com/pt-BR/Articles/March-2017/The-Islamic-Roots-of-the-Modern-Hospital

          Anyways, I’ll now prove that they were in fact hospitals in the Christian pre-Muslim world from an academic source you tried to quote earlier (before I turned it on you);

          Not an argument I’m making ffs…another straw man fallacy from the expert at fallacious arguing. And you turned fuck all on me ya Dime Bar.

          And who helped get the earliest Muslims hospitals off the ground in the first place?

          And who helped get the earliest Christians hospitals off the ground in the first place?

          Many of the prominent early Islamic hospitals were founded with assistance by Christians such as Jibrael ibn Bukhtishu from Gundeshapur.[44][45]”

          Many, not all…and yet again, another straw man.

          Easy

          Yeah ya are….to easy…I’m wondering how you can be so asinine with just the one head.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And it makes a difference here because. In academic parlance, “less” is still not synonymous with “no”…but feel free to demonstrate that it is indeed the case.”

          I read academic material all the time. If an academic suggest that there isn’t exactly much evidence for a specific claim, that’s the nice way of saying no one needs to believe it’s true.

          “The only thing on crack here is you.”

          I read this with so much irony it’s unbelievable.

          “What ta fuck is a “non-civilian” hospital?”

          Ummm … a military hospital? Already forgot? Maybe I should explain it a bit more. Rome had no civilian hospitals, as I showed earlier, until the Christian era. But they had many military hospitals. Military hospitals were built in and operated within the confinements of military fortresses. So, for example, when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, he needed a bunch of bases and forts for his huge army. These forts would take care of the armies needs, such as food, water, shelter, etc. Some hospitals were also maintained in these fortresses if a soldier got injured. What this means is that the only people with access to the hospitals are the people in the military fort. As in non-civilian. This includes the soldiers themselves, any slaves at the fortress, and perhaps travelers who needs to send a message to and from the fort, etc. That explains why the link you gave earlier say that some slaves and travelers may have been treated there. Just under 100% of the Roman population, however, was out of luck.

          It looks like the Asclepian temples aren’t even considered hospitals by historians. Some scholars don’t even consider the Roman military hospitals to be “hospitals” (remember that valetudinaria link you posted, as well as the book Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals you tried to cite earlier as well?), but that’s aside the point (for now). See;

          The first Roman military hospitals (valetudinarium) started in the first century AD, and set high standards of medical equipment and architectural design; but most civilians (and slaves) were treated at home. The first civilian hospitals appeared after Christianization in the mid-fourth century AD; there was one in Rome but far more in the eastern Empire, and in the great Christian capital of Constantinople in the eastern Empire. (Smith, Virginia. Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. Oxford University Press, 2008, 142)

          So while you tried bothering me with online websites or whatever that referred to these as “hospitals”, again, we need to try sticking to academic parlance if we want to be precise. The Asclepian temples were not hospitals, because if they were, Smith wouldn’t be able to say that no civilian hospitals existed until the mid 3rd century.

          “And if you knew what an ad homenim was, you’d really understand my problem with that comment.”

          That’s not an ad hominem. The source you gave was a medical journal, not a history journal, and it’s history article was a blog post for the journals website rather than some kind of peer-reviewed stuff. Your new link, from another blog called aramco from some author who was some vague “advanced degree” in history (is it a PhD, or just an MA? and is it in medieval history? has he ever published any papers? we don’t know … ) just agitates the problem I have with these sources. For a clear scholarly reference for these Byzantine hospitals being hospitals, just see the quote I gave earlier.

          You also seem to nicely conceed that most early Islamic hospitals were founded by Christian assistance. It’s almost as if early Islamic hospitals wouldn’t have taken off without Christianity instilling the hospital into the society of the Byzantine world …. hmmmmm…

          I think you’ll just have to give credit where it’s due. Christianity is responsible for the second medical revolution in history. You seem very quick to try to give Muslims lots of credit. I smell a bias ….

          “What was Christianity doing for over three centuries before one of its adherents decided to open the first hospital?”

          Weird question. They were getting persecuted. Once Christians gained power, the changes became pretty rapid. Gladiator battles were banned, crucifixion was banned, exposing unwanted children was banned, the hospital became ubiquitous in society, all within one century of Christian empire. By the start of the Middle Ages, the Christian monasteries would save the works of antiquity from being lost in their monasteries (the only places where literacy actually survived), and by the end of the Middle Ages, Christianity would produce the Carolingian minuscule script — thus introducing spacing between letters and lower-case to the worlds alphabets — found the university, and lay the foundations for natural science by developing the practice of scholasticism. And a bunch of other accomplishments so major that it’s almost unimaginable. It seems to me that if God were to reveal a true religion, it would produce an enormous amount of good in the world, vastly more than any other comparable system. This prediction seems to be satisfied with Christianity. Hence, I can say Christianity is only rational to accept.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I read academic material all the time. If an academic suggest that there isn’t exactly much evidence for a specific claim, that’s the nice way of saying no one needs to believe it’s true.

          Ballix. You just pull shite outta yer arse and claim it is so. In no way does a rational person equate “less” evidence to “no” evidence at all ya daft bastard.

          There is “less” evidence for X than there is for Y or Z, is not the same as there is “no” evidence for X.

          “Less” doesn’t mean “no” in any language.

          Ummm … a military hospital? Already forgot?

          But you said “Soldiers are also civilians”.

          Already forgot?

          Why did you change it to non-civilian?

          Maybe I should explain it a bit more. Rome had no civilian hospitals, as I showed earlier, until the Christian era.

          Maybe I should explain it a bit more. I really couldn’t give a fuck. As I showed earlier, different folk believe the a variety of things about valetudinaria. It is far from settled. You don’t own it.

          However, it is not completely clear that the valetudinaria were hospitals in the way we understand the idea. The archaeological and written evidence does not make clear how they were used.

          The valetudinaria is your red herring…it is not necessary for my argument in refuting your nonsense.

          But they had many military hospitals.

          No one has argued against that, it’s another of your bullshit straw men. What has been noticed in passing is that some scholars believe civilians used them too. Some scholars believe that there may have been civilian valetudinaria. And there is tentative evidence to support that assertion. The picture is ever changing as the data is assessed using more modern techniques and better interpretation of the evidence.

          A comparison of descriptions of civilian valetudinaria could be useful; unfortunately, however, descriptions of civilian valetudinaria are vaguer than those with the army. Celsus is the only Roman writer who mentions valetudinaria outside a military context and comments that the larger the building the less treatment there was made available to the people by the person in charge of running the structure (Proemium 65). This statement in itself indicates that such structures did exist. There is another suggestion by Harig that there might have been Tabernae Medicae (1971: 185-7; Jackson 1988: 65), or basically a shop where one could receive treatment. Galen also mentions visiting patients in their own homes; though it has been argued by Horstmannshoff that he did this mainly for the wealthy (1995: 84-5, 91). The civilian evidence points to a number of possibilities for people to receive treatment, suggesting that there may not have been one specific place for civilians to have health care offered to them and this should be kept in mind when the archaeological material is considered for the Roman military.

          https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgajpd/medicina%20antiqua/sa_ArchaeologicalRemains.pdf

          Military hospitals were built in and operated within the confinements of military fortresses.

          Maybe,

          So, for example, when Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, he needed a bunch of bases and forts for his huge army. These forts would take care of the armies needs, such as food, water, shelter, etc. Some hospitals were also maintained in these fortresses if a soldier got injured.

          Who cares?

          What this means is that the only people with access to the hospitals are the people in the military fort. As in non-civilian. This includes the soldiers themselves, any slaves at the fortress, and perhaps travelers who needs to send a message to and from the fort, etc. That explains why the link you gave earlier say that some slaves and travelers may have been treated there. Just under 100% of the Roman population, however, was out of luck.

          Maybe. But it still means that civilians were treated in these hospitals. And these type of hospitals may have been created at places where there were no military…for gladiators and slaves specifically, like some scholars have suggested…meaning they were civilian establishments. The issue is not a settled one.

          No of this matters for my argument though…so pah!

          It looks like the Aclepian temples aren’t even considered hospitals by some historians.

          I don’t care, you left out an important bit….I ftfy. If your expert is lumping in “monastery with a room off the courtyard” as constituting a hospital, the ascelpion temples are in…as are much earlier temples in ancient Greece and Egypt. And STILL not necessary for my argument…civilian hospitals were in India before Rome became Christian…suck it up.

          Some scholars don’t even consider the Roman military hospitals to be “hospitals” (remember that valetudinaria link you posted, as well as the book Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals you tried to cite earlier as well?), but that’s aside the point (for now).

          Some? Who cares…I don’t need them to be hospitals for my rebuttal to stand, the fact that they may have been, and serviced civilian needs, and there may have been some that were solely for civilians, is a bonus.

          See;….blah, blah, blah, blah.

          Already refuted with the Indian hospitals, your source is wrong. It’s okay, don’t sweat it. Historians get things wrong all the time…it ain’t an exact science. And a lot of it is a matter of interpretation based on current evidence at any given moment, which is subject to change.

          So while you tried bothering me with online websites or whatever that referred to these as “hospitals”, again, we need to try sticking to academic parlance if we want to be precise. The Asclepian temples were not hospitals, because if they were, Smith wouldn’t be able to say that no civilian hospitals existed until the mid 3rd century.

          I don’t care what Smith says…all scholars don’t agree…other scholars say different…and Nutton says Christian hospitals could be nothing more than a room off a monastery courtyard used for healing…your experts definition, not mine…ascelpion are hospitals in that sense…you lost. And I’m going to say this until you grasp it, or I’m blue in the face…the Indian hospital refutes your initial claim…you lost, get over it soft boy.

          That’s not an ad hominem. The source you gave was a medical journal, not a history journal, and it’s history article was a blog post for the journals website rather than some kind of peer-reviewed stuff. Your new link, from another blog called aramco from some author who was some vague “advanced degree” in history (is it a PhD, or just an MA? and is it in medieval history? has he ever published any papers? we don’t know … ) just agitates the problem I have with these sources. For a clear scholarly reference for these Byzantine hospitals being hospitals, just see the quote I gave earlier.

          When you attck the source, not the substance, you are resorting to the ad hominem fallacy. It means you have nothing to rebut the
          the content of the source, so you have to attack its legitimacy. Do me a favor, if you can’t refute the content, fuck away off.

          You also seem to nicely conceed that most early Islamic hospitals were founded by Christian assistance.

          Why can’t you just read for comprehension? There was nothing to concede, because it wasn’t something I was contesting…wake up ya moron and try and stay focused. Here, I’ll help ya with some emphasis…

          Anyways, I’ll now prove that they were in fact hospitals in the Christian pre-Muslim world from an academic source you tried to quote earlier (before I turned it on you);

          Not an argument I’m making ffs…another straw man fallacy from the expert at fallacious arguing. And you turned fuck all on me ya Dime Bar.

          Try again.

          It’s almost as if early Islamic hospitals wouldn’t have taken off without Christianity instilling the hospital into the society of the Byzantine world …. hmmmmm…

          Could be, but since that is just another assertion you’ve pulled from your well worn shite pipe, I could give zero fucks. What I will note though…

          The translation of 129 of Galen’s works into Arabic by the Nestorian Christian Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his assistants, and in particular Galen’s insistence on a rational systematic approach to medicine, set the template for Islamic medicine, which rapidly spread throughout the Arab Empire. while Europe was in its Dark Ages, Islam expanded in West Asia and enjoyed a golden age. Its most famous physicians included the Persian polymaths Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi and Avicenna, who wrote more than 40 works on health, medicine, and well-being. Taking leads from Greece and Rome, Islamic scholars kept both the art and science of medicine alive and moving forward.

          So much for your Christianity, not Christians bullshit from earlier.

          Muslims could have easily got there model from the Indians and others too, at least in part…which scholars believe they did.

          The Arabs were influenced by ancient Indian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine medical practices, and helped them develop further.

          Anyway, it’s not relevant…it’s your fallacious fuckwittery of a rabbit hole. But I noticed you avoid answering my question…

          And who helped get the earliest Christians hospitals off the ground in the first place?

          I think you’ll just have to give credit where it’s due.

          I have no problem giving credit where it’s due, that’s your problem, not mine. I’m just not prepared to give all the credit where it’s not due…which is your ball of wax.

          Christianity is responsible for the second medical revolution in history.

          What ta fuck was the “second medical revolution” in history and support with evidence how Christianity was responsible and not others?

          You seem very quick to try to give Muslims lots of credit.

          Muslims, Indians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Byzantines…wherever credit is due…forgot already? But not to where it’s not due…no undeserved respect.

          You made an erroneous comment 12 days ago,…let’s review your initial fuckwittery…

          In the time of pagan Rome, Greece, etc, civilian hospitals simply didn’t exist. It’s really that simple.

          I’ve shown with evidence that they did. It’s really that simple.

          Then, Rome becomes Christians. From there, it takes only a few decades for hospitals to become ubiquitous.

          Nope…when Rome becomes Christian, hospitals didn’t become “ubiquitous”, not even in the Roman empire, you latched onto that word for the part and applied it to the whole…and even then it took more than a “few” decades by any reasonable definition of the word “few”.

          While the medicine to treat people didn’t exist, basic care (shelter, food, etc) obviously does help those being treated.

          Absolute crap by any understanding of the subject.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine

          And basic care (shelter, food, etc.) aka hospitality, was practiced in the ancient world millennia before Rome became Christian. It’s really that simple.

          http://web.archive.org/web/20060429022247/http://8.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHARITY_AND_CHARITIES.htm

          Secondly, without the Christianity to make hospitals ubiquitous … hospitals wouldn’t have become ubiquitous

          Christianity didn’t make hospitals ubiquitous. Even by your own revised position, it was only in the Byzantine east. And your assertion that only for that happening, hospitals wouldn’t have spread throughout the world, is ludicrous.

          Simply imagine a world today where there were almost no, if any, civilian hospitals in the world. That would be quite behind what we have now.

          Because no other culture or civilization could ever perceived the concept of the hospital that existed, or expanded on the existing healthcare giving institutions already in place?…wise up

          This is truly a medical revolution, as described by historians, all thanks to Christianity.

          No, it wasn’t “all” thanks to Christianity. Christians may have played a pivotal role in the process, but it wasn’t “all” down to Christianity.

          But rather than rectify the errors, you’ve went on a rabbit warren of a journey in an attempt to save what I can only assume was what you believe would lose face. In that time, you’ve shown to any rational reader that you are totally incompetent.

          I smell a bias ….

          That has to win the Annual Internet Irony Award…there are meters exploding worldwide as I type.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Ballix. You just pull shite outta yer arse and claim it is so. In no way does a rational person equate “less” evidence to “no” evidence at all ya daft bastard.”

          Wrong again, that’s exactly how academic parlance works. If an academic says “There’s not much evidence to support this recent claim”, that’s the nice way of dismissing the claim.

          “As I showed earlier, different folk believe the a variety of things about valetudinaria. It is far from settled. You don’t own it.”

          Well, I guess I do. That link you gave says some scholars don’t even think the valetudinaria were hospitals at all. So forget about no civilian hospitals in Rome until Christianity, if you really want to bang on that link at all, we might as well say there were no hospitals at all until Christianity.

          “What has been noticed in passing is that some scholars believe civilians used them too.”

          This is a fail beyond words. The only “civilians” who used the military hospitals were the ones based at the fortresses or who brought messages to them. Imagine if the U.S. government claimed they decided to build more of their civilian hospitals … in their Afghanistan bases… you know, some of the nurses that the military keeps along would also be able to use the hospitals, so whose to say they aren’t civilian hospitals? LOL. If the Romans said this, however, it makes perfect sense to Amos. /facepalm

          ” If your expert is lumping in “monastery with a room off the courtyard” as constituting a hospital”

          This is the biggest lie so far in all your comments. What makes you think, you pathetic weasel, that all the Byzantine hospitals were monastery rooms off a courtyard? Did anyone care to educate you on how complex and advanced these institutions had become?

          From Nutton again;

          As time went on these hospitals became ever larger and more complex. Ephesus in 420 had one with seventy beds; Jerusalem in 550 one with 200 beds; that of St Sampson in Constantinople may have been larger still. Signs of specialisation also appear. By 500 Edessa had a hospital for women, and by 600 some big hospitals at Antioch and Constantinople were divided into male and female wards. The anonymous author of the Miracles of St. Artemius shows that by 640 surgery was being carried out at St Sampson’s, and that a specific section of the hospital was set aside for those suffering from eye diseases. Physicians were in attendance at a variety of hospitals – in 570 at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt one medical family even ran its own small hospital – and there can be no doubt that some of these institutions provided treatment as well as nursing care for the sick.

          What you did was misrepresent what Nutton said a page earlier, where Nutton writes that the Christian mission was so intense on putting hospitals everywhere that communities were pushed to do this even if they could do no more than build a room in a monastery off a courtyard. Of course, that’s superior to the nothing the pagans had. But in general, the Christian hospitals rapidly spread, developed, became bigger and progressed.

          “I don’t care, you left out an important bit….I ftfy.”

          Sorry, I meant to say “Asclepian temples are simply not considered hospitals by the consensus of historians”. Happy?

          “I don’t care what Smith says…all scholars don’t agree…other scholars say different…”

          They don’t. You’ve failed to show a single scholar saying that Asclepian temples can be classified as hospitals. All you did was provide a blog post on the website for a non-history journal. Please don’t confuse your blog references with my academic citations. Dude, you need to start paying more atttention. I’m tanking you on pretty much every point.

          “When you attck the source, not the substance, you are resorting to the ad hominem fallacy.”

          There’s no need to address a non-scholarly source that doesn’t provide references. I can pretty much dismiss your blog posts off the cuff.

          Here’s the easiest part of your entire comment to wipe the floor with;

          So much for your Christianity, not Christians bullshit from earlier.

          Muslims could have easily got there model from the Indians and others too, at least in part…which scholars believe they did.

          The Arabs were influenced by ancient Indian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine medical practices, and helped them develop further.

          Anyway, it’s not relevant…it’s your fallacious fuckwittery of a rabbit hole. But I noticed you avoid answering my question…

          All crap. Again, one single Indian hospital. There was no developed institution. It was one place. Indian “medicine” was … pretty much nothing. Your initial claim, “So much for your Christianity”, refutes yourself, given your earlier quote. You provide a quote on how a Nestorian Christian translated over 120+ medical works of Galen, helping take Islamic medicine off the ground. You’re doing my work for me, Christianity really is the foundations of all this hospital stuff.

          “What ta fuck was the “second medical revolution” in history and support with evidence how Christianity was responsible and not others?”

          I explained 200 years ago what the second medical revolution was. Making hospitals ubiquitous. Good God. I quoted Nutton, and ended that part of the debate. Simple. Easy.

          “Christianity didn’t make hospitals ubiquitous. Even by your own revised position, it was only in the Byzantine east.”

          Ah, there it is, the utter semantic dishonesty of Amos shining again. This entire time, I’m obviously talking about Byzantine society. Christianity made the hospital ubiquitous in this civilization. This was the precedent for other civilizations making hospitals ubiquitous, just like how the Greeks set the precedent for other civilizations practicing philosophy.

          “No, it wasn’t “all” thanks to Christianity. Christians may have played a pivotal role in the process, but it wasn’t “all” down to Christianity.”

          The hell? It was all Christianity. Give up. The pagans had the exact same resources, in the exact same century, in the exact same geography, and didn’t make a pinte of progress in the second medical revolution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wrong again, that’s exactly how academic parlance works. If an academic says “There’s not much evidence to support this recent claim”, that’s the nice way of dismissing the claim.

          Stop cnanging the terms ya dishonest cunt. No evidence and less evidence are not the same. No evidence means there is zilch, zip, zero…none, nothing, nil, nadda. Less evidence means there could be mountains of evidence for X, but it is still less than for Y. You are pulling this fuckwittery from yer rectum. Citation or fuck up.

          Well, I guess I do.

          Nope…ya don’t. Different scholars believe differently. Some believe there were civilian valetudinaria.

          That link you gave says some scholars don’t even think the valetudinaria were hospitals at all.

          I think what it is saying is that some buildings being claimed as valetudinaria, either weren’t, or were not used as hospitals.

          So forget about no civilian hospitals in Rome until Christianity, if you really want to bang on that link at all, we might as well say there were no hospitals at all until Christianity.

          You really are a stupid twat. Valetudinarian are your straw man. I don’t care. They are not necessary for my argument. Ascelpion were in existence prior to Christianity…sickrooms existed prior to Christianity and they actually treated civilian patients…Ancient Greek doctors worked from rooms at home or dedicated places to treat the sick…those were were “hospitals” as per your source Nutton. Suck it up.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#Early_examples

          This is a fail beyond words. The only “civilians” who used the military hospitals were the ones based at the fortresses or who brought messages to them.

          So some civillians used them too. But again I don’t care. Gladiators and slaves used them too.

          But even then, there is tentative evidence for civilian “hospitals” in the Roman empire before Christianity…but being the dishonest fuckwit you are, you will ignore that. Here it is again.

          One example of a historical source that is interpreted by Davies to be evidence of a valetudinarium is from Hadrian’s biography, where a statement is made about how he would visit the sick in their quarters: “Aegros milites in hospitiis suis videret” (SHA Hadr. 10. 3). It is important to point out from this passage that Hadrian visited the sick in the hospitium, rather than in a valetudinarium. Hospitium is similar in meaning to the Greek word cenodoxei~on and can be translated to mean a place for foreigners to stay, or a place to receive hospitality. Thus the Latin indicates that the sick and wounded were not necessarily placed in a valetudinarium for treatment or recuperation, but perhaps in another part of a building, or in a separate area of the campaign fortification.

