Here's what I don't understand, Thumpers

[Diogenes]

So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

But what if your religion is opposed to the idea that thr earth is round? What legislation would you propose to deal with that?

None. Of course that doesn't apply to Judaism or Christianity (except in the 'minds' of ignorant dipshits like you).

[Dinsdale]

Do we really need to quote the numerous Bible passages that talk about how the earth is flat?

God made the earth. God wrote the Bible. The Bible says the earth is flat.


Yeah, that math works out.


Uhm...you GO, thumpers!


Wait...let me guess..."b-b-b-b-b-b-ut...that's not what it meant."


I think you thumpers are just pissed that the Quran got it right, and your fable book got it wrong...then again, I'd be pissed if I were in that boat, too. You got woodshedded by a bunch of camel jockies.

[Dinsdale]

http://www.adultswim.com/games/biblefight/index.html

[Diogenes]

God made the earth. God wrote the Bible. The Bible says the earth is flat.

Yes. Yes. And No.

[Dinsdale]

I vote for candidates who I think will push legislation that benefits myself and my country the most.

Politicians claim moral authority by implying that their decisions are dictated by moral principle - and by assuming that we can't let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what isn't. That leaves only the politicians to decide what is right and what is wrong. So they claim a license to use government to compel us to do everything that's right and to forbid us to do everything that's wrong.

But the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to tell us how to live our lives. It gives the politicians no authority to make your financial decisions or your personal decisions. That doesn't stop them, however.

Democratic and Republican politicians treat us as dysfunctional children who need the attention of a strict government to decide what we can have, see, hear, and read, and what we can say publicly. Neither of the two major parties recognizes any limits on the government's authority over your life.

Of course, all politicians like to pose as supporters of your family. But their "support" really means making your decisions for you:

Democrats invoke the "children" on behalf of every new government boondoggle and regulation - whether to censor the Internet or put a V-chip in your television set.

Republicans claim they will restore family values by stamping out drug use or posting the 10 Commandments in schools. Somehow they think you can't instill family values in your children unless the politicians apply force.

None of the politicians believes you're capable of deciding for yourself what's best for your family. If they really trusted you, they'd repeal the income tax - so you'd have the wherewithal to make your own family decisions, so you could afford to send your child to schools that teach what you want your child to learn, and so you could afford to have one parent at home to supervise your children according to your values.

Inspiration for What?

America's politicians lament the decline in moral standards. They tell us we must raise our sights above our own shabby little lives, and give ourselves to a greater cause. They say we must practice the politics of compassion, that we must use our resources to help others, that we must solve the problems of racism, poverty, and inequality.

The oratory soars - but goes nowhere.

The politician really means that you must give up your concern for your family and whatever else you care for - areas where you might actually make a difference - and support whatever causes he's hitched his political wagon to.

He means you must stop demonstrating your compassion in ways that make sense to you, and instead give him more money to divert to programs - government or private - that have the political pull to capture his allegiance.

He means you must fight racism, poverty, and inequality not through your own kindness and decency, but by giving him more power and money to reward the squeaky wheels - the unappeasable organizations and grievance mongers who live off the ills they bemoan.

WHOSE STANDARDS WILL PREVAIL?

When a politician promises to raise moral standards in America, it's easy to think he's referring to the moral standards in which you believe. You think you've found someone who's going to use the force of government to impose your moral values on others.

But when government acts, the values imposed won't be yours and they won't be mine. Moral values will be set by whoever has the most political power - people like Teddy Kennedy or Newt Gingrich. Is that what you want to impose on others?

And don't forget that the force of government will be used to impose those values on you as well. No one is going to exempt you from the "Make America a Moral Place Act of 2001."

Even if you have some reason to believe Congress will legislate the moral rules you like, those rules are only temporary. The next Congress will go off in its own direction.


SET THEM FREE

The entire effort to wed morality and politics is based on the assumption that there are immoral or irresponsible people who can't be bent into shape unless the government does it.

Yes, there are people who won't act responsibly. There are people who have no regard for the consequences of their own acts. There are people who seem to be incapable of behaving wisely or benevolently.

Politicians exploit these people to justify rigid controls on your life. Because some people won't plan for their old age, you must be forced into Social Security. Because some people will do funny things after looking at dirty pictures on the Internet, your access to the Internet must be restricted.

So what should we do about people who won't take responsibility for their own actions? I believe the answer is simple:

Set them free.

Give them the freedom to make their own decisions, to face the consequences of their own acts, to see for themselves what their actions do to others, and how others respond to them.

Only free people have an incentive to be virtuous. Only people who bear the consequences of their own acts will care about those consequences.