          A comparison of descriptions of civilian valetudinaria could be useful; unfortunately, however, descriptions of civilian valetudinaria are vaguer than those with the army. Celsus is the only Roman writer who mentions valetudinaria outside a military context and comments that the larger the building the less treatment there was made available to the people by the person in charge of running the structure (Proemium 65). This statement in itself indicates that such structures did exist. There is another suggestion by Harig that there might have been Tabernae Medicae (1971: 185-7; Jackson 1988: 65), or basically a shop where one could receive treatment. Galen also mentions visiting patients in their own homes; though it has been argued by Horstmannshoff that he did this mainly for the wealthy (1995: 84-5, 91). The civilian evidence points to a
          number of possibilities for people to receive treatment, suggesting that there may not have been one specific place for civilians to have health care offered to them and this should be kept in mind when the archaeological material is considered for the Roman military.

          Imagine if the U.S. government claimed they decided to build more of their civilian hospitals … in their Afghanistan bases… you know, some of the nurses that the military keeps along would also be able to use the hospitals, so whose to say they aren’t civilian hospitals?

          Shit analogy…no surprise there then. A better analogy. The hospitals on US forts that civilians were privy to.

          Here’s a better one though…true anecdote…my daughter was born in BMH Rinteln in West Germany. That’s British Military Hospital Rinteln.

          A military hospital is a hospital that is owned and operated by the armed forces. They are often reserved for the use of military personnel and their dependents, but in some countries are made available to civilians as well. They may or may not be located on a military base; many are not.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_hospital

          LOL. If the Romans said this, however, it makes perfect sense to Amos. /facepalm

          You have to realize how much of an embarrassing cockhead you are making of yourself by now, surely?

          For the umpteenth time….this is you straw man…it isn’t an argument I’m making…you brought it into the conversation and it is stupid.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Stop cnanging the terms ya dishonest cunt. No evidence and less evidence are not the same.”

          Once again, an academic saying “hmmm … not much evidence here” is the nice way of saying it can be dismissed. This should be self-evident.

          “Citation or fuck up.”

          Please, if any archaeological evidence ever existed for civilian hospitals in pre-Christian Rome, then Smith, who I quoted earlier, wouldn’t be able to outright say that there were no civilian hospitals until Christianity and leave it at that.

          “Nope…ya don’t. Different scholars believe differently. Some believe there were civilian valetudinaria.”

          Nope.

          “I think what it is saying is that some buildings being claimed as valetudinaria, either weren’t, or were not used as hospitals.”

          That’s not what it says. It says “However, it is not completely clear that the valetudinaria were hospitals in the way we understand the idea.” That means that the valetudinaria may have been actual hospitals, but they may just as well not be actual hospitals. I don’t think that helps your case.

          “Ancient Greek doctors worked from rooms at home or dedicated places to treat the sick…those were were “hospitals” as per your source Nutton. ”

          Nope, Nutton never calls them hospitals. As I showed in my other response to you on the other thread a few minutes earlier, you have to twist what Nutton says to claim he calls them hospitals. If Nutton actually believed they were hospitals, which he clearly doesn’t, you would be able to just quote him calling them hospitals.

          To claim that there were civilian hospitals, you pull a really funny dance. You quote some lecture script (not published, as your policy almost seems to forbid you from referring to actual published papers), which says some vague text in the writings of Aulus Celsus, which is mostly lost anyways, could maybe be considered a hospital in a non-military context. This sort of total vagueness and ambiguity, amplified by the fact that archaeology hasn’t revealed a scratch of such civilian valetudinaria despite having found hundreds of Asclepian temples, precludes you from making any real challenge to my point.

          “Shit analogy…no surprise there then. A better analogy. The hospitals on US forts that civilians were privy to.”

          Perfect analogy, actually, this response is quite incoherent. Again, imagine if the US claimed they were building civilian hospitals, and then the construction starts in Afghanistani bases. LOL. Amos, quick to jump to their defense, points out that the civilian nurses stationed at these forts also use the hospitals, so pah!

          “A military hospital is a hospital that is owned and operated by the armed forces. They are often reserved for the use of military personnel and their dependents, but in some countries are made available to civilians as well. They may or may not be located on a military base; many are not.”

          Thanks for proving my point. Even if a few civilians used a military hospital, it’s still a military hospital and not a civilian hospital. Which means your attempt to appeal to the slaves stationed for the army in these Roman fortresses fails. No civilian hospitals until the Christian era.

          “No. you didn’t….

          Actually, it’ll be a full empire, since the Byzantine Empire became its own after the split after the reign of Theodosius.
          Is not the same as…

          Theodosius I (379–395) was the last Emperor to rule both the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire.”

          It is the same. The full separation between the western and eastern halves was complete by the end of the reign of Theodosius, even if it started earlier and took over a century to complete. But the fact that your wrong on this point is literally irrelevant to the conversation, so once again, please try to focus.

          “You do know what a half is, don’t ya? A half is 50% of a whole. If I cut a cake in half, I don’t have two cakes ya clown.”

          The hell are you talking about? LOL

          Anyways, let’s get back on track. After the full separation of the two empires after Theodosius’s reign, the Christian hospitals were truly everywhere in a full empire — the Byzantine empire. It’s obvious that the reason why you’re trying to take this point off track is because you realized you were totally wrong.

          “Here’s an idea, stop making them and no one will be able to pull you up on them. Errors…small or large…are misleading to the uninformed…stop it.”

          Says the guy who fell for the myth that Asoka built a chain of hospitals. See, unlike you, I actually try to progress the conversation without pulling back an archive of the other persons mistakes. It’s just bothersome and annoying. You’re trying to score points, not make progress.

          “Both sections were known equally as `The Roman Empire'”

          Ah, so this was your point from the quote. Still irrelevant, ya doofus, since what something is called by the ancients has no bearing on the fact that the Byzantine empire was its own empire and not magically connected to the Holy Roman Empire.

          “No progress can be made until you admit the misleading comments that I’m taking issue with”

          Piss off you chimp.

          Where I won’t agree is that…

          Byzantine Empire by Basil of Caesarea, and within a few decades, such hospitals had become ubiquitous in Byzantine society.

          That is a distortion of Nutton’s book.

          It’s not. Nutton literally says “ubiquitous”. If you, who does not know the history of ancient medicine want to take it up with one of the worlds leading experts on the topic, go ahead. You then go on to oddly imply I give no credit to pagan medicine — I do. The first medical revolution happened with the pagans (not due to paganism, though). But I’m specifically talking about the second medical revolution here, which was Christianity in and out.

          “You pointed to the paper I cited where the author points out that the term “hospital” isn’t used in any inscription, nor is there evidence that the king built “hospitals”…the problem is, there is evidence he built “hospitals” in the sense Nutton is using the term in her ubiquitous claim”

          No, there isn’t. Not of the slightest sort. Again, your clusterquack of a comment simply lies about this point by claiming Nutton’s only criterion for a hospital is being a room off a courtyard or some crap. Total fail. As your paper points out, Asoka didn’t even build any building of any sort for the treatment of anyone. He built some water wells and stuff, but … that’s it. Again, piss off. Your quote from that obscure journal paper is irrelevant because, once again, it’s just repeating the Asoka myth.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is the biggest lie so far in all your comments. What makes you think, you pathetic weasel, that all the Byzantine hospitals were monastery rooms off a courtyard?

          If you could just read your own source for comprehension ya daft bastard. I never said that all the Byzantine hospitals were monastery rooms off a courtyard…yet another straw man to add to the army you are constructing ya lying bastard.

          Nutton wrote…

          By contrast, from the middle years of the fifth century onwards, hospitals, xenodokeia, are ubiquitous in the East. Church law codes in Syriac repeatedly enjoined the provision of hospitals in the local community, even if they were no more than a room off the courtyard of a church or monastery.

          So obviously she believed that some hospitals were nothing more than a room off the courtyard of a church or monastery. If a room off the courtyard of a church or monastery can be defined as a hospital, then a purpose built ascelpion temple for treating the sick with medicine and medical procedures certainly fits the bill.

          Did anyone care to educate you on how complex and advanced these institutions had become?

          Yeah…you…with your book reference…thanks for that. Hoist by yer own petard…again.

          Here…have some more…

          Yet to seek here a purely medical hospital is a work of supererogation. Many of the smaller xenodokeia would have offered little more than a place to lay one’s head, rest and eat. Monks, ex-army officers, even the occasional civilian administrator are far more prominent in the actual running of these hospitals than physicians.

          More?

          The variety of names used for these institutions – hospice, hostel, poorhouse, sick-house, orphanage, home for the elderly, hospital – indicates a variety of overlapping, and at times competing, aims within the overall ideology of shelter and Christian charity. Some institutions may have specialised in one type of inmate – transient pilgrims, for example, particularly in Rome, Constantinople and the Holy Land – but often this exclusivity was confined to their title. Early Christian hospitals promoted a combination of charitable activities, not just one. There were also non-medical considerations to be borne in mind.

          From Nutton again;

          Indeed. Some little hospitals. Some big hospitals…some single rooms off the yards of churches or monasteries…your source…own it.

          What you did was misrepresent what Nutton said a page earlier, where Nutton writes that the Christian mission was so intense on putting hospitals everywhere that communities were pushed to do this even if they could do no more than build a room in a monastery off a courtyard.

          Liar, liar, pants on fire. The reason why is irrelevant to me. The fact is, it is what it is dumbo.

          Of course, that’s superior to the nothing the pagans had.

          But the Pagans didn’t have nothing. Nutton explains all this in the book you gave me…didn’t you read it?

          But in general, the Christian hospitals rapidly spread, developed, became bigger and progressed.

          Not an argument being contested so pah! Though the progression bit is dubious. Christian hospitals stifled progress. But no matter.

          Sorry, I meant to say “Asclepian temples are simply not considered hospitals by the consensus of historians”. Happy?

          I don’t care, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…if a fucking single room off a church or monastery courtyard can be classed a “hospital”…or sickroom…a temple dedicated to the healing and treatment of sick certainly qualifies. You’ll have to show that consensus…pulling it from yer dishonest arsehole doesn’t cut it.

          And what historian call them matters as much as the university fuckwittery. They were doing what the first Christian hospitals were doing and more.

          Guenter B. Risse see’s both civilian valetudinaria and ascelpion as the pre-Christian healing places in Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals.

          These Healing Centers are the Western World’s first general hospitals. Hippocrates’ texts and the advanced surgical tools that were found during the excavations at Epidauros indicate that in the classical era medicine was not mastered by magic and superstitions. Among the approximately 300 Asclepius Healing Centers of the ancient world, the Asclepieion at Epidauros was the most significant and has been claimed as the maternal of many others.

          https://www.thenationalherald.com/119038/asclepion-centers-and-greek-healing/

          Pergamum’s asclepion was once the best healing centre in the world. Equivalent to today’s top hospitals, people from all over the ancient world went to Pergamum’s asclepion to be cured. Its cures included music, running water, walking barefoot, dream analysis, sun and water bathing, honey cures and even the art of suggestion. It was, in essence, as much a psychological hospital as a medical one.

          http://www.stephenmaybury.co.uk/travelogue/pergamum-asclepeion/

          Maybe folk are just equating them with hospitals for convenience, because, well, that’s what they were? As much as those early Christian hospitals were anyway.

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/hospital

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If you could just read your own source for comprehension ya daft bastard. I never said that all the Byzantine hospitals were monastery rooms off a courtyard…yet another straw man to add to the army you are constructing ya lying bastard.”

          Total crap. Your point utterly fails if you have to concede that the one thing you’re focusing on with this point is the few remote hospitals Christians were just building to make sure they could get the institution everywhere. Otherwise, we have an actual, full, major, developing institution all over the empire — some are big, some are small — that’s merely to be expected.

          “then a purpose built ascelpion temple for treating the sick with medicine and medical procedures certainly fits the bill.”

          Nope. You simply lie about what Nutton is saying — being a “room” is not the criteria that the hospitals filled to become actual hospitals. Historians basically agree that Asclepian temples totally fail, for reasons gone over otherwise. Only open to cult members, all visits were brief, the ‘treatment’ was essentially just dream reading or some crap, etc. Try again.

          Yet to seek here a purely medical hospital is a work of supererogation. Many of the smaller xenodokeia would have offered little more than a place to lay one’s head, rest and eat. Monks, ex-army officers, even the occasional civilian administrator are far more prominent in the actual running of these hospitals than physicians.

          More?

          The variety of names used for these institutions – hospice, hostel, poorhouse, sick-house, orphanage, home for the elderly, hospital – indicates a variety of overlapping, and at times competing, aims within the overall ideology of shelter and Christian charity. Some institutions may have specialised in one type of inmate – transient pilgrims, for example, particularly in Rome, Constantinople and the Holy Land – but often this exclusivity was confined to their title. Early Christian hospitals promoted a combination of charitable activities, not just one. There were also non-medical considerations to be borne in mind.

          What I got from these quotes is that the early Christians were highly charitable people, providing care, treatment, food, etc, for the sick, poor, elderly, orphans, etc. Was there something else you were trying to prove?

          “But the Pagans didn’t have nothing. Nutton explains all this in the book you gave me…didn’t you read it?”

          Pagans had no civilian hospitals. What are you talking about? The smallest monastery civilian hospital courtyard room is, once again, better than the nothing pagans had. Can you quote where Nutton says pagans had civilian hospitals? Or more changing of topic on your part? hmmm

          “And what historian call them matters as much as the university fuckwittery. They were doing what the first Christian hospitals were doing and more.”

          Nope, they weren’t doing nearly as much, and they were highly exclusive, whereas the Christians did it for everyone, etc. What historians call them is all that matters, actually, and no one gives a rats arse what you want to call them.

          “Not an argument being contested so pah! Though the progression bit is dubious. Christian hospitals stifled progress. But no matter.”

          Stifled progress by onsetting the second medical revolution? /facepalm intensifies
          The progress isn’t dubious, as my quote shows. In fact, my quote shows enormous progress. So pah!

          “Guenter B. Risse see’s both civilian valetudinaria and ascelpion as the pre-Christian healing places in Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals.

          These Healing Centers are the Western World’s first general hospitals. Hippocrates’ texts and the advanced surgical tools that were found during the excavations at Epidauros indicate that in the classical era medicine was not mastered by magic and superstitions. Among the approximately 300 Asclepius Healing Centers of the ancient world, the Asclepieion at Epidauros was the most significant and has been claimed as the maternal of many others.

          https://www.thenationalhera…”

          Sorry, what? That quote isn’t from Risse’s book, it’s from another one of your irrelevant blog sources. Risse’s book says that the Christian hospitals were pretty much the first hospitals, and that the valetudinaria and Asclepeion were, at best, precursors to the hospital.

          “Pergamum’s asclepion was once the best healing centre in the world. Equivalent to today’s top hospitals”

          AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

          “Equivalent to today’s top hospitals”

          I’m dying man. More proof Amos doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His source for this claim? Another blog. The sources the blog gives? OTHER blogs … this is too good.

          Another comment … another bunch of nothing. My point remains as unbreakable as ever.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Total crap. Your point utterly fails if you have to concede that the one thing you’re focusing on with this point is the few remote hospitals Christians were just building to make sure they could get the institution everywhere.

          But that’s not what I’m doing ya simple prick…I’m using your claim that if a single room off a church or courtyard constitutes a “hospital” as Nutton declared, then similar non-Christian institutions before that time, must be offered the same courtesy.

          It is your source that asserts that Christians were just building to make sure the could get the institution everywhere in accordance with Church law codes…did you not read it? Here it is…

          Church law codes in Syriac repeatedly enjoined the provision of hospitals in the local community, even if they were no more than a room off the courtyard of a church or monastery.118 They are found even in remote spots.119 To the legislators they were a necessary form of public charity, manifestations of Christian concern for those in need.

          Otherwise, we have an actual, full, major, developing institution all over the empire — some are big, some are small — that’s merely to be expected.

          Like there was before Christianity with the Ascelpion Temple hospitals?

          Some were big, some were small…that’s merely to be expected.

          And some were very small…one room apparently.

          Not my problem….if a single room off a Christian church or monastery court yard used for rest and recuperation can be classed under the term “hospital”, then other similar pre-Christian places doing the same and more, can certainly be classed as “hospitals”…the numbers are irrelevant.

          Nope. You simply lie about what Nutton is saying — being a “room” is not the criteria that the hospitals filled to become actual hospitals.

          I’m not lying about what Nutton is saying…you are not reading what she is saying…there’s a difference.

          Historians basically agree that Asclepian temples totally fail, for reasons gone over otherwise.

          Nope. You are being demonstrably stupid.

          Only open to cult members,…

          Doesn’t matter…the point is, they were civilian. You obviously don’t know how Pagan cults and worship operates. But regardless, Nuttons section on Hellenistic Medicine describes community Doctors tending to the whole community, poor and wealthy. Where they did is an open question, if the service is coming to the patient, a sick room, clinic, or “hospital” is superfluous.

          …all visits were brief,…

          Misconception…didn’t you read Nutton’s book?

          The Epidaurian inscriptions imply that the patients spent only one night at the shrine, but that may be to press the evidence too far, for it emphasises the moment of cure, not the time spent at the shrine.

          …the ‘treatment’ was essentially just dream reading or some crap, etc.

          Absolute ballix…you didn’t read Nutton did ya?

          Try again.

          You try again…call your self a history buff….bwahahaha…bad enough ya don’t even know what a “civilian” was until I tutored ya ffs.

          All historians don’t agree. Your Nutton doesn’t, try reading her book.

          Ascelpion in early Greek antiquity…

          If the suppliants were fortunate, while asleep they would receive a vision from Asclepius. In it sometimes the god himself appeared and healed them by acting as a physician or surgeon; sometimes it was one of the sacred snakes or dogs who appeared to lick or enter the person; sometimes the dream itself was a mere riddle and required further assistance to be understood. On waking, the sufferer might be completely recovered, all paralysis or swellings gone, but sometimes the god had given instructions which needed to be interpreted by a priest or temple guardian and then followed up before a cure was secured. Many of the treatments find parallels within contemporary medicine, but others were perhaps selected for public display precisely because of their.

          Thus Telemachus’ mainly private foundation of the shrine of Asclepius at Athens was gradually assimilated into the official religious environment of the city, and may have been subject to some civic control from its inception. In this process Asclepius came to symbolise not just the power of the gods to heal and save but also the art of medicine itself as contrasted with other healing alternatives. Asclepius possessed the skills, talents and attributes of the good human doctor. For a doctor to reject Asclepius and his healings might also be for him to reject the very things for which medicine was thought to stand. In this way religious and secular healing reinforced rather than opposed each other.

          Ascelpion in the pre-Christian Roman empire…

          The dream-interpreter Artemidorus made a similar comment, going out of his way to emphasise that the gods in healing visions, at Pergamum, Alexandria and elsewhere, offered cures ‘entirely in line with proper medicine and in no way alien to medical reasoning’. Grateful patients in Rome and at Cibyra, S.W. Turkey, gave thanks to Asclepius and Hygieia for cures vouchsafed to them through the medium of doctors acting ‘according to divine instruction’.

          Here is another group of scholars that think otherwise…

          A striking fact is that the Asclepieia adopted a holistic approach to the treatment of patients, emphasizing the therapeutic qualities of the natural environment as well as recognizing the importance of psychological and emotional factors in the healing procedure and in the activation of the innate healing mechanisms of every human being.3 What has recently emerged as a major issue and a focal
          point in modern hospital design, appears to have been a well-established practice in the ancient Greek healing centers.

          http://www.mednet.gr/archives/2010-2/pdf/259.pdf

          In the Asclepeion of Epidaurus, three large marble boards dated to 350 BC preserve the names, case histories, complaints, and cures of about 70 patients who came to the temple with a problem and shed it there. Some of the surgical cures listed, such as the opening of an abdominal abscess or the removal of traumatic foreign material, are realistic enough to have taken place, with the patient in a dream-like state of induced sleep known as “enkoimesis” (Greek: ἐγκοίμησις), not unlike anesthesia, induced with the help of soporific substances such as opium.

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531513102007173

          What is a university teaching?,,,

          https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/students/modules/greekreligion/database/clumcc/

        • Ignorant Amos

          What I got from these quotes is that the early Christians were highly charitable people, providing care, treatment, food, etc, for the sick, poor, elderly, orphans, etc. Was there something else you were trying to prove?

          They weren’t hospitals, if they are to be counted as such, then the same rule applies to similar non-Christian institutions, It’s that simple. Btw…according to Nutton, not all the reasons for such institutions appear to be charitable ones.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pagans had no civilian hospitals. What are you talking about?

          They had “hospitals” if a single room off a church or monastery for the sick is a description of a “hospital”.

          The smallest monastery civilian hospital courtyard room is, once again, better than the nothing pagans had.

          Nope…apparently not…didn’t you read Nutton’s book?

          Theoretical pronouncements notwithstanding, the Hippocratic physician was first and foremost a craftsman plying his trade. He, and it was almost always he, might work from his own house, which thus served as his surgery or ‘medical workshop’, and remain largely within his own community, or he might, like Homer’s craftsman-doctor, travel in search of patients. He might practise alone, or in company with others, travelling around familiar territory or wandering further afield as a total stranger. With one exception, his income depended on finding patients prepared to pay for his services, supplemented by whatever else he might gain from his property or estates, if he had any. That exception was some form of state service, whether as a doctor with the army or navy on campaign or as a so-called ‘public doctor’. If Herodotus is to be believed, there was already a system of public doctors in Aegina and Athens by the late sixth century, for Democedes held such a post in both cities. But there is then a gap in the historical record of a century or so, and the most detailed evidence does not appear until Hellenistic times. To judge from this later information, the presence of a public doctor was no welfare state avant la lettre. Certain physicians, in Athens chosen by the assembly, received what amounted to a retaining fee to reside in the community and be on hand to treat the citizens. Whether their contract compelled them to offer treatment for nothing is a vexed question: their tombstones and the honorary decrees that record their distinguished service show that they did so at times, but it is more likely that free treatment was left to the doctors’ own discretion than that it was legally imposed on them. Social pressures in a small community might compel a doctor to treat the poorest citizens for nothing, but he is unlikely to have been willing to do the same always for the rich, or for noncitizens.

          First impressions counted for a great deal: a well-stocked and appointed surgery, a neat bandage on another patient, a sound pronouncement about the sort of disease likely to be met with in the locality, appropriate dress and behaviour, an avowed willingness to help, but, at the same time, a reluctance to go too far with rash procedures that might end up damaging or even killing the patient.

          Can you quote where Nutton says pagans had civilian hospitals?

          Nope…no need….if a “medical workshop” where patients are seen and treated…and “a well stocked surgery” are not consistent with being a “hospital”…then I’m fucked if I’m going to accept “a room off a church or monastery courtyard” is a “hospital” no matter what scholar you produce to support such fuckwittery.

          Or more changing of topic on your part? hmmm

          Look ya knob jockey, you fucked up in a comment…not me…the changing of the topic the last fortnight is your fuckwittery…rabbit holes to deflect from your initial fuck up. I’m just enjoying the crack playing with the chew toy in between the other stuff I have to do…when that changes I’ll simply stop replying your ballix and then you can claim you’ve won. The thing is, that’ll be your delusion, you can go and find yerslf a dark place and pull yerself off silly in that belief…I care not a jot.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope,…

          Yip.

          …they weren’t doing nearly as much,,,,

          The Pagans were doing a whole lot more than the first simple Christians in their “hospitals”…even Nutton sees that. Did you read the book?

          …and they were highly exclusive,…

          Nope…demonstrated from your own source…go read the book.

          …whereas the Christians did it for everyone, etc.

          I could give zero fucks. Not relevant to your initial fuckwittery.

          Not a statement anyone is arguing against….so pah!

          What historians call them is all that matters, actually,…

          Which ones? Nutton? Who thinks a single room off a church or monastery courtyard to store the sick in, is a hospital?

          Wise up…historians can call institutions whatever they like, historians don’t agree on lots of things. And they get things wrong…all the time.

          But they are not the only scholars with an opinion on how things should be defined or why.

          https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/29/matecconf_spbwosce2018_03015.pdf

          …and no one gives a rats arse what you want to call them.

          Except me…but I doubt I’m alone…bwaaahahaha.

          Weren’t you the one trying to redefine “civilian”?

        • David Cromie

          I asked you earlier how you define ‘hospital’, but you ignored the question.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because answering that might fuck the dishonest twat right up.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Actually, I gave the answer. What are you talking about this time? Is it nausea from the endless beating I’m giving your boy Amos?

        • David Cromie

          Actually, there is no sentence beginning ‘My definition of a hospital is as follows…’ in any of your posts.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Stifled progress by onsetting the second medical revolution? /facepalm intensifies

          And then what happened? All was good?

          The progress isn’t dubious, as my quote shows. In fact, my quote shows enormous progress. So pah!

          Not quite.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Not quite.”

          Actually, quite. Jonson, who I quoted earlier, calls it the “second medical revolution” in histoy. There were no civilian hospitals (or hospitals at all, as we’ve increasingly seen from the perspectives of historians like Risse) in the Roman world until Christianity. That’s enormous progress.

          “The Pagans were doing a whole lot more than the first simple Christians in their “hospitals”…even Nutton sees that. Did you read the book?”

          Nutton doesn’t say they did more at all. Another Amos lie.

          “Nope…demonstrated from your own source…go read the book.”

          Where was this demonstrated? Only Asclepian cult members allowed in the Ascelepion … therefore highly exclusive.

          “Which ones? Nutton? Who thinks a single room off a church or monastery courtyard to store the sick in, is a hospital?”

          What does the size of the institution have to do with anything? What does its physical location within a monastery courtyard have to do with anything? The University of Paris was, for a good time, just a school extension of some cathedral. And yet still the University of Paris. So your only weasel attempt to get around this fails. If Nutton’s definition also applied to the Asclepeion, he would have called them hospitals. And yet he doesn’t. Refuting your lie about Nutton’s definition.

          “Wise up…historians can call institutions whatever they like, historians don’t agree on lots of things. And they get things wrong…all the time.”

          Historians don’t call institutions “whatever they like”, historians engage in a rigorous process to define their terms and sources, and accept the facts whether or not it’s to their fancy. You seem to have confused your own total lack of method with historians. The reason why you want to call these earlier institutions historians is because you like giving up facts to win debates. Sadly, you’re getting smashed and your attempt to slander the historical method failed.

          “Except me…but I doubt I’m alone…bwaaahahaha.”

          Why not?

          You then try to quote Nutton, easily debunking yourself in the process and showing Nutton is saying precisely what I am.

          “That exception was some form of state service, whether as a doctor with the army or navy on campaign or as a so-called ‘public doctor’.”

          The fact that Nutton puts ‘public doctor’ in apostrophe marks (or something, whatever the hell they’re called) and says “so-called” proves that Nutton believes they were nothing of the sort. Your quote, where Nutton calls these “medical workshops” also flabbergastingly proves my point — Nutton, and other historians, are under an extreme reluctance to apply the word ‘hospital’ to any of these buildings.

          If Nutton thought they were hospitals under his definition, he would have called them hospitals. But you seem to think everything that contradicts your quack logic is a trick.

          “Btw…according to Nutton, not all the reasons for such institutions appear to be charitable ones.”

          More disingenuity from Amos. It’s irrelevant if not “ALL” of them are one thing if the vast majority of them are and the purpose of the rise of the institution was charitable in nature. What’s the other reasons, you dope?

          Again, you’re just playing the game against time. I’ve already proven my point. Nutton explicitly says all visits to the Ascelepion were “brief”, we know these are cult-exclusive institutions, what they offered mostly consisted of magic and dream-interpreting, etc. The idea that these are hospitals is something rightly laughed at by historians. And yet Amos believes it. What a coincidence.

          You then debunk yourself again with this quote from this paper;

          “the Asclepieia adopted a holistic approach to treatment, recognizing the importance both of the psychological and emotional factors in the healing procedure as well as the activation of the innate healing mechanisms of every human: medical intervention was combined with improvement of the psychological condition of sick people, by providing a pleasant and healthy environment for their residence. What has recently emerged as a major issue and a focal point in hospital design appears to have been a well-established practice in the ancient Greek healing centers.”
          http://www.mednet.gr/archives/2010-2/pdf/259.pdf

          Another paper on this specific topic that doesn’t call them hospitals. Apparently, you’ve stopped trying to argue these were hospitals at all and have been reduced to claiming that they were comfortable places to affect the “psychology” of the patient. Truly the worst argument for hospital I’ve ever read. It’s obvious your fishing from quotes from one scholarly source after another, repeatedly failing into eternity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorry, what? That quote isn’t from Risse’s book, it’s from another one of your irrelevant blog sources.

          Where did I say it was? That’s why the was a link beneath it ya dopey fucker.

          Risse’s book says that the Christian hospitals were pretty much the first hospitals, and that the valetudinaria and Asclepeion were, at best, precursors to the hospital.

          “Guenter B. Risse see’s both civilian valetudinaria and ascelpion as the pre-Christian healing places in Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals.

          In his book, Risse asserts that…

          In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia (Ancient Greek: Ἀσκληπιεῖα, sing. Asclepieion, Ἀσκληπιεῖον), functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing. Asclepeia provided carefully controlled spaces conducive to healing and fulfilled several of the requirements of institutions created for healing.

          Contrary to your assertion of what they did.

          What is a “healing place”?

          http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.879.2755&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          And Risse cites evidence for civilian valetudinaria found in the writings of contemporaries. They didn’t take off…according Risse, because apparently they were not necessary.

          I’m dying man. More proof Amos doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His source for this claim? Another blog. The sources the blog gives? OTHER blogs … this is too good.

          You can’t read for comprehension worth a fuck.

          Now, rather than your ad hominem fuckwittery, tell me what was wrong with the assertion in Maybury’s blog? Name a better place of healing at the height of the Pergamum ascelpion’s popularity? Preferably before ya die, hopefully for all, that’ll be sooner rather later.

          Apparently, Galen of Pergamon practiced medicine at that ascelpion…ya know who Galen was, right?

          Much like the classic European spa, the Asclepion of Pergamon was a place where Roman officials went to unwind in soothing surroundings, as well as a medical center. We know a great deal about the course of treatment from the writings of two second-century witnesses — Aelius Aristides (circa 117 or 129 to circa 181), a promising young orator turned 13-year patient, and Galen of Pergamon (circa 129 to 199), the best-known Greek physician after Hippocrates, who first treated gladiators and later advised emperors like the frail Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161 to 180).

          Hoping to advance his career as an orator, late in 143 CE Aristides traveled to Rome, but his ambitions were thwarted by severe illness. He returned home to Smyrna. Seeking relief, he eventually turned to Asclepius, “the paramount healing god of the ancient world,” and traveled to the god’s temple in Pergamum, “one of the chief healing sites in the ancient world,” where “incubants” slept on the temple grounds, then recorded their dreams in search of prescriptions from the god; for Aristides, these included fasting, unusual diets, bloodletting, enemas, vomiting, and refraining from bathing or bathing in frigid rivers.

          Another comment … another bunch of nothing. My point remains as unbreakable as ever.

          Dreamer…bwaaaahahaha!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Where did I say it was? That’s why the was a link beneath it ya dopey fucker.”

          You claimed Risse said something, then followed it with a quote from a totally different source. Another one of Amos’s communication failures.

          “In his book, Risse asserts that…

          In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia (Ancient Greek: Ἀσκληπιεῖα, sing. Asclepieion, Ἀσκληπιεῖον), functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing. Asclepeia provided carefully controlled spaces conducive to healing and fulfilled several of the requirements of institutions created for healing.

          Contrary to your assertion of what they did.”

          Not contrary to my assertion at all. Risse says that these institutions are, at best, predecessors to the hospitals. Medical “advice” i.e. magic and herbs, and “healing” i.e. more magic and herbs. Come on now, my statements are absolutely fact. These aren’t hospitals.

          “And Risse cites evidence for civilian valetudinaria found in the writings of contemporaries. They didn’t take off…according Risse, because apparently they were not necessary.”

          Just took a look. Risse says that some wealthy imperial landowners, instead of disposing of non-useful slaves, began putting them in the valetudinaria. And then these disappear after 80 AD (one of your newest lies is that Risse says the hospitals were unnecessary — no, he doesn’t). And yet Risse doesn’t even think that the valetudinaria were hospitals at all, at best, predecessors to the actual hospitals which Risse indicates started with Christianity in the 4th century.

          “Apparently, Galen of Pergamon practiced medicine at that ascelpion…ya know who Galen was, right?”

          And yet Galen discovered nothing that would help heal anyone. In fact, when the Antonine plague broke out, Galen didn’t try to treat anyone but hit the road for his own sake. Galen’s “treatments” were no more effective than any Asclepian dream teller.

          “Now, rather than your ad hominem fuckwittery, tell me what was wrong with the assertion in Maybury’s blog?”

          Maybury’s blog is a blog, therefore, can be dismissed with the brush of a hand.

          My points remain as unbreakable as ever.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You claimed Risse said something, then followed it with a quote from a totally different source. Another one of Amos’s communication failures.

          Look KD, I realise that you are a bit of a fuck up and fire from the hip without consideration. Then ya want to make an issue outta your fuck up.

          Here is what I said…

          Guenter B. Risse see’s both civilian valetudinaria and ascelpion as the pre-Christian healing places in Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals.

          That is both a comment and a citation…Guenter see’s…and here is where I seen that in…book title given.

          Then I gave a citation from a different source. It’s differentiated from me saying it because it’s in italics…and then there is a link directly beneath it to the source…

          https://www.thenationalherald.com/119038/asclepion-centers-and-greek-healing/

          …now, because you are a dumb fuck and didn’t bother clicking the link, and just jumped straight to the assumption it was from Risse’s book, you come at me.

          I claimed Risse said something and I gave you the source of where Risse said it…his fucking book. Then I gave you a citation…separate and distinct…then I gave you the link to the source.

          Stop blaming your stupidity and inabilities to read properly on me…own it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not contrary to my assertion at all.

          Yes…as demonstrated with other citations.

          Risse says that these institutions are, at best, predecessors to the hospitals.

          According to Risse’s definition of a “hospital”.

          Medical “advice” i.e. magic and herbs, and “healing” i.e. more magic and herbs.

          You keep repeating this lie because you need it. Fuck off.

          Come on now, my statements are absolutely fact.

          No, they are not, they are opinions based on the opinions of others.

          These aren’t hospitals.

          They are not called “hospitals”, but by definition, they were “hospitals”, conversely, many of those Christian institution described as “hospitals”, by definition, were not “hospitals”…and even then, Christians weren’t the first to have civilian hospitals…ya fucked up…

          The practice and study of medicine in Persia has a long and prolific history. The Iranian academic centers like Gundeshapur University (3rd century AD) were a breeding ground for the union among great scientists from different civilizations. These centers successfully followed their predecessors’ theories and greatly extended their scientific research through history.

          http://ijpr.sbmu.ac.ir/article_750_5a0765de6ade6dbc0c1e25fc861ad849.pdf

          Persians were the first establishers of modern hospital system.

          Elgood (1952) stated that credit for our current hospital system must be given to Persia. ~ Elgood C (1952) A Medical History of Persia and the Eastern Caliphate. London: Cambridge University Press

          Give it up and move on.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just took a look. Risse says that some wealthy imperial landowners, instead of disposing of non-useful slaves, began putting them in the valetudinaria.

          Indeed…so “civilian” hospitals in an act of charity to the needy….who’d have thought it before the Christians. Imagine.

          But guess what, that’s not even what Risse said ffs..he said that from one particular report, these establishments seem to have been hostels…mostly small shelters or dormitories used for the rehabilitation of their most valuable slaves.

          I’m pretty flabbergasted that you omit to reference the two paragraphs where Risse talks about “civilian” valetudinaria, strange that.

          And then these disappear after 80 AD…

          What disappear? What did Risse call them?

          Oddily, we know of no civil valetudinarium after 80 AD.

          So there WAS civil valetudinarium after all…go figure.

          (one of your newest lies is that Risse says the hospitals were unnecessary — no, he doesn’t).

          Just as well then that I didn’t say that then. What I said was…

          “They didn’t take off…according Risse, because apparently they were not necessary.”

          The inference is that since they aren’t mentioned after 80 AD, there possibly wasn’t any….what could the reason be for that do you think?

          And yet Risse doesn’t even think that the valetudinaria were hospitals at all, at best, predecessors to the actual hospitals which Risse indicates started with Christianity in the 4th century.

          That’s because he uses a different definition for what constitutes a “hospital”…different to you apparently. you brought up valetudinaria as a being a “hospital”, not me, and get this…Risse specifically wrote in his book…

          In the end, the Greek healing temples and Roman military hospitals of antiquity undoubtedly structured and ameliorated human suffering.

          So he believed valetudinaria were hospitals enough to call them hospitals after all.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And yet Galen discovered nothing that would help heal anyone.

          Holy fuck…you are really going to run with this fuckwittery, aren’t ya?

          How the fuck do you know?

          In fact, when the Antonine plague broke out, Galen didn’t try to treat anyone but hit the road for his own sake.

          Is that a fact? Why did Galen hit the road?

          Galen’s “treatments” were no more effective than any Asclepian dream teller.

          Was there an effective “treatment” for plague at the time? Scholars believe it was smallpox…what treatment was given to sufferers of smallpox?

          Yet another rabbit hole.

          Give it up. There were medical treatments and surgeries administered at ascelpion and valetudinaria…you are making an arse of yerself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Maybury’s blog is a blog, therefore, can be dismissed with the brush of a hand.

          Not a rational answer. But I know ya can’t. Prick.

          My points remain as unbreakable as ever.

          You really believe your own bullshit, don’t ya? Ya deluded fuckwit.

          Did you fuck up in your opening comment to David….yes or no?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Not a rational answer. But I know ya can’t. Prick.”

          How is it not rational? Maybury’s blog (whoever Maybury is) is just a blog without anything else behind it, and so can be dismissed with the brush of a hand. You just get triggered by that since the majority of your references, to date, have been to blogs.

          “Holy fuck…you are really going to run with this fuckwittery, aren’t ya?

          How the fuck do you know?”

          How do I know? Let’s call it an educated guess. But if you think Galen discovered anything that would help healing people, please let me know what these discoveries were and how he used it in his experience as a doctor. I’d be glad to admit I’m wrong, though I’m not sure I’m wrong at all here. In fact, you seem to basically admit he had nothing of the sort here;

          “Was there an effective “treatment” for plague at the time? Scholars believe it was smallpox…what treatment was given to sufferers of smallpox?”

          Glad to see you admit I’m right.

          “Indeed…so “civilian” hospitals in an act of charity to the needy….who’d have thought it before the Christians. Imagine.”

          Are you daft? Those weren’t an “act of charity” to the “needy” at all. Just imperial aristocrats trying to make an economic use out of their slaves. Pathetic.

          “I’m pretty flabbergasted that you omit to reference the two paragraphs where Risse talks about “civilian” valetudinaria, strange that.”

          Then let’s try a different game that keeps my point and changes a detail. It looks like though the number was just over 0, there was a civil valetudinaria or two that existed for the sole purpose of making an economic use out of slaves (no general public admission, of course). Risse goes on to say that these oddly disappeared by 80 AD. So, here’s a rephrasing of my point with almost the exact same contention and still leaves you in your same, dismal position. The general public essentially had no service to hospitals until Christianity.

          The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (Ann Hanson, A Companion to the Roman Empire, 492-523 esp. 505)

          Your days are running short, since there’s only such a small limit to the little pedantic details in the phrasing of my claims you can pick on before the time runs out. Bastard.

          “The inference is that since they aren’t mentioned after 80 AD, there possibly wasn’t any….what could the reason be for that do you think?”

          Irrelevant. You claimed Risse said they were unnecessary. This was a total lie and your own inference. “I can’t think of any other reason therefore it must have been X” is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

          “That’s because he uses a different definition for what constitutes a “hospital”…different to you apparently. you brought up valetudinaria as a being a “hospital”, not me, and get this…Risse specifically wrote in his book…

          In the end, the Greek healing temples and Roman military hospitals of antiquity undoubtedly structured and ameliorated human suffering.

          So he believed valetudinaria were hospitals enough to call them hospitals after all.”

          Actually, I explicitly quoted Risse saying these were, at best, forerunners to the hospital. You really have to get your head out of your arse and realize that scholars use convenient language sometimes, and they especially make to using convenient languages when they’ve clarified what they precisely mean elsewhere. I only brought the valetudinaria up as hospitals earlier because you had yet to show me that they weren’t hospitals. The very sources that you brought to my attention (that valetudinaria link, Britannica, and Risse’s book) is what changed my mind. And Risse goes on to define the difference between the pagan healing locations and the Christian hospitals. They were different in their most fundamental, institutional basis. Which is why any monastery, given the new institution design, was a true hospital, and no Ascelepian temple was. As Risse explains, the pagan institutions simply weren’t capable of addressing the needs of the population (and I assume this is because they were too few, too little access to them, almost all their focus not even on healing, etc).

          “You keep repeating this lie because you need it. Fuck off.”

          Need it? It’s just a fact .. when you quote a scholar talking about the “medical advice” of the Asclepian temples as some sort of evidence they were hospitals … you fail to mention that the scholar is talking about magic and herbs. /facepalm

          “They are not called “hospitals”, but by definition, they were “hospitals”, conversely, many of those Christian institution described as “hospitals”, by definition, were not “hospitals”…”

          And Amos is on crack again.

          Here’s a long one from you;

          The practice and study of medicine in Persia has a long and prolific history. The Iranian academic centers like Gundeshapur University (3rd century AD) were a breeding ground for the union among great scientists from different civilizations. These centers successfully followed their predecessors’ theories and greatly extended their scientific research through history.

          http://ijpr.sbmu.ac.ir/arti

          Persians were the first establishers of modern hospital system.

          Elgood (1952) stated that credit for our current hospital system must be given to Persia. ~ Elgood C (1952) A Medical History of Persia and the Eastern Caliphate. London: Cambridge University Press

          Give it up and move on.

          A 70 year old quote trounced by more recent scholarship. If you simply read what Nutton, Risse, Hanson, etc, are saying today, you’ll realize scholarship has shifted quite a bit (assuming that this quote even represents scholarship in the 50’s).

          “Look KD, I realise that you are a bit of a fuck up and fire from the hip without consideration. Then ya want to make an issue outta your fuck up.”

          Dude, just admit you made a communication bluster. Not that hard.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Ah, poor guy Amos. Since you decided to quote Risse’s book early on, I decided to actually start reading it. How I love the fact that you always find the refutations for your claims for me.

          As I pointed out, all historians agree with me that there were no civilian hospitals until Christianity comes along. In fact, not only does Risse, who basically wrote “the [academic] book” on the history of hospitals agree with this, but there’s much more. Risse explains that the Ascelepion and valetudinaria were, at best, forerunners of the hospital that comes along with Christianity, pre-healing Christian places. This is the closest association Risse ever provides for the buildings to the hospitals of Christianity;

          “Should the Greek Asclepieia, as well as Roman military and slave valetudinaria,
          be considered forerunners of hospitals? (pg. 56)”

          In other words, exactly as I’ve explained all along. The general public was no serviced with hospitals until the Christian medical revolution in the 4th century, as Ann Hanson writes;

          The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (Ann Hanson, A Companion to the Roman Empire, 492-523 esp. 505)

          And here’s the proof that Nutton is utterly right that the biggest to smallest Christian hospitals are hospitals, and that the earlier, primitive pagan healing centers were nothing of the sort — the proof is with Risse. In fact, there was a complete institutional distinction between the two versions. As Risse writes regarding the primitive pagan healing centers, “[g]iven the scope and frequency of the social problems, the classical pagan models of a personal, individualized hospitalitas were clearly inadequate” (pg. 80). Then, Christianity comes, and the new Christian charitable institutions, the first true hospitals, shift the game by institutionalizing charity. Risse explains how they were institionalized;

          Based on scriptural injunctions, charitable Christian institutions were designed for such multiple functions as sheltering and feeding the poor, providing clothing, and performing other caring functions. Poorer members of a Christian congregation were to be cared for through voluntary and concerted efforts under the supervision of clerics and deacons. (Risse, Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals, 74-75)

          Many private schools today are extremely small, and yet obviously schools in any modern sense of the word. As with the Christian hospitals, from big to small. Their close association with monasteries was a huge advantage, making them accessible and funded by the entire community. Christian charity made the hospital rapidly improve over the centuries (as I demonstrated earlier from Nutton’s work), with Christian patronage becoming competitive at all levels of the aristocracy. At one time, almost no one in the eastern Roman (thence Byzantine) world lived in a place where a hospital existed, as Hanson and Smith points out, but then they become ubiquitous, they start getting bigger, they become institutionalized, and their focus is solely on charity and care (whereas the Asclepeion would mostly focus on cultic aspects and reserve their magical healing as a sideshow). Now, you can admit you were wrong all along, and perhaps stop making embarrassing mistakes to counter actual history like Asoka founding any hospitals or tirelessly working to fish quotes from scholarly sources that endlessly end up giving away your fictions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Since you decided to quote Risse’s book early on, I decided to actually start reading it. How I love the fact that you always find the refutations for your claims for me.