A free society rewards virtue and punishes irresponsibility. Government does just the opposite.

What do we do about people who might not plan for their own retirement?

Set them free.

Let each person know that his future depends largely on his own actions. If younger people see some older people who haven't planned ahead and have to rely on charity, the young will be more likely to provide for the future. Today when someone plans poorly, the only consequence younger people see is a call for more government.

What do we do about people who are insensitive to other people?

Set them free.

Let other people shun them or respect them for what they do. Let them feel the results of being civil or uncivil.

Freedom & Responsibility

It is often said that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin - that if you want freedom, you must first accept the responsibility that goes with it.

The truth is simpler. Freedom and responsibility aren't two sides of the same thing; one isn't a precondition for the other. They are the same thing.

Freedom is responsibility. Responsibility is experiencing the consequences of your own acts - not the consequences of others' acts or making others pay for what you do.

And that's what freedom is. Without government to force others to pay for your pleasures or mistakes, and without forcing you to pay for what others do, you are a free, responsible human being.

Freedom and responsibility are inseparably linked - not because they should be, but because they are. Responsibility accompanies freedom, whether or not you want it to.

We are told America must have a moral revival before we can have greater freedom - that people must be educated to be responsible before they can be free. This puts the cart before the horse.

If we expect a government program to make people responsible, we will wait forever.

We don't need a moral revival, we don't need politicians making moral decisions for us. We need do only one thing to induce people to act more responsibly:

Set them free.

Sometimes he's a little far out in right field, but I often shed a tear grieving the death of America when I read Harry Browne's works.

[Dinsdale]

Here's How to Defend Marriage
August 2, 2006
by Harry Browne

Marriage is under attack!

Man the ramparts! The barbarians are at the gates!

We must defend traditional marriage against so-called "same-sex marriage." If we allow two men or two women to get married, terrible things will happen. Here's the danger . . .

Er, uh, um, hmmm, well, uh . . .

Come to think of it, I can't come up with a single way that same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage.

If John and Bill get married, does that mean you and your spouse must part company?

If Nancy and Amber say "I do," will your marriage crumble?

If you see Tom and Roscoe holding hands, will you have to get a divorce?

Political NewSpeak

Politicians continually misuse words in order to point with pride or view with alarm.

They pass "safe streets" bills that impose regulations on local police forces - making the streets less safe. They enact a "No Child Left Behind" law that's guaranteed to make all children fall further behind.

And now they're trying to say that the outlawing of same-sex marriages is a "defense" of marriage.

But what needs to be defended?

Apparently, a quarter to a third of all U.S. adults have been divorced. That would seem to indicate a much bigger threat to marriage than same-sex couples.

Whose Marriage Is It?

Marriage is a noble institution; it signifies to one and all that two people regard each other in much higher esteem and intention than was the case in previous relationships.

Only the individual can evaluate that esteem and that intention.

So why in the world would we want government defining what marriage is?

What's next? Will government . . .

Define what constitutes love?
Define what a man is and what a woman is?
Tell us how to raise our children?
Oops, sorry. I forgot. George Bush is already proposing a plan to raise our children for us.





Love & Marriage

For many people, life can be very difficult.

But love offsets many ills. It is one of the most rewarding and consoling feelings available, and it can make even the most difficult life bearable. Love is simply the most satisfying emotion in the world.

I believe that everyone should be free to pursue love wherever he can find it - with whoever makes him happy.

Anyone who presumes to interfere with that love is unworthy of our respect. And for government to deny someone the full enjoyment of love is a mark of a totalitarian state.

Social Security

The only argument offered for outlawing same-sex marriage that makes any sense is that this will give Social Security death benefits to people who aren't now eligible to receive them - increasing the cost of government and the federal deficit.

But that's a problem with Social Security, not marriage.

If you buy a life insurance policy from Equitable, Prudential, State Farm, or any other private insurer, you can designate anyone in the world to be the beneficiary. You can name your spouse, your children, your mistress, your live-in boyfriend, your favorite cat, Saddam Hussein, or the Chicago Cubs baseball team - anyone.

And if you don't like any of the conditions of the policy, you don't have to buy it.

Only the government confiscates your money and coerces you into taking its life insurance. And only the government forces its choice of beneficiary on you.

This means that people who are single by choice or who aren't legally "married" are forced to pay for life insurance that's useless to them. Is this what's meant by "defending marriage" - forcing unmarried people to subsidize married couples?

The solution, of course, is to let everyone out of Social Security - not impose the government's definition of marriage on people who don't agree with it.

Tradition
I've also heard arguments that there is a long, long tradition that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman - and that this tradition should be maintained.

I guess that means that we should outlaw inter-racial marriage, since for centuries tradition defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman of the same race.