          Oh fer feck sake…only because you have the comprehension skills of a gnat and can’t contextualize ya moron.

          As I pointed out, all historians agree with me that there were no civilian hospitals until Christianity comes along.

          No…they don’t…because if any scholar claims that valetudinaria are hospitals, then the civilian valetudinaria that Risse refers to are hospitals too. And by your own comments, valetudinaria were hospitals. Are there scholars that claim valetudinaria hospitals, yes, so if they are hospitals and there are references to civilian ones, then there were civilian valetudinaria [hospitals] prior to Christianity.

          In fact, not only does Risse, who basically wrote “the [academic] book” on the history of hospitals agree with this, but there’s much more.

          I know, I read what he wrote…you just can’t get it because you appear to be as thick as pig shite.

          Risse explains that the Ascelepion and valetudinaria were, at best, forerunners of the hospital that comes along with Christianity, pre-healing Christian places. This is the closest association Risse ever provides for the buildings to the hospitals of Christianity;

          I know, because his definition of what constitutes a “hospital” is different from other scholars. Why is this so fucking hard. It depends on the definition the individual is using for “hospital”…for Nutton, a single room off a church or monastery where guests can rest and convalesce is sufficient. A place of hospitality, Risse seems to be more rigorous.

          The fact is, what they were, and what they were used for, is just not as clear as you want to make out. They may have been used for a variety of utilities. I’ve shown this in the paper I cited, but that doesn’t work for you. Of course that’s just how you operate. The facts according to KD’s bias.

          http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/valetudinaria

          This paper questions whether Roman military hospitals have been properly identified in the archaeological evidence. The author is not convinced by the scholarship that adheres to the understanding that we know what Roman hospitals were. The buildings that have been identified as such were so justified at the beginning of the last century on the basis of a single structure with a room that contained medical tools. In comparison with other structures and buildings there is not enough evidence in the archaeological record to support such an argument. Again this has sparked a debate on how we identify buildings used for health and healing.

          https://kar.kent.ac.uk/8744/

          You don’t get to cite a scholar and claim that’s that. The scholarship doesn’t all agree. Far from it. The paper cited above is from this scholar…

          https://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/classics/staff/baker.html

          By the definition being used for “hospital”, there were pre-Christian “hospitals” that did a lot more than gave basic hospitality in a single room off a church or monastery courtyard…any moron can see that.

          It was you that brought valetudinaria “hospitals” into the conversation. I don’t really give a fuck, but if you put them on the stand, then you have to accept the rough with the smooth. And get this, this whole rabbit hole still doesn’t make a difference to that fuck up of a comment you made to David initially. So pah!

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Should the Greek Asclepieia, as well as Roman military and slave valetudinaria, be considered forerunners of hospitals? (pg. 56)”

          In other words, exactly as I’ve explained all along. The general public was no serviced with hospitals until the Christian medical revolution in the 4th century,…

          But that’s not what you said initially ya lying prick. You said “civilians”…had you said “general public” you’d be on point. But since you conflated “civilian” with “general public”, because guess what, you are such a scholar that you didn’t know the difference, ya fucked up. Now you are trying to claim something different, because you are dishonest.

          …as Ann Hanson writes; The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (Ann Hanson, A Companion to the Roman Empire, 492-523 esp. 505)

          Correct….in the Roman Empire and the “general public”…but I’m concerned with your assertion that there were no civilians being treated in “hospitals” before Christians took charge of Rome. There were Christian being treated in hospitals before the Christians took charge in Rome. But that’s another matter.

          See, you are hung up on the word “hospital” as opposed to what they did and what it means/meant.

          Nutton claims that the ancient Greeks had physicians administering heath care to the general public and civilian populace at state expense, at their own homes, at the patients home, at “healing workshops” and “surgeries”.

          What is a “healing workshop”?

          The ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians had something similar.

          I’m getting board with your pedantic semantics…the ancient world contributed heaps more to medicine than anything in the time which Christianity came to power and the Enlightenment…so cram yer single room off a church or monastery courtyard right up yer hole.

        • Ignorant Amos

          (whereas the Asclepeion would mostly focus on cultic aspects and reserve their magical healing as a sideshow).

          When are you going to admit that more than this happened, ya lying cunt?

          The cult of Asklepios was a religion and at the same time a system of therapeutics, that used mainly herbs for the treatment of injuries and ailments. Many scholars consider the priests of Asklepios as the first healers and the Asklepieia as the first hospitals, where religious medicine was practiced until the appearance of Hippocrates. In these Asklepieia, special rites were reported including purificatory preparation and ‘‘enkoimesis’’ an act, which must have included some form of somnambulism assisted by opium or soporifics to facilitate the practice of medical or surgical interventions. Eldestein and Eldestein suggests that it is most probable that the patients transferred in their dreams together with their hopes and wishes the experience of a previous medical treatment, while people who were familiar with the art and the language of contemporary healers recorded this experience in the inscriptions. The simple and austere language and the objective way of the narration of the ‘‘iamata,’’ suggest an empiricism and clarity that was part of the cult of Asklepios. However, the inscriptions did not produce any evidence that behind the priests important healers were hiding. Even further, in Epidauros surgical instruments were not found, as in Cos, that could make more credible the miracles, achieved by surgical operations. The only archeological evidence that opium must have been used in the sanctuaries of Asklepios, are the poppy coffers ornamenting the building of ‘‘Tholos.’’ The implication of this finding, that is the use of opium to facilitate medical and surgical interventions undertaken in the inner area of the sanctuary is too difficult to ignore. The physician–priests of the sanctuaries of Asklepios made sure that the methods used during ‘‘thaumatourgic’’ (miraculous) medicine were not made known, so that the actual methods of hypnosis and pain relief did not survive to this day. However, the priests made sure that the results were recorded on the so-called ‘‘epigraphes’’ inscriptions and celebrated in poetry.

          https://www.academia.edu/16659156/Surgical_cures_under_sleep_induction_in_the_Asclepieion_of_Epidauros

          Now, unless the visitors that were healed really did receive miracle cures by this god, then they were being healed by some other method. Surgery being one outlined. You don’t believe in the god of Asklepios…do ya?

        • Korus Destroyus

          *before I continue, can I ask you to try to be concise in your freaking responses? You’re such a spaz dude. Surely you can ignore the rhetoric and just state your damned point …

          **second point. You seem to also claim that Risse’s definition of a hospital is different from other scholars. Another lie?

          “When are you going to admit that more than this happened, ya lying cunt?”

          No lying, because this is a fact — the majority of the Asclepian temples were preoccupied with non-healing activities. Not all, the obvious majority (another reason why Risse considers these to be non-hospitals and emphasizes the major institutional shift with the Christian hospitals).

          Anyways, you follow up by some super long quote from a paper on academia.edu of a paper, again, referring to these as “hospitals” in a paper published to a journal that’s been dead for a decade. Colour me unsurprised. Since I’m literally annoyed by the fact that you’re wasting your own time in such a ridiculous way as to fish for scholarly quotes wherever you can find them to try to prove me wrong, I really need to outline what needs to be going on here. You need to forget about random phrases in the middle of obscure papers in the sea of academia. If you ever want to validate your claim that these pagan healing temples or buildings were hospitals in the modern sense in the least, you need to pick up an actual scholarly book, read it from end to finish, and show me that this scholar both defines what they mean by a ‘hospital’ and argues that, contrary to current consensus, it is fair to label the institutions as modern hospitals. Otherwise, there’s no guarantee you’re quoting anything but convenient language in obscure papers (something we’ve commonly seen — even Risse, who specifies that the Asclepian temples and valetudinaria were not hospitals, later conveniently refers to them as “hospitals).

          Until then, we’re going to have to deal with the fact that all the academic monographs we’ve seen, including from Hanson, Risse, Jonson, Nutton, etc, agree that there was an enormous hospital shift when Christianity came along that encapsulated an essential medical revolution, exactly my point of contention the entire time.

          “Correct….in the Roman Empire and the “general public”…but I’m concerned with your assertion that there were no civilians being treated in “hospitals” before Christians took charge of Rome. There were Christian being treated in hospitals before the Christians took charge in Rome. But that’s another matter.”

          These “civilians” you refer to, unfortunately, are specifically a few slaves belonging to the few imperial landowners between only between the frames of sometime after 100 BC to 80 AD. At best an infinitesimal fraction of the Roman world had any access to a hospital. Then, a few decades pass by after Christianity comes to power, and hospitals are ubiquitous in an entire empire and the hospital itself has undergone an enormous institutional shift to maximize its ability to care for the poor. Then, in the beginning of the Arab empires, Christians also go on to bring their medical progress to the Arabs themselves, which offsets yet another time of prosperous medical advance. In other words, Christianity made hospitals, made them patient-oriented, and set the way for them to become the ubiquitouis institution they now are.

          “the ancient world contributed heaps more to medicine than anything in the time which Christianity came to power and the Enlightenment”

          Dumbest thing I’ve ever read. By the time of the Enlightenment, Christian civilization had contributed more to medicine than every other civilization combined.

          You also continue to do what I love best. Keep providing me with the quotes to refute you so I don’t have to find them myselves.

          “This paper questions whether Roman military hospitals have been properly identified in the archaeological evidence. The author is not convinced by the scholarship that adheres to the understanding that we know what Roman hospitals were. The buildings that have been identified as such were so justified at the beginning of the last century on the basis of a single structure with a room that contained medical tools. In comparison with other structures and buildings there is not enough evidence in the archaeological record to support such an argument. Again this has sparked a debate on how we identify buildings used for health and healing.

          https://kar.kent.ac.uk/8744/

          You highlight the last part of this paper, but all it’s saying is that there is debate on how to identify health building in the archaeological record, rather than how to define the buildings themselves. But this quote shows, again, that since there’s so little known about these Roman valetudinaria, the claim that they can possibly be hospitals like the later Christian ones is absurd and based on ambiguity. More demonstration that the claim that there were pre-Christian hospitals in any modern sense is based on guesswork.

          As early as 4000 BCE, religions identified certain of their deities with healing. The temples of Saturn, and later of Asclepius in Asia Minor, were recognized as healing centres. Brahmanic hospitals were established in Sri Lanka as early as 431 BCE, and King Ashoka established a chain of hospitals in Hindustan about 230 BCE. Around 100 BCE the Romans established hospitals (valetudinaria) for the treatment of their sick and injured soldiers; their care was important because it was upon the integrity of the legions that the power of ancient Rome was based. It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from 331 CE when Roman emperor Constantine I (Constantine the Great), having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to the members of the community, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.

          You do so much of this that it’s nice. My academic refutation of your claim that Ashoka built hospitals was based on reading the earlier paper on Indian medicine you provided … my final refutation of your claim that military hospitals can be counted as civilian because messengers and slaves were also there at the military forts were refuted when you showed that being a military hospital doesn’t totally exclude non-civilian use… and so many other things. Risse has been a HUGE help to my argument, guess who first brought up Risse … yourself … and now this, and the much else you’ve provided me with.

        • korusdestroyus I do not agree

        • Korus Destroyus

          OK. Why should I care?

        • Greg G.

          I noticed the jonathan_christen reply and another reply to Richard S. Russell that said “I agree” went up an hour apart. jonathan_christen was inactive for two years and resurrected. The reply to RSR was from an account with one previous post three years ago in Kanji-type script. I suspect bots.

        • MR

          Don’t click on any links in their profile!

        • Susan

          I suspect bots.

          Yes. Up until now, they’ve only been infesting the upvotes but it appears they have decided to start commenting.

        • disqus_xYWVllyPLU ):

        • MR

          They talk a lot about Facebook, Twitter and Google being targeted by the Russians, but they never mention the concerted effort on Disqus.

        • Ignorant Amos

          *before I continue, can I ask you to try to be concise in your freaking responses? You’re such a spaz dude. Surely you can ignore the rhetoric and just state your damned point …

          Fuck off ya tone trolling wanker.

        • Ignorant Amos

          *second point. You seem to also claim that Risse’s definition of a hospital is different from other scholars. Another lie?

          Nope not a lie…Nutton thinks a single room off a church or monastery courtyard used for rest and recuperation deserves the the descriptor hospital…while a room off a Greek temple used for the same and more, does not….and I don’t think Risse considers either a hospital….it’s pure fuckwittery.

          I’ve cited other scholars that have defined both ascelpion and valetudinarium as hospitals. You don’t own the definition ya fuckwit…nor does your choice of scholar.

          But since you are such an expert…give me Risse’s definition of what is a hospital…and then yours?

          Is a room off a church or monastery courtyard a hospital? And if so, why is a room off a Greek temple for the same purpose and more, not?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anyways, you follow up by some super long quote from a paper on academia.edu of a paper, again, referring to these as “hospitals” in a paper published to a journal that’s been dead for a decade. Colour me unsurprised.

          I couldn’t give a fuck. None of these establishments were called hospitals at the time ffs. It was there usage that is more important. That there are scholars that differ in opinion on what they were, is just more support for my position. When, where, and how…I give zero fucks…it only takes one example to refute you fuckwittery….I’ve given numerous….now take you biased Christians deserve all the glory bullshit and cram it. They don’t. They took an exist concept and expanded it.

          Since I’m literally annoyed by the fact that you’re wasting your own time in such a ridiculous way as to fish for scholarly quotes wherever you can find them to try to prove me wrong, I really need to outline what needs to be going on here.

          No, ya need to grasp the concept that history and definitions are not an exact science. But none of this matters. You made a fuck up, I pulled you on it, but you won’t own it…that’s the simple facts.

          You need to forget about random phrases in the middle of obscure papers in the sea of academia.

          No…I don’t….if even one other person supports my position…and the definition fits for purpose…then I’m happy enough to run with it.

          If you ever want to validate your claim that these pagan healing temples or buildings were hospitals in the modern sense in the least, you need to pick up an actual scholarly book, read it from end to finish, and show me that this scholar both defines what they mean by a ‘hospital’ and argues that, contrary to current consensus, it is fair to label the institutions as modern hospitals.

          Your 4th century Christian “hospitals” deserve that title less the pre-Christian establishments doing “hospital” stuff ya moron.

          During the Middle Ages, hospitals served different functions from modern institutions. Middle Ages hospitals were almshouses for the poor, hostels for pilgrims, or hospital schools. The word “hospital” comes from the Latin hospes, signifying a stranger or foreigner, hence a guest. Another noun derived from this, hospitium came to signify hospitality, that is the relation between guest and shelterer, hospitality, friendliness, and hospitable reception. By metonymy the Latin word then came to mean a guest-chamber, guest’s lodging, an inn. Hospes is thus the root for the English words host (where the p was dropped for convenience of pronunciation) hospitality, hospice, hostel and hotel. The latter modern word derives from Latin via the ancient French romance word hostel, which developed a silent s, which letter was eventually removed from the word, the loss of which is signified by a circumflex in the modern French word hôtel. The German word ‘Spital’ shares similar roots.

          Now wise ta fuck up and fuck away off.

          Otherwise, there’s no guarantee you’re quoting anything but convenient language in obscure papers

          Indeed…does that apply to a lot of the ubiquitous 4th century eastern Roman empire “hospitals” that were nothing more than a room off a church or monastery courtyard?

          (something we’ve commonly seen — even Risse, who specifies that the Asclepian temples and valetudinaria were not hospitals, later conveniently refers to them as “hospitals).

          Anno….it’s a real bugger isn’t it? A scholar calling something that which it is not…for convenience sake. Just so the reader has an idea what it is they are talking about. Because at the time, that was as near as dammit the function of what the establishment was…in modern common parlance.

          Tell you what…let’s cut the bull shit…you define the term “hospital” as you want it applied and then we can take it from there…is that fair?

        • Ignorant Amos

          No lying, because this is a fact — the majority of the Asclepian temples were preoccupied with non-healing activities.

          The sole purpose of ascelpian temples were for healing you dopey bastard…

          The earliest documented institutions aiming to provide cures were ancient Egyptian temples. In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing. ~ Risse, G.B. Mending bodies, saving souls: a history of hospitals. 1990. p. 56

          https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=htLTvdz5HDEC&pg=PA56&dq=History+of+Hospital%2BAsclepieion&lr=lang_en&as_brr=0&cd=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=History%20of%20Hospital%2BAsclepieion&f=false

          And even if your bullshit was accurate…it doesn’t matter…scholars agree that surgical procedures were carried out at ascelpian temples….admit that is the case and shame the devil in ya…lying bastard.

          Not all, the obvious majority…

          Nobody knows ya fuckwit…the best historians can do is probably….and the probability is that hospital type healing happened at ascelpian…wise up…you are embarrassing yerself ya dickhead.

          (another reason why Risse considers these to be non-hospitals and emphasizes the major institutional shift with the Christian hospitals).

          You are struggling with this concept, aren’t ya? I couldn’t give a fuck. If a room off a Christian church or monastery courtyard designated for the rest and recuperation of ill guests constitutes the descriptor of “hospital”, then a purpose built temple to a healing god, for the purpose of healing ill guests, including the practicing of physicians in healing and surgery…gets the same. A rose by any other name, smells just as sweet.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Until then, we’re going to have to deal with the fact that all the academic monographs we’ve seen, including from Hanson, Risse, Jonson, Nutton, etc, agree that there was an enormous hospital shift when Christianity came along that encapsulated an essential medical revolution, exactly my point of contention the entire time.

          Not something I’ve been contesting. I’ve been contesting your sloppy assertions. Your comment to David Cromie was erroneous….own it it.

          Fourth century Christianity witnessed an explosion of the hospital concept in the eastern half of the empire….so fucking what…Christians were not responsible for the greatest advances in medicine…shove yer Christian “hospitals” up yer arse…others were far better and more advanced.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dumbest thing I’ve ever read. By the time of the Enlightenment, Christianity had contributed more to medicine than every other civilization combined.

          Only Christians and fuckwits believe that nonsense.

          In addition, Cyril Elgood, British physician and a historian of medicine in Persia, commented that thanks to medical centers like the Academy of Gondeshapur, “to a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system must be given to Persia.”

          And….

          After AD 400, the study and practice of medicine in the Western Roman Empire went into deep decline. Medical services were provided, especially for the poor, in the thousands of monastic hospitals that sprang up across Europe, but the care was rudimentary and mainly palliative. Most of the writings of Galen and Hippocrates were lost to the West, with the summaries and compendia of St. Isidore of Seville being the primary channel for transmitting Greek medical ideas. The Carolingian renaissance brought increased contact with Byzantium and a greater awareness of ancient medicine, but only with the twelfth-century renaissance and the new translations coming from Muslim and Jewish sources in Spain, and the fifteenth-century flood of resources after the fall of Constantinople did the West fully recover its acquaintance with classical antiquity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          These “civilians” you refer to, unfortunately, are specifically a few slaves belonging to the few imperial landowners between only between the frames of sometime after 100 BC to 80 AD.

          I don’t care. My point stands. Hold your hands up. The statement you made was erroneous. There were “civilian” hospitals pre-Christian Rome…end of.

          At best an infinitesimal fraction of the Roman world had any access to a hospital.

          I don’t care. One “hospital” is sufficient to refute your erroneous comment…own it.

          In 5th century BC classical Greek antiquity, there were physcians administering health care in “medical workshops”, rooms in their own homes, and “surgeries”….that is a lot more than the single rooms of church or monastery courtyards that Nutton designates as a hospital…now wise up.

          Then, a few decades pass by after Christianity comes to power, and hospitals are ubiquitous in an entire empire and the hospital itself has undergone an enormous institutional shift to maximize its ability to care for the poor.

          There ya go again…sloppy commenting….even after being ragged on about it. It was in half an empire and it took more than a “few” decades before they were everywhere….and what was everywhere, can’t in any reasonable sense of the word, be described as a “hospital”.

          Then, in the beginning of the Arab empires, Christians also go on to bring their medical progress to the Arabs themselves, which offsets yet another time of prosperous medical advance.

          Wise up…you love making up your own history. Another irrelevant rabbit hole. The Christians bringing knowledge to the Arabs weren’t bringing Christian medical progress ya lying moron.

          These are the medications which were taught by Greek, Indian, and Persian physicians. ~ Māsarĝawai, Abdāl al-adwiya, Christian physician.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

          In other words, Christianity made hospitals,…

          Nope…for pity sake…there were hospitals before there were Christians…why is this so feckin hard a concept for even a moron like you to grasp.

          …made them patient-oriented,…

          Nope…what ta fuck are you talking about…the pre-Christian “hospitals” were “patient-oriented” ….that’s what hospitals do ya daft clampett.

          …and set the way for them to become the ubiquitouis institution they now are.

          No, no, no…it took the influence of other cultures to make them the ubiquitous institutions they are now. Without what went before Christianity, and what arose outside Christianity, the institution we call the modern hospital, would not have developed. Christians only had a bit part in the story. Wise ta fuck up, will ya.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I don’t care. My point stands. Hold your hands up. The statement you made was erroneous. There were “civilian” hospitals pre-Christian Rome…end of.”

          1. Well, no, as we’ve seen before, these aren’t hospitals because there were no hospitals. These are civil valetudinaria, and valetudinaria aren’t hospitals, and I’ve already “owned” that there were civil valetudinaria.
          2. All I have to do is slightly rephrase the argument with the near exact same real world consequences and suddenly you run out of a counter-argument. Every single mistake you find is, oddly, always tiny and fails to get to the bigger point — that Christianity brought on the second medical revolution, that the civilization went from no hospitals and virtually no public access to healing centers and with Christianity a complete 360.

          “In 5th century BC classical Greek antiquity, there were physcians administering health care in “medical workshops”, rooms in their own homes, and “surgeries”….that is a lot more than the single rooms of church or monastery courtyards that Nutton designates as a hospital…now wise up.”

          And, as Risse explains, “[g]iven the scope and frequency of the social problems, the classical pagan models of a personal, individualized hospitalitas were clearly inadequate” (pg. 80). In other words, this Greek system you’re talking about was a much failure given the problems and the only thing that addressed it was the new Christian institution, which had the manpower, institutional basis, funding and ubiquity to work. All in the name of Christian charity. You still pretend as if the pagans had anything remotely like the Christians … they didn’t.

          “Wise up…you love making up your own history. Another irrelevant rabbit hole. The Christians bringing knowledge to the Arabs weren’t bringing Christian medical progress ya lying moron.”

          It is, since the Christians introduced 1) an institution fundamentally different from pre-Christian buildings, the hospital, and 2) their ubiquity. This is enormous medical progress. Given the total lack of medical progress that could actually be used to heal people until the modern era, this Christian advancement encapsulates almost all pre-modern medical progress, excluding the discoveries of the Muslims (which were lost and then discovered again independently in the Christian world).

          “No, no, no…it took the influence of other cultures to make them the ubiquitous institutions they are now.”

          No, it didn’t. As Hanson says, there was no public access to hospitals before Christianity, and as Nutton says, within a few decades of Christianity, they became ubiquitous because of Christian motives in the Byzantine world.

          “Only Christians and fuckwits believe that nonsense.

          In addition, Cyril Elgood, British physician and a historian of medicine in Persia, commented that thanks to medical centers like the Academy of Gondeshapur, “to a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system must be given to Persia.”

          And….”

          Again, this is scholarship that has been outdated for half a century. According to Jonson in 2003 (or was it 2000?), Christianity is responsible for the second medical revolution. And the progress of medicine in Christian civilization from 1500 right up to the Enlightenment is so gigantic that the rest of history doesn’t combine to it. Just look at Vesalius, for example, the father of modern anatomy. He was thrice the giant that Galen and Hippocrates were combined and lived in the 16th century.

          P.S. I also decided to look at what Risse’s book says about the Persian influence … the entire history of the Persian “hospital” is relegated to half of one page, where Risse explains how the Persian institution influenced the design of the Roman military valetudinaria. And … that’s it. What a total failure 1950’s scholarship was on this topic. The Roman valetudinaria died a lonely death and that was the end of that. The Christian institution, however, is what gave us what we have today.

          You then provide some odd, irrelevant quote of how Western Europe forgot the (useless) medical practices of the Greeks until the translations brought them back around the twelfth century renaissance. In fact, your quote, once again, proves me enormously. It says thousands of monastic hospitals were the only places where care could be acquired … in other words, if the Western Roman Empire fell and Christianity had not brought about the second medical revolution, there wouldn’t have been anything for anyone after the empire fall.

          Anyways, I wrote;

          “Until then, we’re going to have to deal with the fact that all the academic monographs we’ve seen, including from Hanson, Risse, Jonson, Nutton, etc, agree that there was an enormous hospital shift when Christianity came along that encapsulated an essential medical revolution, exactly my point of contention the entire time.”

          You responded;

          “Not something I’ve been contesting. I’ve been contesting your sloppy assertions. Your comment to David Cromie was erroneous….own it it.”

          Actually, you have been denying there was an enormous hospital shift due to Christianity, despite the fact that literally every academic opinion we’ve seen ont he topic (Hanson, Risse, Jonson, Nutton, etc) agrees there was. You constantly try to overplay the crap system the pagans had despite it clearly having failed to address the social problems, and repeatedly try to overplay the achievements of the Persians, underplay the achievements of the Christians, etc. The space is closing in on you and I’m leaving you with very little wiggle room. As I’ve shown, Risse explains that there was a massive institutional shift with the Christian hospital;

          Based on scriptural injunctions, charitable Christian institutions were designed for such multiple functions as sheltering and feeding the poor, providing clothing, and performing other caring functions. Poorer members of a Christian congregation were to be cared for through voluntary and concerted efforts under the supervision of clerics and deacons. (Risse, Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals, 74-75)

          According to Britannica, THIS is what historians use to define the origins of the modern concept of the hospital.

          The history of the hospital before 1900 is essentially a Christian history. This is why Risse’s book only contains one chapter on the history of hospitals for the non-Christian world in the period before the Enlightenment. There are then two chapters fully devoted to the church, and then a third devoted to how these monasteries and church institutions addressed things like leprosy, etc.

          “The sole purpose of ascelpian temples were for healing you dopey bastard…”

          Actually, no. As Nutton explained, the visits were brief and mostly consisted of dream-interpreting. This is because pagan “healing” took quite seriously the medical significance of dreams. If that’s what you mean by what you call “healing”, then please don’t be surprised when I dismiss your claim the next time. Nutton writes;

          Inscriptions, dedications and archaeological remains thus testify to the ubiquity of healing shrines in Classical Greece, as well as to the burgeoning of the cult of Asclepius after 421 BC. The pattern of healing offered by the god, by incubation and dreams, is not unique to Asclepius cult (pg. 110)

          That ought to show those Christians … No wonder Risse explains that these Asclepian temples, despite being quite numerous in the Greek world, were utterly incapable of addressing the problems.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Continuing:

          “It was there usage that is more important. That there are scholars that differ in opinion on what they were, is just more support for my position. When, where, and how…I give zero fucks…it only takes one example to refute you fuckwittery….I’ve given numerous….”

          You’ve given no examples that can show these were hospitals. They weren’t. If they were hospitals, then the general public would have had access to hospitals since the Asclepian temples were ubiquitous. But look at what Hanson says …

          The general public was not serviced by hospital facilities until the empire had become Christian and charity for the sick and dying was considered part of the Christian’s duty. (Ann Hanson, A Companion to the Roman Empire, 492-523 esp. 505)

          That decisively refutes the idea that these can be considered hospitals.

          “Your 4th century Christian “hospitals” deserve that title less the pre-Christian establishments doing “hospital” stuff ya moron.”

          They deserve it and all the pre-Christian ones don’t, as scholars have a consensus regarding. Your opinion on this means jack to anyone who cares about reality.

          “Tell you what…let’s cut the bull shit…you define the term “hospital” as you want it applied and then we can take it from there…is that fair?”

          Nope, historians define it and current historian has explicitly defined it in such a way that they seem to all be able to agree it starts with Christianity.

          “Nope not a lie…Nutton thinks a single room off a church or monastery courtyard used for rest and recuperation deserves the the descriptor hospital…while a room off a Greek temple used for the same and more, does not….and I don’t think Risse considers either a hospital….it’s pure fuckwittery.”

          And yet Nutton didn’t think that any of these pagan temples could offer the “same” as any monastery. That’s because one was the basis of a community, offered living, housing, care, etc, and the other tinkered with dream reading. So yes, you lied about Nutton’s definition of a hospital applying to pagan healing practices. If they applied to them, Nutton would have called them hospitals. But Nutton never does. I wonder why.

        • Greg G.

          Surgical Instruments from Ancient Rome
          http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/romansurgical/

          Some of these types of tools go back to Hippocrates in 5th century BC Greece. Some were not improved as late as the 18th century. How did they develop these tools with no Christians around to show them how to do it? Where were these instruments being used if there was nothing that could be called a hospital?

        • Ignorant Amos

          KD has a hang-up for terminology….except he won’t define what he means…because it will fuck him up. There were no “hospitals” at the time, because the word didn’t exist. The word has been retconned, but when it’s used for places doing “hospital” stuff that flies in the face of the pricks narrative, it is purely for convenience sake.

          KD pulls rabbit holes out of his hat right, left, and centre…and a scholar is factual when they back him, but not when they don’t….even if it’s the same scholar…it’s hilarious.

        • Greg G.

          Like his definition of “university” wasn’t the method or level of education, it was how they were funded. I wouldn’t be surprised if his definition of “hospital” depends on whether the room has a cross hanging on the wall.

        • epeeist

          Like his definition of “university” wasn’t the method or level of education, it was how they were funded.

          See also similar attempts to define “prison”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You also continue to do what I love best. Keep providing me with the quotes to refute you so I don’t have to find them myselves.

          “myselves”…really?

          You are such a daft bastard….my point is, that there is conflicting and contradictory opinions among scholars of a variety of of disciplines.

          You highlight the last part of this paper, but all it’s saying is that there is debate on how to identify health building in the archaeological record, rather than how to define the buildings themselves.

          Well duhhhh….if a building isn’t being used as a “hospital”, then it isn’t a fucking “hospital” ffs. If a room isn’t being used to sleep in, it can hardly be considered a bedroom.

          But this quote shows, again, that since there’s so little known about these Roman valetudinaria, the claim that they can possibly be hospitals like the later Christian ones is absurd and based on ambiguity.

          Indeed…you brought them into the conversation as a matter of fact. It isn’t. They could’ve been used as “hospital” buildings, or some of them anyway, or perhaps not. They might have been used for civilians, or not.

          More demonstration that the claim that there were pre-Christian hospitals in any modern sense is based on guesswork.

          Oh fuck…you are priceless. So let me get this straight, you are saying that any scholar stating that valetudinaria are “hospitals” are talking out their arse…but a scholar that calls a single room off a church or monastery courtyard used for rest and recuperation a hospital, is spot on?

          Scholars can’t infer that the rest-spite buildings constructed by Ashoka can be classed as a “hospital” by inference, because, well, the word for hospital isn’t specifically used, but those scholars you favor who call a room off a church or monastery courtyard a “hospital” are just dandy?

          The fourth century Christian “hospitals” were not “hospitals” in any sense of the modern institution, ya crazy bastard.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Looks like I missed something;

          “Scholars can’t infer that the rest-spite buildings constructed by Ashoka can be classed as a “hospital” by inference, because, well, the word for hospital isn’t specifically used, but those scholars you favor who call a room off a church or monastery courtyard a “hospital” are just dandy?”

          You’re still failing to comprehend. The idea of Ashoka building hospitals or healing centers at all is a myth. The entire thing is imaginary.

          “Ah…the modern concept of the “hospital”, now we’re starting to get somewhere….331 CE…40 odd years before Rome became officially Christian. But wait a mo…”abolished all pagan hospitals”…according to you, there weren’t any Pagan hospitals to abolish…how can that be? Scholars getting confused? Or are you just plain wrong again?”

          And now you decide to lie about what Britannica says … ummm, kid, the same Britannica article says the modern concept of a hospital comes with Christianity. Constantine becoming Christian is part of the history of “Christianity”, even if it wasn’t the declared state religion yet. What a total fail. Since Britannica says the modern concept of the hospital comes from Christianity, all pre-Christian usages of the word are out of convenience … this has been explained to you thousands of times. Risse specifically says the pre-Christian healing places were not hospitals, and then, out of convenience, calls them hospitals. This is because constantly using terms like “medical workshop” is tiring.

          “I don’t care…this is your red herring…I didn’t make that claim, that is another strawman of you construction, because you are a lying dishonest cunt.”

          You did, loser. You tried to argue against the military valetudinaria just being military. You are a serial liar. Once again, I thank you for supplying me with literally all the sources I’m using to totally debunk you, with a few exceptions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re still failing to comprehend. The idea of Ashoka building hospitals or healing centers at all is a myth. The entire thing is imaginary.

          And you are failing to comprehend that it is an inference drawn from his edicts, based on interpretation.

          Everywhere [2] within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi’s domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos,[3] everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.[4]

          https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

          Public funds were spent on major projects, including agriculture to feed the poor, to dig wells, and also to plant trees so that people could benefit from the shade they gave in the hottest conditions. Art and culture flourished (both show signs of Greek and Persian influence) and both were conscripted to help the spread of Buddhism. He provided free medical care for people and animals. From 399 to 414 C.E., the Chinese scholar Fa-Hien traveled to India in search of great Buddhist books of discipline. He reported seeing works of art, rock cut caves, palaces, and exemplary buildings from Ashoka’s period. There appears to have been a sophisticated civil service. A characteristic of Mauryan art was the mirror-like finish to the pillars, which has survived centuries of exposure to wind and sun.

          http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashoka

          Ashoka allegedly provided free medical care to the poor…some scholars infer from this that he had to have places to administer such treatment. The author of the paper I cited claims there is no such justification for such an inference. Demonstrating that scholars can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Doing history isn’t an exact science.

          And again, I don’t care, my put down of your fuckwittery isn’t reliant on Ashoka’s hospitals being real or imaginary. So pah!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And you are failing to comprehend that it is an inference drawn from his edicts, based on interpretation.”

          There is absolutely no evidence for Ashoka’s hospitals. The only thing the edict says is that Ashoka planted trees and digging wells and things of this nature. In the paper you quoted, Wujastyk says “There is absolutely no evidence for these Aśokan hospitals, in Aśoka’s inscriptions or elsewhere.” Ashoka didn’t build hospitals or healing centers. And don’t try quoting the New World Encyclopedia as if I’d even read the quote.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And now you decide to lie about what Britannica says … ummm, kid, the same Britannica article says the modern concept of a hospital comes with Christianity. Constantine becoming Christian is part of the history of “Christianity”, even if it wasn’t the declared state religion yet. What a total fail. Since Britannica says the modern concept of the hospital comes from Christianity, all pre-Christian usages of the word are out of convenience … this has been explained to you thousands of times. Risse specifically says the pre-Christian healing places were not hospitals, and then, out of convenience, calls them hospitals. This is because constantly using terms like “medical workshop” is tiring.

          I don’t care what Britannica says….it isn’t an authority and it makes mistakes. All [any?] fourth century Christian hospitals were nothing like the modern hospital…even the daftest of fuckwits like you, must be able to see that?

          Cut the crap…define “hospital” then we can all call it a day. Ya won’t, because any definition you provide will fuck ya up.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I don’t care what Britannica says….it isn’t an authority and it makes mistakes.”

          You do care what Britannica says. That’s why you quoted it on the universities. So I’m right. You seem to be fine with “authorities” when you quote them.

          “Cut the crap…define “hospital” then we can all call it a day. Ya won’t, because any definition you provide will fuck ya up.”

          That’s already been outlined. Risse already outlined the institutional shifts that took place with the Christian hospital.

          Based on scriptural injunctions, charitable Christian institutions were designed for such multiple functions as sheltering and feeding the poor, providing clothing, and performing other caring functions. Poorer members of a Christian congregation were to be cared for through voluntary and concerted efforts under the supervision of clerics and deacons. (Risse, Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals, 74-75)

          Britannica also contributes to this by pointing out the new philosophy behind the Christian hospital;

          It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from 331 CE when Roman emperor Constantine I (Constantine the Great), having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to the members of the community, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.

          This ought to be a good enough definition, though I’m still personally looking for something more concise in the literature so I don’t have to quote two sources next time (in fact, there’s probably more to it than provided in the above quotations). But regardless, it’s clear that historians exclude the Asclepian temples and valetudinaria.

        • David Cromie

          In other words ‘hospital’ means whatever the writer, in this case you, wants it to mean. How convenient!

        • Greg G.

          You see there are hospitals and then there are places with doctors and nurses providing medical treatments without “Saint” in the name so they are not hospitals.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Actually, dishonest Dave, the word hospital means that Risse and Britannica claim it means.

        • Korus Destroyus

          P.S. AMOS! Great news! A new academic paper just totally slobbed Carrier’s ridiculous thesis on a heavenly Jesus in Paul! And by the well-known christological scholar Simon Gathercole at Cambridge, no less!

          https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/16/2-3/article-p183_183.xml

          🙂

        • Greg G.

          I don’t agree with Carrier on that point. I think that Paul thought Jesus had lived on Earth after David but before or during Isaiah’s time, then got resurrected in heaven. Paul loved to talk about Jesus. In his “authentic” epistles, he uses “Jesus”, “Christ” or either combination once for every five verses. Paul was big on mentioning him but the little knowledge he seems to have can be found in the Old Testament. All of his revelations were just ideas that popped into his head while reading the Old Testament scriptures.

          Paul about Jesus and His Sources

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12* > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10*
          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7
          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5
          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26*, Habakkuk 2:4*, Leviticus 18:5*
          Was rich, became poor > 2 Corinthians 8:9 > Zechariah 9:9
          Was meek and gentle > 2 Corinthians 10:1 > Isaiah 53:7
          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9*
          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11
          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49*, 2 Samuel 22:50*, Deuteronomy 32:43*, Psalm 117:1*, Isaiah 11:10*
          Became Wisdom of God > 1 Corinthians 1:30 > Isaiah 11:2

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9
          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*
          Died for sins > 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12
          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9
          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 13:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5
          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8*

          (* indicates that New Testament passage contains a direct quote from the Septuagint.)

          1 Corinthians 11:23-25 appears to be part of an interpolation.

          In 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul insists that his knowledge is not inferior to the “super-apostle’s” knowledge. If Paul only knew what he read in the OT and he had spent time with Peter and James discussing Christianity, he must have known they were getting their knowledge from the OT, too.

          It is more of the same with the other NT Epistles:

          Deutero-Pauline Epistles about Jesus and Their Sources

          Past
          Cornerstone > Ephesians 2:20 > Psalm 118:22-23
          Apportioned gifts > Ephesians 4:7-8 > Psalm 68:18
          The firstborn of all creation > Colossians 1:15 > Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:27, Proverbs 8:22
          All things in heaven and on earth were created before all things, > Colossians 1:16-17a > Proverbs 8:22-30
          Forgave us all our trespasses > Colossians 2:13 > Isaiah 53:12
          Came into the world to save sinners > 1 Timothy 1:15 > Isaiah 53:12
          Raised from the dead > 1 Timothy 2:8, 2 Timothy 2:8 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Descendant of David > 1 Timothy 2:8, 2 Timothy 2:8 > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10
          He was revealed in flesh > 1 Timothy 3:16 > Isaiah 49:5, Isaiah 53:2
          Vindicated in spirit > 1 Timothy 3:16 > Isaiah 52:13
          Seen by angels > 1 Timothy 3:16 > Psalm 91:11
          Proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world > 1 Timothy 3:16 > Psalm 9:11, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 49:22
          Taken up in glory > 1 Timothy 3:16 > Isaiah 52:13
          His testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession > 1 Timothy 6:13 > Luke 3:1, John 18:33-37

          Present
          The image of the invisible God > Colossians 1:15 > Genesis 1:26, Exodus 33:20
          In him all things hold together > Colossians 1:17 > Psalm 89:28

          Future
          Will shine on you > Ephesians 5:14 > Isaiah 26:19, Isaiah 60:1, Malachi 4:2
          Coming > 2 Thessalonians 2:8 > Isaiah 26:19-21a, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13, Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8
          Coming and Judging > 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 > Psalm 96:13, Daniel 12:2

          * 1 Timothy appears to be a late forgery that relies on the gospels.

          General Epistles about Jesus and Their Sources

          This is what the non-Pauline Epistles knew about Jesus and how they knew it.

          Past
          Came by water and blood > 1 John 5:6 > Zechariah 13:1
          Blood, lamb without blemish > 1 Peter 1:19 > Exodus 12:5, Exodus 12:13
          Rejected by mortals > 1 Peter 2:4 > Isaiah 53:3
          Chosen and precious in God’s sight > 1 Peter 2:4 > Isaiah 42:1
          Suffered > 1 Peter 2:21, Peter 2:23; 1 Peter 4:1 > Isaiah 53:3
          Abused, didn’t return abuse > 1 Peter 2:23 > Isaiah 53:7
          Bore our sins > 1 Peter 2:24 > Isaiah 53:12
          Put to death > 1 Peter 3:18 > Isaiah 53:8-9
          Laid down his life > 1 John 3:16 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12

          Present
          Gone into heaven > 1 Peter 3:22 > Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 53:12
          At the right hand of God > 1 Peter 3:22 > Psalm 110:1
          Angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him > 1 Peter 3:22 > Isaiah 45:22-25
          Advocate for sin > 1 John 2:1 > Isaiah 53:11-12

          Future
          Will come > James 5:7-8, 1 Peter 1:5, 1 Peter 4:7, 2 Peter 3:10, 1 John 3:2 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13, Isaiah 25:8
          Will come judging > James 5:9, Jude 14-15 > Psalm 96:13; Daniel 12:2

          * 2 Peter appears to be a late forgery based on Matthew, 1 Peter, and Jude as sources.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I don’t agree with Carrier on that point. I think that Paul thought Jesus had lived on Earth after David but before or during Isaiah’s time, then got resurrected in heaven.”

          Luckily, that’s also incompatible with Gathercole’s new evidence, since Paul thought Jesus’ resurrection occurred during his own time and was a recent event. Sorry, mythicist friend, but there’s no number of outlandish, fringe conspiracies you can come up with that’ll allow you guys to overtake the consensus, which is built on evidence rather than wish.

          “Paul was big on mentioning him but the little knowledge he seems to have can be found in the Old Testament. All of his revelations were just ideas that popped into his head while reading the Old Testament scriptures.”

          Sadly, almost every one of your references is absurdly vague and already reveals how you simply don’t understand how Paul used the Old Testament. The best academic work on this topic was done by Richard Hays in his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). It’s actually the reverse of what you think, Paul actually took what he already knew about Jesus and went backwards to the Old Testament to find confirmation. As in, not a single thing Paul says about Jesus has origins in what the Old Testament claims, he simply looks backwards to the Old Testament to validate what he already thinks of Christ.