Come to think of it, I guess we should reinstate slavery on the grounds that it has thousands of years of tradition behind it.

But maybe we should not be bound by tradition. Instead, we should be willing to do anything that gets government out of our lives. And recognizing that government should not define marriage, love, or anything else is a step in the right direction - tradition or no tradition.

Defending Marriage

If you really think marriage must be defended, here are some much more practical suggestions. . . .

Recognize why you married your spouse and what that person means to you.
Remember that the next time you're inclined to criticize or argue with your spouse.
Take a moment every day to recognize the blessings of your relationship, and keep those blessings in mind.
Tell your spouse how glad you are to be married, and what it means to you - and do that often.
Make sure that your spouse's needs are being met.
If you do these things, your marriage will be well defended - and you shouldn't have to worry over who else is getting married.

[Diogenes]

Why is Harry Browne trying to impose his version of right and wrong on America?


Not that the Losertariarians will ever win an election anywhere.

[SunCoastSooner]

So if your religion is opposed to murder, then being opposed to murder is nothing but mindless fanatacism?

But what if your religion is opposed to the idea that thr earth is round? What legislation would you propose to deal with that?

None. Of course that doesn't apply to Judaism or Christianity (except in the 'minds' of ignorant dipshits like you).

That isn't exactly true historically. It was the Catholic church who insisted the world was flat for over 1,400 years. Even "the Dark Continent" of Africa had long accepted the world was round before Europe did.

The only reason that the Spanish court funded and allowed Christopher Columbus to make his journey is that they were terrified that the St. Clairs/Sinclairs of Scottland were soon going to attempt to begin colonization efforts of their own in "the New World". They had this information through John Drummond who was close personal friends with the St. Clairs and also was present in the Spanish court during Ferdinand and Issabelle's reign. It was John Drummond who was the most outspoken suppoerted for CC's "exploration". It is well documented but mostly ignored that Henri St. Clair and Captain (can't remember his given name) Zeno explored from Greenland to Cape Fear region of North Carolina along the Atlantic seaboard as early as 1398. Henri St. Clair was already aware of much of what he would find as his antecendents had been traveling and trading with North America's native population for over 300 years prior. Further proof of their families exploration of the "New World" can be found at the families Chapel, Roslyn Chappel, in Roslin, Scottland where the chapel was completed at least 50 years before Colombus' journey in which there are carvings in the stone work of Aloe and American maze.

The Catholic church did its best to keep the Cat in the bag but at the point that Scottland was excommunicated by the church as a nation it was soon to become impossible.

[SunCoastSooner]

Why is Harry Browne trying to impose his version of right and wrong on America?


Not that the Losertariarians will ever win an election anywhere.

The Liberatarian party is the fastest growning political party in the country per capita. I love their sense of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism!!!

They just want the government to be fiscaly responsible with OUR money and to stay the hell out of our bedrooms and living rooms at the same time.

[Diogenes]

Why is Harry Browne trying to impose his version of right and wrong on America?


Not that the Losertariarians will ever win an election anywhere.

The Liberatarian party is the fastest growning political party in the country per capita. I love their sense of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism!!!

They just want the government to be fiscaly responsible with OUR money and to stay the hell out of our bedrooms and living rooms at the same time.

So let me know when they actually elect someone to national office. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

As far as your previous post...

Link?

Even if that were true (about the CC, that is) there is still no Biblical basis for their alleged embrace of greek cosmology any more than there is for indulgances or the inquisition.




And welcome back. Long time no read.

[SunCoastSooner]

As far as your previous post...

Link?

Even if that were true (about the CC, that is) there is still no Biblical basis for their alleged embrace of greek cosmology any more than there is for indulgances or the inquisition.




And welcome back. Long time no read.[/b]

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/zeno.html

http://www.firstfoot.com/Great%20Scot/siclair.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers

http://www.answers.com/topic/zeno-brothers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_Si ... _of_Orkney

Proof of their exploration can be found in modern day Rhode Island where Henri St. Clair (as described in his memoirs which were used by a decendant in his compilation of the St. Clair/Sinclair family history) where he built a make shift Medievil tower and small encampment for short exploration in land. The exploration was cut short when one of Henri's knights perrished from unknown causes and a grave was erected in the traditional Templar manner (the St. Clairs were closely allied with Military Order and their holdings were often used as Templar precipatories in Scottland) with no name on the headstone and only an emblem of the fallen knight's sword broken at the blade.

Further proof of their exploration was discovered last century when one of Zeno's cannons was discovered on the coast of modern Nova Scotia (New Scottland). The Native Americans still speak of the legend of the God/Great man Glascope (sic?) who taught the indigenous people to fish by way of nets.