          And just to repeat again, the Old Testament verses you cite are almost always so vague (or just irrelevant) in comparison to what Paul is saying as to rule the claim out completely. Sorry, but Robert Price’s thesis is already crackpot nonsense.

        • Greg G.

          Sorry, mythicist friend, but there’s no number of outlandish, fringe conspiracies you can come up with that’ll allow you guys to overtake the consensus, which is built on evidence rather than wish.

          Yeah, I keep hearing that there is evidence but nobody is willing to provide it. All anybody ever gives for evidence is “scholarly consensus”.

          From Did Jesus Exist as Part One:

          Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise.    –Bart Ehrman

          As far as I know, nobody has provided him with such a sustained argument. If the scholarly consensus was based on scholarly work, they would all know of such arguments. That shows that the scholarly consensus is based on the scholarly consensus and nothing else, so it is circular.

          It was Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?, that convinced me that the answer is “No”. Ehrman’s evidence is the independent Gospel sources: Mark, Q, M, L, sayings source, passion narratives, and protoThomas. We have one of those documents. The other documents are assumptions based on the belief that Jesus was historical, so that is circular.

          We can identify some of the M and L sources but they are not about Jesus. Matthew used Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews for his nativity story. Matthew’s baby killing comes from the Moses story but Exodus says the Pharaoh feared the population size while Josephus says the Pharaoh feared a prophecy. Moses’ father did not receive a dream warning in Exodus but he does in Antiquities. Herod even feared a prophecy in Antiquities.

          We can see that Luke used Antiquities and Josephus’ biography for material. Josephus tells how he used to talk with the scholars when he was 14 and they were impressed, Luke basically changed the age to 12 for Jesus. If the parallels between Luke and Josephus were coincidence, then they should be evenly spread throughout the Gospel, instead they are only in the 25% or so where Luke wasn’t using Mark and Matthew. Luke used Antiquities and Vida even more in Acts.

          I can make a case that Mark used Jewish Wars, too.

          Sadly, almost every one of your references is absurdly vague and already reveals how you simply don’t understand how Paul used the Old Testament. The best academic work on this topic was done by Richard Hays in his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale University Press 1989). It’s actually the reverse of what you think, Paul actually took what he already knew about Jesus and went backwards to the Old Testament to find confirmation. As in, not a single thing Paul says about Jesus has origins in what the Old Testament claims, he simply looks backwards to the Old Testament to validate what he already thinks of Christ.

          I started with that assumption. As much as Paul liked to mention Jesus, if he knew something about him, surely he would have said something that can’t be found in the Old Testament. When I say Paul used “Jesus” and/or “Christ” once for every 5 verses, that is not counting pronouns and the ambiguous “Lord”. Paul would not be able to claim his knowledge was not inferior to the knowledge of those who knew Jesus personally. How could Paul make such a claim if he knew James was his brother? He obviously knew they did not know Jesus personally. Paul called some “the Lord’s brother” because they were using human authority over the Lord’s will as if they were at the Lord’s level, thus they were acting like a brother of the Lord. Paul talks a lot about human authority and how he got nothing from Cephas and James in Galatians. He put a rant in the opening verse about it. He uses the phrase “the brothers of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 9:5, then brings up “human authority” within three verses.

          Paul never mentioned that Jesus was from Galilee because Mark hadn’t invented that idea before the war.

          Now show us the evidence you claim exists.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Yeah, I keep hearing that there is evidence but nobody is willing to provide it. All anybody ever gives for evidence is “scholarly consensus”.”

          Said every flat earther, holocaust denier, climate denier, etc, etc. In reality, the overwhelming evidence has already been provided … there’s just no evidence that you’d accept. Paul was a contemporary of Christ who wrote about him, and knew Jesus’ own brother, i.e. Galatians 1:18-19, and if Jesus didn’t exist … you’d think his brother would have known about it. And you immediately squiggle with the crackpot myth thesis that James was a “spiritual” brother (mythicists seem to try to interpret away anything they don’t like as interpretation or allegory), but O’Neill’s already debunked this contrived nonsense.

          https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

          There’s also the Gospels, which, since the 1990’s in scholarship, have been increasingly recognized by secular scholarship as in the genre of ancient biography — not hagiography or some sort of myth-genre. That’s a pretty big sad for mythicists, which is why none of them have ever admitted this plain reality.

          “We can identify some of the M and L sources but they are not about Jesus. Matthew used Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews for his nativity story. Matthew’s baby killing comes from the Moses story but Exodus says the Pharaoh feared the population size while Josephus says the Pharaoh feared a prophecy. Moses’ father did not receive a dream warning in Exodus but he does in Antiquities. Herod even feared a prophecy in Antiquities.”

          Too bad this is all fiction. M and L are about Jesus, and you can know that by … reading their vestiges in Matthew and Luke. You forgot Q, by the way. The historicity of the baby-killing story is literally and utterly peripheral to the historicity of Jesus. The majority of secular scholars don’t accept this story — and yet, you seem to intentionally try to avoid the more obviously historical elements of the Gospels. Such as, say, the fact that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet, an uncomfortably common thing in his historical and geographical context, and therefore, rather plausible.

          You also suggest Luke and Matthew used Josephus — of course, this is another largely mythicist fiction which has zero evidence to back it up. The only scholars that have even considered this theory outside of the mythicist fringe are members of the Jesus Seminar, and even there, the top defender of the thesis died last year.

          And this really is what mythicism is. Picking up one fringe or isolated theory, here and there in scholarship (Matthew using Josephus, non-existence of Q), weaving it together in a thoroughly implausible fabric, throwing a few ridiculous assumptions in, and bam pam wham, Jesus didn’t exist!

          “As much as Paul liked to mention Jesus, if he knew something about him, surely he would have said something that can’t be found in the Old Testament.”

          He did, many things, in fact, which is why virtually all your parallels are contrived and vague. Other things, you simply don’t bother finding a parallel in the Old Testament at all, such as having 12 disciples, having a brother named James, having the name ‘Jesus’, instructing on the night before his death that His followers carry out the eucharist in his honor (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), etc, etc, etc. And let’s not forget that it’s totally ridiculous to claim that because the Old Testament says something in it’s 39-book length, and Paul mentions something vaguely similar somewhere in his epistles, that therefore Paul invented it based off of that Old Testament passage. The fact is that the Old Testament is an unbelievably long set of 39 books that speak about every realm of life, talking about the same religion, geography, and history of Paul. The idea that overlap implies invention is ridiculous.

          “Paul never mentioned that Jesus was from Galilee because Mark hadn’t invented that idea before the war.”

          Another load of mythicist crackpottery. Perhaps Paul just … didn’t mention it. LOL. Something to think about.

        • Greg G.

          And you immediately squiggle with the crackpot myth thesis that James was a “spiritual” brother (mythicists seem to try to interpret away anything they don’t like as interpretation or allegory), but O’Neill’s already debunked this contrived nonsense.

          You didn’t read it very well. I did no such thing. Paul is using the term “brother” sarcastically. He is saying that James sends people places the way Paul says the Lord places in Galatians 1:1. Paul is saying James is acting like he has the Lord’s authority like he is at the Lord’s level, like a brother of the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 9, someone has questioned whether the Corinthians should be financing Paul. Paul cites some Old Testament verses to show the Lord is on his side but the people who are arguing against him receiving pay for his work are making their case on human authority, like they are putting themselves at the Lord’s level.

          As to the root “adelph-” in the New Testament, in the Gospels and Acts, it is used about half and half between literal siblings and in the figurative religious sense. In the Epistles, it is used 196 times in 186 verses in the Textus Receptus and 194 in 181 verses in the morphological Greek New Testament. All but six of those are in the figurative religious sense. Romans 16:15 refers to “Nereus and his sister” (Νηρέα καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν), a mention of an actual sibling, a sister. 1 John 3:12 refers to Cain and Abel, saying “his brother (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὑτοῦ)” and “his brother’s {actions} were righteous (τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια),” referring to them as actual brothers but they were not actual people. In Jude 1:1, Jude claims to be “a brother of James (ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου)” but he does not claim to be a brother of Jesus.

          Galatians 1:19 calls James “the Lord’s brother (τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου)” and 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου) refers to “the Lord’s brothers”. I think Paul was using the sibling sense of the word but sarcastically.

          There’s also the Gospels, which, since the 1990’s in scholarship, have been increasingly recognized by secular scholarship as in the genre of ancient biography — not hagiography or some sort of myth-genre. That’s a pretty big sad for mythicists, which is why none of them have ever admitted this plain reality.

          From about Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, Luke departs from Mark’s timeline and follows Deuteronomy with topics that follow Deuteronomy topics. That is not a biography. In Acts, Peter and Paul have parallels with one another and with Jesus of Luke.

          We still have many and probably most of Mark’s sources but they are not so much about Jesus. He created an adventure story with everything happening immediately. Mark combines Greek literature with Old Testament stories. The mass feedings come from Elijah’s Feeding of the 100 in 2 Kings combined with the travels of Telemauchus, Oddyseus’ son. Why are there two mass feedings? Telemauchus attended two feasts, he walked to one and sailed to one, like Jesus. One of the feasts had 9 groups of 500 so Mark rounded the number up once and down once.

          Too bad this is all fiction. M and L are about Jesus, and you can know that by … reading their vestiges in Matthew and Luke. You forgot Q, by the way.

          Q is an excuse to explain the similarities of Matthew and Luke without having to explain the differences. Luke rejected more of Mark than Matthew did and he rejected parts of Matthew, too. Why not, the baby killing is horrible and Matthew makes a big deal out of 14 generations from Abraham to David, David to the Exile, and from the Exile to Jesus. But Matthew omitted four names from the second set, according to the genealogies of the OT, and there are only 13 generations for the last set unless you count the Exile as one of Jesus’ ancestors.

          Excerpt from Life of Josephus 2
          Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

          Luke 2:42,46-47 (NRSV)42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.

          46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

          That is an L source for you. Change the names, make the age more religiously significant, and add 3 days as foreshadowing, and it is good enough to fool a Christian.

          and yet, you seem to intentionally try to avoid the more obviously historical elements of the Gospels.

          Yet, the rest of the story is as fictional as Matthew’s nativity.

          Such as, say, the fact that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet, an uncomfortably common thing in his historical and geographical context, and therefore, rather plausible.

          Isn’t that uncomfortable for you since the epistles do not have Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet. That is a made up part, too.

          You also suggest Luke and Matthew used Josephus — of course, this is another largely mythicist fiction which has zero evidence to back it up. The only scholars that have even considered this theory outside of the mythicist fringe are members of the Jesus Seminar, and even there, the top defender of the thesis died last year.

          But when I start pointing out the similarities, the kneejerk reaction is to say “coincidence”. When it gets into the dozens in Acts, it is a pattern, not coincidence. When all of theses coincidences in Luke happen to be all together in the small part that doesn’t come from Mark and Matthew, it is a pattern.

          And this really is what mythicism is. Picking up one fringe or isolated theory, here and there in scholarship (Matthew using Josephus, non-existence of Q), weaving it together in a thoroughly implausible fabric, throwing a few ridiculous assumptions in, and bam pam wham, Jesus didn’t exist!

          I have just touched on a bit from Antiquities 2 and a bit from AJ 17. There is more.

          He did, many things, in fact, which is why virtually all your parallels are contrived and vague. Other things, you simply don’t bother finding a parallel in the Old Testament at all, such as having 12 disciples,

          The word “disciple” is never used in the epistles. It only appears in the gospels. There weren’t 12 disciples so Paul never mentioned them. If you are referring to 1 Corinthians 15, he doesn’t say what the twelve were.

          having a brother named James,

          He was being sarcastic.

          having the name ‘Jesus’,

          Zechariah 3 LXX.

          instructing on the night before his death that His followers carry out the eucharist in his honor (1 Corinthians 11:23-25),

          That is part of a big interpolation. That part probably came from Luke’s version. 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 sets up a pattern of Paul giving an exhortation, asking a question, then answering it with the same metaphors. The third time for this pattern, we don’t get the answer to the question until 1 Corinthians 11:30-31, which shows the seam where the big interpolation was inserted.

          Paul mentions something vaguely similar somewhere in his epistles, that therefore Paul invented it based off of that Old Testament passage.

          Pretty much every one of the OT verses cited comes from a book that Paul quotes from verbatim, so you are flailing here.

          Another load of mythicist crackpottery. Perhaps Paul just … didn’t mention it. LOL. Something to think about.

          That is the point. Everything Paul tells about Jesus comes from the Old Testament, nothing from First Century knowledge. He mentions “Jesus” and/or “Christ” over 300 times, and never slips in any First Century information. You have to ignore all the sarcasm in Galatians to pretend to have a factoid. See Galatians 5:11-12 to see how sarcastic Paul was toward James, the leader of the circumcision faction.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You didn’t read it very well. I did no such thing. Paul is using the term “brother” sarcastically. He is saying that James sends people places the way Paul says the Lord places in Galatians 1:1. Paul is saying James is acting like he has the Lord’s authority like he is at the Lord’s level, like a brother of the Lord.”

          Ah, no wonder I missed your point, it’s even more ridiculous than the typical mythicist evasion tactic. Luckily, this is just pure nonsense to explain away inconvenient verses. Outside of Paul’s epistles, we also hear about the very same James in the Gospels, for example, and there, he’s a familiar brother to Jesus. In Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XX.9.1, we know that Jesus had … a familial brother named James. So Paul means exactly what he seems to mean, he’s talking about Jesus’ well known brother. Please cite the evidence for this “sarcastic” interpretation.

          Oddly, I’ve never even heard of a sarcastic version of calling yourself someone’s brother with the meaning you claim it’s implied to have. Can you show me any other examples of this sarcasm happening in Jewish texts outside of Paul in that era?

          “From about Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, Luke departs from Mark’s timeline and follows Deuteronomy with topics that follow Deuteronomy topics. That is not a biography. In Acts, Peter and Paul have parallels with one another and with Jesus of Luke.”

          Actually, Luke doesn’t follow Deuteronomy’s timeline at all. As we’ve seen earlier, your Old Testament parallels tend to be imaginative and vague, and you also have already forgotten that Luke isn’t making things up based off of Deuteronomy — rather, as I’ve explained earlier, Luke is talking what he already believes about Jesus and looking for confirmation in the Old Testament. Secular scholarship demonstrated the Gospels are ancient biography. To quote one scholar that’s summarized the evidence;

          1. They are written in continuous prose narrative.
          2. Stories, logia, anecdotes, and speeches are combined to form a narrative.
          3. The life of the main character is not always covered in chronological sequence.
          4. Attention is focused on a main character rather than on an era, event, or government as in a history.
          5. Little to no attention is provided for psychological analyses of the main character.
          6. We learn something of the main character’s ancestry and then move rapidly along to the inauguration of his public life.
          7. Ancient biographies were of the same general length, with shorter
          works being under 10,000 words, medium length between 10,000 and
          25,000 words, and longer length over 25,000 words. Because a scroll
          would normally hold a maximum of 25,000 words, most biographies
          fell in the medium length category so they could be read in a single
          sitting.
          8. 25 to 33 percent of the verbs are “dominated by the subject, while
          another 15 to 30 percent occur in sayings, speeches or quotations
          from the person.”
          9. Lives of philosophers and teachers are usually “arranged topically
          around collections of material to display their ideas and teachings.”
          10. The main subject’s character is illuminated through his words and
          deeds as a model for readers either to emulate or to avoid.
          (Licona, Michael. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? Oxford University Press, 2016, 3-4.

          “The mass feedings come from Elijah’s Feeding of the 100 in 2 Kings combined with the travels of Telemauchus, Oddyseus’ son.”

          Also a fan of Dennis MacDonald’s fringe thesis? See Adam Winn’s refutation (Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010. Pp. 38–49). How many fringe theses is that?

          Your parallel between Josephus and L confirms, as I’ve pointed out, that these ‘parallels’ are based on imagination and vagueness rather than … real parallels. Matthew used Mark as a source many times, and when we used him, he often quoted Mark verbatim. So we know how Matthew uses his sources. Why can’t you show Matthew quoting Josephus verbatim? Whoops. You claim Q is an “excuse” to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke without explaining the differences — umm, no, it’s a plausible source-text that accounts for the fact that Matthew and Luke almost certainly weren’t aware of each other but have the same verses verbatim. The same methodology has been used in medieval scholarship, as Tim O’Neill has pointed out, to produce lost source texts there.

          How to get around 1 Corinthians 11:23-25? Interpolation. LOOL. Should’ve seen that coming. Actually, the passage is obviously authentic and you fail to produce any evidence of interpolation. I think I should also remind that it’s in all surviving manuscripts.

          “Pretty much every one of the OT verses cited comes from a book that Paul quotes from verbatim, so you are flailing here.”

          Thankfully, that’s not even a rebuttal. So I’ll just restate my point. Paul mentions something vaguely similar to the OT somewhere in his epistles, that therefore Paul invented it based off of that Old Testament passage, is ridiculous.

          “He mentions “Jesus” and/or “Christ” over 300 times, and never slips in any First Century information.”

          No first-century information AT ALL? :O

          2 Corinthians 11:32: In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas secured the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me.

          Wrong again, myth boy.

        • Greg G.

          Oddly, I’ve never even heard of a sarcastic version of calling yourself someone’s brother with the meaning you claim it’s implied to have.

          Have you ever seen someone wish the Lord’s brother would castrate themselves?

          Galatians 5:11-12 (NRSV)11 But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

          Some people don’t get sarcasm. See, circumcision is having the skin at the end of a penis removed. Paul says they should go the whole way and remove the whole thing. That is sarcasm.

          Can you show me any other examples of this sarcasm happening in Jewish texts outside of Paul in that era?

          Jewish texts? The New Testament is Greek and Greek literature has a long history of sarcasm. Most of the quotes from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint. Lucian of Samosata wrote some second century Greek satire. Ancient Greek literature – Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_literature ] says, “His letter The Passing of Peregrinus, a ruthless satire against Christians, contains one of the earliest pagan appraisals of early Christianity.”

          See SATIRE: By: Joseph Jacobs, Israel Davidson [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13221-satire ] as they give a few examples from the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.

          Actually, Luke doesn’t follow Deuteronomy’s timeline at all.

          I didn’t say Luke followed the Deuteronomy timeline. Luke follows the topics of Deuteronomy in order. They are in events, Jesus teachings, things said by others and such. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price spells them out and I read the article footnoted: C.F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” In D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967, pp. 37-53.

          1. They are written in continuous prose narrative.

          See Chiasm in the Gospel of Mark By Ricky Robertson [https://www.andrews.edu/~rickyr/ntc00.html ]

          2. Stories, logia, anecdotes, and speeches are combined to form a narrative.
          3. The life of the main character is not always covered in chronological sequence.
          4. Attention is focused on a main character rather than on an era, event, or government as in a history.

          Fiction is like that, too.

          5. Little to no attention is provided for psychological analyses of the main character.

          The omniscient narrator mode is active in all the gospels when it describes what others were feeling or thinking. Historians don’t do that.

          6. We learn something of the main character’s ancestry and then move rapidly along to the inauguration of his public life.

          What do you learn? You have conflicting accounts. I think Matthew tried to solve the conundrum posed in the Gospel of John:

          John 7:40-43 (NRSV)40 When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? 42 Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” 43 So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

          Since Matthew used Antiquities of the Jews which can be internally dated to the mid-90s, Matthew was no earlier than the end of the first century and possibly from the second century. Luke thought Matthew’s resolution was horrible and wrote a new genealogy and nativity, turning to the beginning of Antiquities, volume 18 for the census.

          7. Ancient biographies were of the same general length, with shorter
          works being under 10,000 words, medium length between 10,000 and
          25,000 words, and longer length over 25,000 words. Because a scroll
          would normally hold a maximum of 25,000 words, most biographies
          fell in the medium length category so they could be read in a single
          sitting.

          How long were fictional accounts?

          8. 25 to 33 percent of the verbs are “dominated by the subject, while
          another 15 to 30 percent occur in sayings, speeches or quotations
          from the person.”

          Over 25% of the New Testament are these 15 words: και, ο, εν, δε, του, εις, το, τον, την, αυτου, η, της, οτι, τω, and των. The conjunction “και”, usually translated as “and”, is over 6.5% of the words of the New Testament.

          9. Lives of philosophers and teachers are usually “arranged topically
          around collections of material to display their ideas and teachings.”

          How would someone who was emulating that kind of writing arrange the material?

          10. The main subject’s character is illuminated through his words and
          deeds as a model for readers either to emulate or to avoid.

          Ah, you mean like Virgil’s Aeneid, which was based on Homer’s epics but with Roman ideals.

          Why can’t you show Matthew quoting Josephus verbatim?

          Because Josephus never wrote about Jesus. Mark was about Jesus.

          umm, no, it’s a plausible source-text that accounts for the fact that Matthew and Luke almost certainly weren’t aware of each other but have the same verses verbatim.

          There are cases of “editorial fatigue” where one plagiarizer makes a change to the source but forgets about it a few paragraphs later. Mark Goodacre points these out. Mark calls Herod a king, probably because he is cribbing from the Esther story (“even up to half my kingdom” is a dead give-away). Matthew points out that he was a tetrarch but then calls him a king a few verses later. Go to Goodacre’s site for his examples. Luke shows editorial fatigue using Mark and Matthew.

          How to get around 1 Corinthians 11:23-25? Interpolation.

          I showed you the textual evidence. Here is where you close your eyes, cover your ears, and shout “LALALALALA.”

          No first-century information AT ALL? :O

          2 Corinthians 11:32: In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas secured the city of the Damascenes in order to arrest me.

          Wrong again, myth boy.

          Pay attention to context. King Aretas is not Jesus. Aretas is the only way to date the authentic Pauline corpus but Aretas was king for nearly half a century and began in the first century BC so even that is not a guarantee of being in the first century. Paul doesn’t distinguish which Aretas it is. King Aretas III was early first century BC and King Aretas I was second century BC.

          Since you were willing to dismiss Matthew’s nativity, are you willing to dismiss the miracle stories as fictional additions? You dite Licona and he got fired for questioning Matthew’s account of zombies coming out of the grave.

          If the miracles are rejected, as a historian does for other miracle claims, we can still consider their source materials. They really seem to be too similar to the most popular literature of the day and the most imitated, so you have no real reason to reject the possible sources from a historical perspective.

          The miracle stories can be rejected out of hand as not historical or they can be rejected because the do seem to be constructed from the literature of the day.

          If the miracle accounts can be rejected because they are from the literature of the day, we should also reject the more plausible stories because they also seem to be based on the literature of the day.

        • Korus Destroyus

          After I ask for a single place where this sarcastic version of calling yourself someones brother to imply you have their authority, you geniusly respond;

          Have you ever seen someone wish the Lord’s brother would castrate themselves?
          Galatians 5:11-12 (NRSV)
          11 But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
          Some people don’t get sarcasm. See, circumcision is having the skin at the end of a penis removed. Paul says they should go the whole way and remove the whole thing. That is sarcasm.

          There’s no point even responding to this, given the fact that you failed to produce such an example. I didn’t ask for an example of any sort of sarcasm happening. The ridiculous idea that “sarcasm happens somewhere, therefore calling yourself the brother of the Lord is sarcastic” is … ridiculous. Show me from ANY text in this time period where such a phase can be considered sarcasm.

          “I didn’t say Luke followed the Deuteronomy timeline. Luke follows the topics of Deuteronomy in order.”

          Actually, Luke doesn’t. Clearly. Robert Price is a failed scholar and his book seems to have failed even peer-review. His book is solely dependent on extremely vague and ambiguous parallels, and when the parallels don’t work, he has to twist the stories to make them work. It’s amazing that you genuinely think all the thousands of elite secular, non-Christian scholars have failed to note this for centuries and the guy who figured it out just so happens to be a bedrock of crackpot contrarianism and fringe mythicism.

          “Jewish texts? The New Testament is Greek and Greek literature has a long history of sarcasm.”

          Stunning goalpost shifting. Where, in Jewish texts, does someone call themselves another’s brother in a sarcastic way?

          You also fail to respond to the fact that outside Paul’s letters, both the Gospels and Josephus refer to Jesus having a familial brother named James. That would imply that Paul means exactly what he seems to mean. Add the fact that there isn’t a hint of evidence of sarcasm in Galatians 1:18-19, and we get a knockdown argument. I also pointed out one obviously historical element in the Gospels is the apocalypticism of Jesus. You responded to this that … “that’s not in the epistles though!” Fail of a red herring. Not only that, but apocalypticism is in the Pauline epistles, in fact, Paul gives away he expected it in his own lifetime. 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. A big blunder yet again.

          In my last comment, I provided a decisive demonstration of the fact that the Gospels are ancient biography. Your response is so bad it’s almost stunning. Looks like someone has no clue what genre analysis is. The first point is, obviously, anceint biography genre is written in continuous prose narrative. In response, you give me this link, which talks about chiasm in Mark’s Gospel. Excluding the validity of the claim itself, it seems you confused the literary technique of chiasm, which has nothing to do with a non-continuous story, with a literary schism in chronology. I know the words look similar, but they’re not. All Gospels are clear, continuous prose narratives.

          The response to points 2-4 makes this so easy for me I can’t believe it. Your response is “Fiction can be like that, too”. Red herring, dismissed, etc. Show from the myth/fiction genres of the ancient world that the 2nd to 4th points are an actual feature of myth/fiction genre. Oh, can’t? ):

          The fifth point says that no space is provided for psychological analysis of the main character. Your response to this is just another red herring, complaining about the “omniscient narrator” — not very omniscient at all, in reality, but irrelevant. At this point, it’s clear your on a hasty retreat, since from here on out, literally all your responses are red herring. Point 6, an important point, says that a little is revealed about the ancestry of the main character, and then the story rapidly moves to the public life of the figure. The response here is that they might be one or two conflicting details in the ancestry accounts. Red herring, dismissed. You also claim that Matthew uses Josephus, but as I demonstrated earlier, this is fanciful thinking.

          Your response to the 8th point is such a blatant red herring that I need to quote it in full. As the criteria points out, 25 to 33 percent of the verbs are “dominated by the subject, while
          another 15 to 30 percent occur in sayings, speeches or quotations
          from the person.” Your response?

          “Over 25% of the New Testament are these 15 words: και, ο, εν, δε, του, εις, το, τον, την, αυτου, η, της, οτι, τω, and των. The conjunction “και”, usually translated as “and”, is over 6.5% of the words of the New Testament.”

          No one gives a damn that most of the New Testament words, along with every other Greek text, are the most common words in the language. Address the point. Your response to point 9 is just a self-refutation;

          “How would someone who was emulating that kind of writing arrange the material?”

          Exactly, Greg, someone who was writing “that kind of writing” — i.e. ancient biography, would write in terms of the words and deeds of the single main character. Works that aren’t ancient biography, however, like the writings of Philo of Alexandria, do not do this.

          Anyways, I pointed out Matthew uses his sources by verbatim quoting them. But this doesn’t happen with Josephus. Why? Because … he doesn’t speak about Jesus. Well, nevermind the fact that he does twice, you claim that he did use Josephus on several occasions. Here, we expect … verbatim quotes.

          “Luke shows editorial fatigue using Mark and Matthew.”

          No he doesn’t. Not many scholars have been convinced by Goodacre.

          As I pointed out, there wasn’t a hint of textual evidence of 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 being interpolated. You claim that you provided this … LOL, you didn’t kid. Textual means manuscript. The verses are in all the manuscripts. All you did was propose some ludicrous idea of the verses including an incomplete literary pattern, and the idea that this, if true (it clearly isn’t) implies interpolation is out of this world nonsensical.

          “King Aretas is not Jesus. Aretas is the only way to date the authentic Pauline corpus but Aretas was king for nearly half a century and began in the first century BC so even that is not a guarantee of being in the first century.”

          This guy is dumb as hell. Paul mentions Aretas in the context of the time where he converted to Christianity. The entire story is in the mid 30’s AD. The fact that you can’t even conceive this demonstrates you can’t admit even the most total, absolute demonstrations of you making an error. You go on to make some false claims about me rejecting the nativity stories or miracles, and mention the total irrelevant point of Licona getting fired for that event. Those fundamentalists that fired Licona — their best academic by a long shot who publishes highly respected scholarship — are on the losing side of the game.

          “If the miracle accounts can be rejected because they are from the literature of the day, we should also reject the more plausible stories because they also seem to be based on the literature of the day.”

          Totally incoherent, as usual.

        • Greg G.

          After I ask for a single place where this sarcastic version of calling yourself someones brother to imply you have their authority

          You asked for an example from Jewish literature. It made your line of questioning irrelevant. I gave you an example of extreme sarcasm that you are apparently blind to.

          There’s no point even responding to this, given the fact that you failed to produce such an example. I didn’t ask for an example of any sort of sarcasm happening. The ridiculous idea that “sarcasm happens somewhere, therefore calling yourself the brother of the Lord is sarcastic” is … ridiculous. Show me from ANY text in this time period where such a phase can be considered sarcasm.

          I showed you that Paul was being sarcastic toward James, the person you think was the brother of the Lord. (In the Epistle of James, he only says he is a servant of Jesus Christ, nothing about being related to him.) Paul was sarcastic toward James in the opening verse saying that he was sent by the Lord, no by human authority, then points our how James sends circumcision faction agents places like Antioch.

          Actually, Luke doesn’t. Clearly.

          You haven’t even done the comparison, have you? I thought it was bullshit, too, until I actually compared it. Take your asshat off and check it out yourself.

          Stunning goalpost shifting. Where, in Jewish texts, does someone call themselves another’s brother in a sarcastic way?

          That was in response to you asking “Can you show me any other examples of this sarcasm happening in Jewish texts outside of Paul in that era?” That is a completely irrelevant question. I went on to point out other sarcasm in Greek literature and even from the Old Testament.

          You also fail to respond to the fact that outside Paul’s letters, both the Gospels and Josephus refer to Jesus having a familial brother named James.

          Josephus was interpolated by Eusebius. It is clear from Origen’s writing about Josephus that he only saw “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians and that he was associating that James with the James that Josephus talked about. They may have been the same James but when you read Origen’s statements closely, he isn’t getting “the Lord’s brother from Josephus.

          Mark certainly read Galatians. That is where he got the names for Jesus’ primary sidekicks – Galatians 2:9. The other gospels certainly read Mark. Mark 3:6 mentions four of Jesus’ brothers. All four of those names are in a thirteen word span in Jewish Wars where Josephus describes battles and the units for each side who fought well.

          I also pointed out one obviously historical element in the Gospels is the apocalypticism of Jesus. You responded to this that … “that’s not in the epistles though!” Fail of a red herring. Not only that, but apocalypticism is in the Pauline epistles, in fact, Paul gives away he expected it in his own lifetime. 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. A big blunder yet again.

          What’s to dispute? I don’t disagree with that. Jesus’ apocalypticism is taken from Paul’s apocalypticism. It’s why I don’t say that there was no Christian literature used by Mark. He was writing about Paul’s Jesus, not some actual itinerant first century preacher named Jesus who may have been crucified. Paul and Odysseus traveled around the Mediterranean Sea. Mark modeled Jesus on both characters but put him traveling around the “Sea” of Galilee.

          Paul also says it in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54. It seems to follow from Isaiah 26:19-21a, Daniel 7:11a, 13a; 12:2, and Isaiah 25:8a, with a direct quote from the last in 1 Corinthians 15:54. In Jewish Wars, Josephus says the Jews took on the Romans because of a prophecy going around at the time that the world ruler would come from that place and that they thought he would be on the Jews side. Josephus also said that during the siege of Jerusalem, somebody was going around encouraging the fighters to keep resisting because the savior was coming.

          Jewish Wars 6.5.2 (at the end of the passage)
          A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance.

          Jewish Wars 6.5.4
          But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

          In my last comment, I provided a decisive demonstration of the fact that the Gospels are ancient biography.

          You stole a list of characteristics that may be found in lots of writings.

          Excluding the validity of the claim itself, it seems you confused the literary technique of chiasm, which has nothing to do with a non-continuous story, with a literary schism in chronology.

          The first item on the list you gave said, “They are written in continuous prose narrative.” The literary technique of chiasm ia not the literary technique of continuous prose narrative.

          No one gives a damn that most of the New Testament words, along with every other Greek text, are the most common words in the language. Address the point. Your response to point 9 is just a self-refutation;

          You were pulling percentages out of your ass about the words of the Gospels. At least the figures I was giving were accurate.

          Exactly, Greg, someone who was writing “that kind of writing” — i.e. ancient biography, would write in terms of the words and deeds of the single main character. Works that aren’t ancient biography, however, like the writings of Philo of Alexandria, do not do this.

          Whoosh! The question was rhetorical. It went over your head. The answer is that if someone was trying to emulate a historical book, he would use a similar technique. But Mark seems to have gone out of his way to make it clear to his readers that he was also modeling The Odyssey.

          Anyways, I pointed out Matthew uses his sources by verbatim quoting them. But this doesn’t happen with Josephus. Why? Because … he doesn’t speak about Jesus. Well, nevermind the fact that he does twice, you claim that he did use Josephus on several occasions. Here, we expect … verbatim quotes.

          DUUUUUH!!!! Matthew could copy Mark verbatim because Matthew was writing Koine Greek and Mark was written in Koine Greek. Josephus wrote in Greek, not Koine Greek. They share many words but are not the same.

          I have said that Matthew used Antiquities for the nativity story. Volumes 2 & 3 for some stories where Josephus cited material he would have got from Exodus but Matthew includes elements from Josephus that is not in Exodus. Matthew also used material from volume 17 about Herod, Pharisees, and Herod having his son put to death for fear of a prophecy. Luke used Antiquities and Vida extensively, some in the parts of Luke not taken from Mark and Matthew, but a few dozens of places throughout Acts.

          In Acts 5, Gamaliel stands up in favor of the apostles by mentioning two bad guys who came to a dead end. There should have been many recent examples Gamaliel could have chosen to reference. Do you really think Gamaliel would talk about a bandit from three decades earlier and one that was ten years in the future? Or did Luke just grab those two names because they were in consecutive paragraphs in Antiquities?

          This guy is dumb as hell. Paul mentions Aretas in the context of the time where he converted to Christianity. The entire story is in the mid 30’s AD.

          You are reading the gospels back into the epistles. There never was a first century Jesus so it could have happened any time.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You asked for an example from Jewish literature. It made your line of questioning irrelevant. I gave you an example of extreme sarcasm that you are apparently blind to.”

          You gave me a 2nd century Greek satire, even though I not only asked for Jewish satire, but specifically for a case of satire involving someone being satirically called a brother. You were unable to give any examples. Although I wouldn’t accept Greek satire of being called a brother, since Paul would be unfamiliar with it, I should also mention that even if I did leave this possibility open, you would have been unable to show me anywhere in Greek literature of someone being satirically called a brother.

          See the bottom of this response why you get confused by Price’s imaginary parallels (which are, in reality, a collection of ambiguous similarities that have no borrowing connection, twisting of text, making things up, etc).

          “Josephus was interpolated by Eusebius.”

          As I say time and again, the only way mythicists get to their laughable conclusions is by calling everything standing in their way interpolation, allegory, etc. Eusebius, in fact, didn’t interpolated Josephus. There’s just no good reason to think it happened (or even bad reason).

          You then make more mistakes. Mark never read Galatians and never heard of Paul. Even if you desperately want to subscribe to the few scholars that think John had read of Mark, it’s still the case that almost everything John says is independent of Mark, since almost everything John says can’t be found in Mark. That also goes for M and L — i.e. the information in Matthew and Luke that can’t be found in Mark. All independent.

          A few comments before, you wrote;

          “Isn’t that uncomfortable for you since the epistles do not have Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet. That is a made up part, too.”

          Then I debunked this and showed Paul does have Jesus being apocalyptic. Then, you write;

          “Jesus’ apocalypticism is taken from Paul’s apocalypticism.”

          Laughable, and a clear demonstration of how quickly you’re willing to change your hatchet game. Paul and Mark, who are independent of each other, both note something rather plausible in his time, geography, and culture — that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet. Another point for historicity. You then repeat Dennis MacDonald’s fringe thesis that Jesus is similar to Odysseus. I already pointed to Adam Winn’s refutation of MacDonald’s fringe thesis, so it’s irrelevant.

          I’m sure you know I edit Wikipedia. If you go to MacDonald’s Wiki page to the ‘Reception’ section, you’ll note there are four scholarly responses to his work there all saying he’s full of it. I put three of the four in. Hope that makes you feel better.

          You also suggest that Paul is where Mark got the names for the disciples or some others from. That’s absurd. In 2006, Richard Bauckham showed that the names in the Gospels correlate almost precisely to how common they are in the time period. A stunning demonstration of Gospel reliability. This shows that the names in the Gospels give away accuracy, rather than fiction.

          You then quote two Josephan passages about Jews awaiting the coming of the Messiah. Irrelevant, since it only shows that they were apocalyptic Jews, and every Jew in the 1st century was an apocalyptic Jew. No borrowing from Josephus is required to explain the apocalypticism of the Gospels. Besides, we know that Christians were apocalyptic far before Josephus wrote a word (Christian apocalypticisim is in Mark and Paul).

          “The first item on the list you gave said, “They are written in continuous prose narrative.” The literary technique of chiasm ia not the literary technique of continuous prose narrative.”

          Continuous prose narrative and chiasm obviously are different techniques, but as I pointed out, the reason why you think they’re mutually exclusive is because you misunderstood what chiasm is.

          “You were pulling percentages out of your ass about the words of the Gospels. At least the figures I was giving were accurate.”

          Triggered by facts? I didn’t pull those percentages out of anywhere, the scholarly source I quoted earlier is where they come from. They’re correct.

          “Whoosh! The question was rhetorical. It went over your head. The answer is that if someone was trying to emulate a historical book, he would use a similar technique. But Mark seems to have gone out of his way to make it clear to his readers that he was also modeling The Odyssey.”

          Since MacDonald’s work has been debunked, this response also fails.

          “DUUUUUH!!!! Matthew could copy Mark verbatim because Matthew was writing Koine Greek and Mark was written in Koine Greek. Josephus wrote in Greek, not Koine Greek. They share many words but are not the same.”

          Definitely your most embarrassing mistake . There’s no difference between Greek in the 1st century and koine Greek. Just admit that Matthew had never heard of Josephus?

          “Or did Luke just grab those two names because they were in consecutive paragraphs in Antiquities?”

          Your entire confusion about Luke modeling his Gospel off of Deuteronomy, of Mark borrowing from Paul, and of Matthew and Luke borrowing from Josephus, is the fact that you uncritically equate similarities with borrowing. This is a pseudohistorical technique called parallelomania, and regularly plagues uncritical readers. Read this short scholarly paper on the topic. It’s an older paper, but as relevant as ever with the rise of internet mythicism.
          https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL81_1_1Sandmel1961.pdf

          Then, you submit to me on the point of King Aretas. Meaning I’m right that there is 1st century historical information in Paul.

          In my next response, I’ll start providing specific information on how MacDonald misrepresents the facts.

        • Greg G.

          Although I wouldn’t accept Greek satire of being called a brother, since Paul would be unfamiliar with it,

          Why not? Paul was quite familiar with Plato, as were teh pseudo-Pauline forgers.

          Romans 2:14 (NRSV)
          When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves.

          Galatians 5:23 (NRSV)
          gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.

          Aristotle, Politics, Book 3, Part 13 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and that for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law- they are themselves a law.

          Romans 5:6-8 (NRSV)
          6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

          Plato, Symposium, section 179c
          and without doubt what Homer calls a “fury inspired” by a god in certain heroes is the effect produced on lovers by Love’s peculiar power.
          “Furthermore, only such as are in love will consent to die for others; not merely men will do it, but women too. Sufficient witness is borne to this statement before the people of Greece by Alcestis, daughter of Pelias, who alone was willing to die for her husband, though he had both father

          Romans 8:5 (NRSV)
          For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

          Galatians 6:8 (NRSV)
          If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

          Plato, Phaedo, section 69c
          “from all these things, and self-restraint and justice and courage and wisdom itself are a kind of purification. And I fancy that those men who established the mysteries were not unenlightened, but in reality had a hidden meaning when they said long ago that whoever goes uninitiated and unsanctified to the other world will lie in the mire, but he who arrives there initiated and purified will dwell with the gods. For as they say in the mysteries, ‘the thyrsus-bearers are many, but the mystics few’;”

          Plato, Phaedo, section 81c
          “And, my friend, we must believe that the corporeal is burdensome and heavy and earthly and visible. And such a soul is weighed down by this and is dragged back into the visible world, through fear of the invisible and of the other world, and so,

          Romans 7:22-23 (NRSV)
          22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

          Plato, Laws, Book 1
          Cleinias: Moreover, there is a victory and defeat-the first and best of victories, the lowest and worst of defeats-which each man gains or sustains at the hands, not of another, but of himself; this shows that there is a war against ourselves going on within every one of us.

          Romans 12:4 (NRSV)
          For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function,

          Plato, The Republic, 370
          “It would not, by Zeus, be at all strange,” said I; “for now that you have mentioned it, it occurs to me myself that, to begin with, our several natures are not all alike but different.

          1 Corinthians 9:16 (NRSV)
          If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me – the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first.

          1 Corinthians 9:24 (NRSV)
          Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it.

          Plato, The Republic, X. C. 13
          But such as are true racers, arriving at the end, both receive the prizes, and are crowned.

          1 Corinthians 12:14-17 (NRSV)
          14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

          Plato, Protagoras
          “Is virtue a single whole, and are justice and self-control and holiness parts of it, or are these latter all names for one and the same thing?”

          Plato, Protagoras
          Does each also have its particular function? Just as, in the parts of the face, the eye is not like the ears, nor is its function the same; nor is any of the other parts like another, in its function or in any other respect: in the same way, are the parts of virtue unlike each other, [330b] both in themselves and in their functions? Are they not evidently so, if the analogy holds?

          1 Corinthians 12:25 (NRSV)
          that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another.

          Plato, The Republic, 462
          And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.3 For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’4 [462d] with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole, though it is a part that suffers, and that is how we come to say that the man has a pain in his finger. And for any other member of the man the same statement holds, alike for a part that labors in pain or is eased by pleasure.

          1 Corinthians 13:12 (NRSV)
          For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.
          Does each also have its particular function? Just as, in the parts of the face, the eye is not like the ears, nor is its function the same; nor is any of the other parts like another, in its function or in any other respect: in the same way, are the parts of…

          Plato, Phaedo [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          I dare say that the simile is not perfect — for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only “through a glass darkly,” any more than he who sees them in their working and effects.

          1 Corinthians 15:33 (NRSV)
          Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

          From the Greek poet Menander
          Some sources think it from Euripides (such as Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, 3.16),
          “Evil communications corrupt good manners”.

          2 Corinthians 4:4 (NRSV)
          In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          Plato, The Republic, 514
          [514a] “Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern1 with a long entrance open2 to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered3 from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot, [514b] able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads. Picture further the light from a fire burning higher up and at a distance behind them, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them a road along which a low wall has been built, as the exhibitors of puppet-shows1 have partitions before the men themselves, above which they show the puppets.” “All that I see,” he said. “See also, then, men carrying2 past the wall [514c] implements of all kinds that rise above the wall, and human images

          2 Corinthians 7:2 (NRSV)
          Make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone…

          Ephesians 1:22-23 (NRSV)
          And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

          Plato, Timaeus [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us: to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants…

          Philippians 1:21 (NRSV)
          21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain.

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this?

          Philippians 1:23 (NRSV)
          I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better;

          2 Timothy 4:6 (NRSV)
          As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.

          Plato, Apology of Socrates, from The Dialogues of Plato, Volume 2 [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.

          Philippians 3:19 (NRSV)
          Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.

          Plato, Republic, Book 8, section 546a
          “How?” “Somewhat in this fashion. Hard in truth it is for a state thus constituted to be shaken and disturbed; but since for everything that has come into being destruction is appointed, not even such a fabric as this will abide for all time, but it shall surely be dissolved, and this is the manner of its dissolution. Not only for plants that grow from the earth but also for animals that live upon it there is a cycle of bearing and barrenness for soul and body as often as the revolutions of their orbs come full circle, in brief courses for the short-lived and oppositely for the opposite; but the laws of prosperous birth or infertility for your race,

          1 Thessalonians 5:15 (NRSV)
          See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.

          Plato, Crito [Benjamin Jowett translation]
          Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.

          I give you the letter of Galatians that is filled with sarcasm toward James and the circumcision faction. Paul uses the word “pseudo-brothers” in Galatians 2:4. In 1 Corinthians 9, someone has challenged whatever financial support the Corinthians were providing for Paul. He mentions “the brothers of the Lord” in verse 5 and in verse 8, he says the he isn’t using human authority and then cites Old Testament scripture as the Lord’s authority.

          As I say time and again, the only way mythicists get to their laughable conclusions is by calling everything standing in their way interpolation, allegory, etc. Eusebius, in fact, didn’t interpolated Josephus. There’s just no good reason to think it happened (or even bad reason).

          Goldberg makes the case that there are two parts to the Testimonium Flavianum. One is an underlying text and the other is a bunch of added Christianese. That is what the majority of scholars say. Goldberg makes the case that the underlying part is similar to the Emmaus Road conversation in Luke 24 with similar phrases.

          The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus [Link] by Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D. discusses the Christian interpolations. He sums up his three considerations more succinctly in The Josephus-Luke Connection [Link]:

          There are several alternatives. I shall demonstrate the following:

          1. The similarities are too numerous and unusual to be the result of accident. This will be demonstrated on another page by a statistical comparison of all other known descriptions of Jesus of similar length.
          2. The similarities are not what would be written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian deliberately mimicking Josephus’ style. This is a consequence of the study on the statistics page.
          3. The similarities are what would be expected if Josephus had employed a document very similar to Luke’s Emmaus narrative as his source for information on Jesus, which he then moderately rewrote. This will be demonstrated on the style page by studying how other passages in his works were rewritten by Josephus from sources known to us.

          He falls back on the common source excuse. But the Emmaus Road conversation is a summary of the Gospel of Luke and Luke’s primary source was Mark, and that language doesn’t come from Mark. It is unlikely that Luke had a source for that but wrote it himself.

          So we go back to the second alternative, that somebody mimicked Josephus’ style.

          But Ken Olson has shown that Eusebius often used Josephus-like wording in his own writings, including words from the core of TF and the Christianese part.

          Origen of Caesarea was very familiar with Anitiqities of the Jews, citing it in his writings while mentioning the part about James and the part about John the Baptist which is just a little bit past where the TF is in our copies. Origen even mentioned those two passages together as if they were the complete set of major New Testament characters. It is unlikely that he would have omitted the TF in Contra Celsus, and certainly unlikely that he would have missed it.

          Origen of Caesarea bequeathed his library to the city of Caesarea. It was curated by Pamphylus of Caesarea who was the mentor of Eusebius of Caesarea. Origen and Justin Martyr(?) were the only two known Christian writers to refer to Antiquities before Eusebius, so Eusebius probably knew Josephus from Origen’s copy, and it is not likely that Origen overlooked it.

          Ambrose and Jerome were born around the time Eusebius died. Abrose quoted the TF without “he was the Christ” and Jerome quoted it with “he was believed to be the Christ. Jerome wrote about Josephus about 90 times and that was the only mention of the TF.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Another long, irrelevant comment full of parallelomania. Anyways, Paul clearly knew no Greek literature at all, either. If he did, he would have actually mentioned them, like later Christians in the 3rd centuries and beyond who actually were familiar with Greek philosophy. Once we look at these later writers, and compare what they did to what Paul did, we find it pure comedy to consider vague word resemblances evidence of borrowing.

          Scholars have noted that Paul quoted two popular Greek sayings (from Menander or something, none of Plato), though Paul knew these because they were popular sayings, rather than having read any Greek literature. Which, once again, leaves you with nothing.

        • Greg G.

          People today quote Shakespeare without knowing it was Shakespeare. Paul could read and write in Greek. What did he read in Greek? It is not likely that Paul was never exposed to Plato and his philosophy. People have noticed the similarity for centuries.

          Yet we see many such coincidences in Paul’s writing but not so many in the rest of the New Testament. That looks like a pattern that needs an explanation.

        • Greg G.

          Apparently was breaking Disqus. It reported an internal error. Here is the second half.

          _________________________________

          You also suggest that Paul is where Mark got the names for the disciples or some others from. That’s absurd. In 2006, Richard Bauckham showed that the names in the Gospels correlate almost precisely to how common they are in the time period. A stunning demonstration of Gospel reliability. This shows that the names in the Gospels give away accuracy, rather than fiction.

          If Mark got the names of the disciples from another writing that was historical but not about Jesus, the names should be correlate to the common names, too. How does Bauckman determine the common names of the place and time? If he used Josephus as a primary source and Mark used Josephus for his names, then of course Mark’s list of names is going to match up with Bauckham’s list even better than his list would have aligned with actuality.

          You keep looking for reasons to believe there is some truth to the gospels so you’ll believe any factoid that you think supports it even if the factoid is better evidence against it.

          Apocalypticism is in both Mark and Paul, and they predate Josephus.

          Apocalypticism goes back to Daniel.

          Continuous prose narrative and chiasm obviously are different techniques, but as I pointed out, the reason why you think they’re mutually exclusive is because you misunderstood what chiasm is.

          “Continuous prose narrative and chiasm obviously are different techniques.” FTFY

          Since MacDonald’s work has been debunked, this response also fails.

          I read MacDonald’s reply to the debunking. The debunking didn’t stick.

          I think this is your most embarrassing mistake is. There is no difference between Greek in the 1st century and koine Greek, since koine Greek is just the version that the Greek language existed in between 300 BC and 300 AD.

          Oh, shit! I knew that at one point in time. I had been reading about how the Greek of Jewish Wars was better than in his other writings, probably because he wrote that while Vespasian was still emperor, so he had better assistants. I had also read a source that used some other name for Koine Greek for the NT writings. I think that threw me.

          Why don’t you just admit that Matthew had never heard of Josephus?

          Sure, as soon as I get a better explanation for all the parallels in Matthew’s nativity story that are in Antiquities and not in Exodus. Josephus saved his ass by prophesying to Vespasian that the Jewish prophecy of the ruler coming from there was actually about him, and it came true, so Josephus was certainly going to include that kind of stuff in his writings.

          You then make more mistakes. Mark never read Galatians and never heard of Paul. Even if you desperately want to subscribe to the few scholars that think John had read of Mark, it’s still the case that almost everything John says is independent of Mark, since almost everything John says can’t be found in Mark. That also goes for M and L — i.e. the information in Matthew and Luke that can’t be found in Mark. All independent.

          John is never mentioned in any of the epistles besides 1, 2, and 3 John and Galatians. Peter is never mentioned in any epistles besides

          Your entire confusion about Luke modeling his Gospel off of Deuteronomy, of Mark borrowing from Paul, and of Matthew and Luke borrowing from Josephus, is the fact that you uncritically equate similarities with borrowing. This is a pseudohistorical technique called parallelomania, and regularly plagues uncritical readers. Read this short scholarly paper on the topic. It’s an older paper, but as relevant as ever with the rise of internet mythicism.

          From the link you gave on Parallomania:

          John may be later than and a borrower of the Synoptic tradition, or earlier and in some way a source for, or completely different from, the Synoptists.

          In the epistles, Cephas is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Galatians, Peter is mentioned in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Galatians, James is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, James, Jude, and Galatians, and John is mentioned in Galatians only. See anything common among them?

          Mark uses Aramaicisms and Latinisms. He almost always explains the Aramaic but never the Latin, even giving the value of a Palestinian coin relative to a Roman coin. Mark explains the name “Bartimaeus”. He uses “Abba, Father” for Jesus’ opening of the Gethsemane prayer. When Barabbas is introduced, his readers know that there are two people called “Son of the Father”. Paul used “Abba, Father” twice, once in Romans and once in Galatians.

          Mark 7:1-19 > Galatians 2:11-14. Mark gives Paul’s argument to Jesus. If Mark’s story had been real, Peter would not have argued with Paul. Peter would be the one with the Jesus teaching and given up the Pharisee custom.

          If it was parallelomania, I should expect to see parallels of Antiquities in all of the Gospels, yet there is a little in Matthew, a substantial amount in Luke but only in the text that is not commone with Mark and Matthew, and tons of it in Acts. Luke-Acts also has parallels with Vida that are not seen in the other gospels.

          About the only thing from Antiquities that I see in Mark is the mention of Bethsaida. All of the cities of Judea and Galilee in Mark are found in Jewish Wars, except for the “Beth-” cities and Nazareth. (Nazareth is mentioned once in a passage that is verbatim in Matthew except without “Nazareth” while a later verse does have it. It is the only place in Mark where a geographical place is mentioned in a larger geographical context.) JW has many “Beth-” cities and Mark has three but they do not match. I tried hard to find matches in Mark for Antiquities but found only one possible. Then I read Jewish Wars and they popped out all over but not in Matthew, Luke, or Acts.

          _____________________________________________________

          Mark 3:7-8 (NRSV)
          7 Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; 8 hearing all that he was doing, they came to him IN GREAT NUMBERS FROM JUDEA, Jerusalem, IDUMEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, and the region around TYRE AND SIDON.

          Jewish Wars 2.2.1 §14
          ARCHELAUS went down now to the sea-side, with his mother and his friends, Poplas, and Ptolemy, and Nicolaus…

          The Greek word for “sea” in Mark and “sea-side” in Jewish Wars is “θάλασσαν”.

          Jewish Wars 2.3.1 §43
          Wherefore an immense multitude ran together, out of Galilee, and IDUMEA, and JERICHO, and Perea, that was BEYOND JORDAN; but the people that naturally belonged to JUDEA itself were ABOVE THE REST, both IN NUMBER, and in the alacrity of the men.

          Mark 10:46 (NRSV)
          46 They came to JERICHO. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving JERICHO, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.

          Jewish Wars 1.18.5 §361
          Now is to these her injunctions to Antony, he complied in part; for though he esteemed it too abominable a thing to kill such good and great kings, yet was he thereby alienated from the friendship he had for them. He also took away a great deal of their country; nay, even the plantation of palm trees at JERICHO, where also grows the balsam tree, and bestowed them upon her; as also all the cities on this side the river Eleutherus, TYRE AND SIDON excepted.

          _____________________________________________________

          Mark 6:3 (NRSV)
          3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of JAMES and JOSES and JUDAS and SIMON, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

          Jewish Wars 6.2.6 §148
          … but on the Jewish side, and of those that were with SIMON, JUDAS the son of Merto, and SIMON the son of JOSAS; of the Idumeans, JAMES and SIMON, the latter of whom was the son of Cathlas, and JAMES was the son of Sosas;

          In the Greek, all four names of Jesus’ brothers’ are within a thirteen word span in Jewish Wars.
          _____________________________________________________

          Mark 6:8-10 (NRSV)
          8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. 10 He said to them, “WHEREVER YOU ENTER A HOUSE, STAY THERE UNTIL YOU LEAVE THE PLACE.

          Jewish Wars 2.8.4 §124-127 [Josephus is describing the Essenes.]
          4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, THERE IS, IN EVERY CITY WHERE THEY LIVE, ONE APPOINTED PARTICULARLY TO TAKE CARE OF STRANGERS, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of or of shoes till be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.

          _____________________________________________________

          I have noticed that many characters in Mark have names that align with the father of characters in Jewish Wars, as if Mark was trying to put them around in the Pilate era.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If Mark got the names of the disciples from another writing that was historical but not about Jesus, the names should be correlate to the common names, too. How does Bauckman determine the common names of the place and time? If he used Josephus as a primary source and Mark used Josephus for his names, then of course Mark’s list of names is going to match up with Bauckham’s list even better than his list would have aligned with actuality.”

          So you think Mark used Josephus? The conspiracies are getting more contrived as time goes on. That’s even more ridiculous than what Pofarmer thought. Anyways, it’s clear there’s no scratch of evidence Mark knew anything of Josephus. In fact, if you already forgot, Mark predates Josephus.

          As for how Bauckham determined the commonality of the names of the era, he used Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: The western diaspora 330 BCE-650 CE (Mohr Siebeck 2002).

          “You keep looking for reasons to believe there is some truth to the gospels so you’ll believe any factoid that you think supports it even if the factoid is better evidence against it.”

          Sorry, you think Mark used Josephus, but I’m the one believing any factoid that would support me?

          “Apocalypticism goes back to Daniel.”

          It probably predates even Daniel. And that’s irrelevant. This is why you shouldn’t butt into other peoples conversations — to avoid embarrassing yourself like this. Poor ol’ Pofarmer tried to claim that Matthew got his apocalypticism from Josephus. I debunked this by showing Christian apocalypticism was around far before Josephus was ever writing.

          “I read MacDonald’s reply to the debunking. The debunking didn’t stick.”

          It did. Badly, in fact. MacDonald replied to two of the debunkings very badly, and ignored all the other ones — like Adam Winn’s. Poor guy. No wonder he’s a fringe sucker.

          “Sure, as soon as I get a better explanation for all the parallels in Matthew’s nativity story that are in Antiquities and not in Exodus.”

          The hell? Matthew’s nativity story comes from Exodus, not Antiquities. That’s so obvious it’s almost a joke to hear you try to reverse it. Another scholarly consensus ignored to preserve sad ol’ mythicism.

          You then make a bunch of sad attempts of connection. As I pointed out, Pofarmer’s failure stems from parallelomania. You then go into the parallelomania paper and quote it saying John might have used the Synoptics. This, of course, is a red herring. The sad attempts to find evidence of Matthew using Josephus is parallelomania pseudohistory, and John is almost certainly independent of Mark — at the very least, the vast majority is independent, since the vast majority of John is found nowhere in Mark.

          “In the epistles, Cephas is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Galatians, Peter is mentioned in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Galatians, James is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, James, Jude, and Galatians, and John is mentioned in Galatians only. See anything common among them?”

          Nope. What? You then waste a bit of my time talking about the Aramaisms in Mark’s Gospel (thus helping demonstrate its reliability given these Aramaisms are early sources closer to the events in history), and then say “Mark 7:1-19 > Galatians 2:11-14. Mark gives Paul’s argument to Jesus. If Mark’s story had been real, Peter would not have argued with Paul.” Sadly, this literally makes no sense and so can be dismissed. Your comment is quite incoherent at times, if not mostly.

          You then waste even more time, pointing out how some of the cities in Mark are … also mentioned in Josephus! BONANZA! Two authors talking about the same period and geography mention similar cities. Perhaps you don’t genuinely believe that provides evidence for borrowing. Parallelomania at its best.

          “I have noticed that many characters in Mark have names that align with the father of characters in Jewish Wars, as if Mark was trying to put them around in the Pilate era.”

          What are you even talking about?

        • Greg G.

          So you think Mark used Josephus? The conspiracies are getting more contrived as time goes on. That’s even more ridiculous than what Pofarmer thought. Anyways, it’s clear there’s no scratch of evidence Mark knew anything of Josephus. In fact, if you already forgot, Mark predates Josephus.

          I think Mark used Jewish Wars only. Jewish Wars is dated to the late 70s. If the gospels were not based on witness testimony, then there is no reason to date them so early. If Matthew and Luke used Antiquities, they are probably at the end of the first century or in the second century. You can fit John in between Mark and Matthew easily.

          It probably predates even Daniel.

          I agree.

          The hell? Matthew’s nativity story comes from Exodus, not Antiquities. That’s so obvious it’s almost a joke to hear you try to reverse it. Another scholarly consensus ignored to preserve sad ol’ mythicism.

          Compare why the Pharaoh had the Hebrew babies killed in Antiquities and in Exodus. Matthew has the babies killed because Herod heard a prophecy. In Exodus, Pharaoh feared the population of Jews was too big. In Antiquities 2, it is because Pharaoh feared a prophecy. In Antiquities 17, Herod had his son executed because of a prophecy.

          In Matthew, the baby’s father was warned in a dream. In Antiquities 2, the baby’s father was warned in a dream. In Exodus, there was no dream warning.

          In Exodus, items used in the tabernacle are described. The same items are described in Antiquities 3. Those items are also the gifts of the magi in Matthew. Guess which order the items in Matthew match with.

        • Greg G.

          You then waste even more time, pointing out how some of the cities in Mark are … also mentioned in Josephus! BONANZA! Two authors talking about the same period and geography mention similar cities. Perhaps you don’t genuinely believe that provides evidence for borrowing. Parallelomania at its best.

          You seemed to have underestimated the amount of evidence. It is no wonder. When it is presented, your cognitive dissonance kicks in and you ignore it.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You seemed to have underestimated the amount of evidence. It is no wonder. When it is presented, your cognitive dissonance kicks in and you ignore it.”

          Once again, following the same logic, Josephus clearly borrowed from Paul, given all the similar cities being mentioned. I can’t believe this guy is trying to get me to believe that if two writers in the same time period in the same geography mention similar cities, it must be because of borrowing. Couldn’t there be any other explanation? Hmmm ….

          Did Price really come up with something this bad? There’s just no way.

          “I think Mark used Jewish Wars only. Jewish Wars is dated to the late 70s. If the gospels were not based on witness testimony, then there is no reason to date them so early. If Matthew and Luke used Antiquities, they are probably at the end of the first century or in the second century. You can fit John in between Mark and Matthew easily.”

          And mark is dated to the early 70’s or late 60’s. Where does that leave you? The fact that you think that since a text existed before another one, that this is somehow enough, is insane. Paul predates Josephus … they mention all the same cities … what gives? Clearly Josephus borrowed from Paul. If I dug hard enough, no doubt I’d be able to find vague wording similarities.

          Compare why the Pharaoh had the Hebrew babies killed in Antiquities and in Exodus. Matthew has the babies killed because Herod heard a prophecy. In Exodus, Pharaoh feared the population of Jews was too big. In Antiquities 2, it is because Pharaoh feared a prophecy. In Antiquities 17, Herod had his son executed because of a prophecy.

          In Matthew, the baby’s father was warned in a dream. In Antiquities 2, the baby’s father was warned in a dream. In Exodus, there was no dream warning.

          In Exodus, items used in the tabernacle are described. The same items are described in Antiquities 3. Those items are also the gifts of the magi in Matthew. Guess which order the items in Matthew match with.

          Umm … Greg, you do realize that there IS dreams in the story of the Israelite’s in Egypt? You tried to pull a quick one by trying to isolate the source text to Exodus, but you only need to look a wee bit earlier in Genesis;

          Genesis 37:5-9: Once Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him even more. 6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream that I dreamed. 7 There we were, binding sheaves in the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright; then your sheaves gathered around it, and bowed down to my sheaf.” 8 His brothers said to him, “Are you indeed to reign over us? Are you indeed to have dominion over us?” So they hated him even more because of his dreams and his words. He had another dream, and told it to his brothers, saying, “Look, I have had another dream: the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

          Then, the entirety of Genesis 40 is about two prisoners who have dreams and tell Joseph about their dreams. And then the part in Genesis where, WOULD YA LOOK AT THAT, PHARAOH HAS A DREAM:

          Genesis 41:1-2: After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and there came up out of the Nile seven sleek and fat cows, and they grazed in the reed grass.

          Genesis 41 is 57 verses long, almost half of it taken up by Pharaoh’s dream and Joseph’s interpretation of it.

          Both Josephus and Matthew’s source is apparent. Dreams are a major constituent of the story of the Israelite’s in Egypt. That’s a decisive blow against another one of these “parallels”.

          As I explained earlier, Matthew actually quoted Exodus. There are at least 36 quotations and explicit allusions to Exodus in Matthew..
          https://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/naves-topical-bible/quotations-and-allusions.html

          “People today quote Shakespeare without knowing it was Shakespeare. Paul could read and write in Greek. What did he read in Greek? It is not likely that Paul was never exposed to Plato and his philosophy. People have noticed the similarity for centuries.”

          People have noticed similarities for centuries? Citation needed. Paul’s ideas are clearly the opposite of Plato’s, and there isn’t a hint of evidence of Paul being aware of Plato. Plato’s philosophy wasn’t even prominent in the 1st century. The idea that Paul surely would have heard of Plato’s philosophy is, therefore, based on an anachronism of Plato’s current popularity. The philosophies that were popular in the 1st century were Stoicism and Epicureanism, and they’re actually mentioned in Acts 17:18. Plato only become more popular in the 3rd centuries AD and up (with the rise of Neoplatonism), and thats when we see Christian writers being influenced by Plato’s philosophy.

          “Yet we see many such coincidences in Paul’s writing but not so many in the rest of the New Testament. That looks like a pattern that needs an explanation.”

          Back that up with a scholarly reference.

        • Greg G.

          Once again, following the same logic, Josephus clearly borrowed from Paul, given all the similar cities being mentioned. I can’t believe this guy is trying to get me to believe that if two writers in the same time period in the same geography mention similar cities, it must be because of borrowing. Couldn’t there be any other explanation? Hmmm ….

          Did Price really come up with something this bad? There’s just no way.

          Price had nothing to do with it. I did it myself.

          Let’s test your theory. In the Pauline epistles, we find:

          Cities mentioned in “authentic” Pauline Epistles
          Antioch
          Jewish Wars 1.12.5 §243-244

          Damascus
          Jewish Wars 1.4.8 §103-106

          Ephesus
          Antiquities of the Jews 14.10.13 §228-230

          Jerusalem
          Jewish Wars 1.1.1 §31-33

          Philippi
          Jewish Wars 1.12.4 §242

          Rome
          Jewish Wars 1.7.7 §155-158

          Not found
          Corinth
          Illyricum
          Kenchreai
          Thessaloniki
          Troas

          Cities mentioned only in Pseudo-Paulines