If I can find the time I will scan in the motiefs from Roslyn Chappel of American Maze and Aloe (both plants strictly native to the Western Hemisphere). I have numerous photographs both personal from my trip to Scottland a few years ago and from numerous books I own.

[SunCoastSooner]

The only reason that the Spanish court funded and allowed Christopher Columbus to make his journey is that they were terrified that the St. Clairs/Sinclairs of Scottland were soon going to attempt to begin colonization efforts of their own in "the New World". They had this information through John Drummond who was close personal friends with the St. Clairs and also was present in the Spanish court during Ferdinand and Issabelle's reign. It was John Drummond who was the most outspoken suppoerted for CC's "exploration". It is well documented but mostly ignored that Henri St. Clair and Captain (can't remember his given name) Zeno explored from Greenland to Cape Fear region of North Carolina along the Atlantic seaboard as early as 1398. Henri St. Clair was already aware of much of what he would find as his antecendents had been traveling and trading with North America's native population for over 300 years prior. Further proof of their families exploration of the "New World" can be found at the families Chapel, Roslyn Chappel, in Roslin, Scottland where the chapel was completed at least 50 years before Colombus' journey in which there are carvings in the stone work of Aloe and American maze.

The Catholic church did its best to keep the Cat in the bag but at the point that Scottland was excommunicated by the church as a nation it was soon to become impossible.

Pure crap.

Yeah Rosyln Chappel doesn't exist right? And it wasn't completed at least 50 years before CC set sail right? John Drummond wasn't present at the Spanish court either was he? John Drummond, Nicolo Zeno, Antonio Zeno, Amerigo Vespucci, and Christopher Colombus were all neither associated nor members of the Knights of Christ either.

How about you actually post something to back up your statement rather than a drive by posting just saying pure crap. Or how about better yet you grow a brain and pull your head out your ass. Next you're going to tell us the Vikings/Norsemen didn't make it to the "New World" either right?

[SunCoastSooner]

Most historians today regard the map and accompanying narrative as a hoax, perpetrated by the younger Zeno to retroactively put forth a claim for Venice as having discovered the New World prior to Christopher Columbus.

The evidence against the authenticity of the map is based largely on the appearance of many non-existent islands in the North Atlantic and off the coast of Iceland. One of these islands was Frisland.

Current scholarship regards the map as being based on existing maps of the 16th century, in particular:

The Olaus Magnus map of the North, the Carta marina
The Caerte van Oostland of Cornelis Anthoniszoon
Claudius Clavus-type maps of the North

Solid stuff you got there.

Actaully the maps were made before he set sail and they were based on maps provided by the St. Clair family. Zeno's decendant tried to make the erroneous claim that it was his antecendant that actually drew up the maps which is known to be false by way of Henri St. Clair's personal memoirs. The St. Clair family keeps strict controll of their family documents and for the most part does not allow scholarly study of those documents other than the ones formally controlled by the United Kingdom.

[SunCoastSooner]

Yeah Rosyln Chappel doesn't exist right? And it wasn't completed at least 50 years before CC set sail right? John Drummond wasn't present at the Spanish court either was he? John Drummond, Nicolo Zeno, Antonio Zeno, Amerigo Vespucci, and Christopher Colombus were all neither associated nor members of the Knights of Christ either.

None of which support the hoax you are clinging to. The Zenos are simple frauds. Their map is a complete joke. Henry St. Clair appears to have landed at Nova Scotia somewhere around 1400. The End.

Claims of trading with natives for 300 years is complete and utter bullshit as are the interpretation of the carvings at Rosyln Chapel.

History is littered with hoaxs like this.

Henri St. Clair is of Norman/Norse descent. His antecendants were among those Norsemen who were sailing to the Americas as early as the 9th century.

Explain the 13th century venetian cannon discovered on Nova Scotia oh great all knowing being. Cause all Vikings and Scottsmen used Italian gun powder pieces on their sea going vessels.

[SunCoastSooner]

The St. Clair family keeps strict controll of their family documents and for the most part does not allow scholarly study of those documents other than the ones formally controlled by the United Kingdom.

Yes, I'm sure they do.

Numerous scottish clans and nobel families do this it is not limited to the Sinclairs.

[SunCoastSooner]

Claims of trading with natives for 300 years is complete and utter bullshit as are the interpretation of the carvings at Rosyln Chapel.

I've been to Roslyn Chappel and while the aloe plant may be interprative the American Maze (corn) most certainly is not.

[Dinsdale]

First off...


It's fucking "Scotland," you remedial dipshit. People from there are "Scots," anything else from there is "Scottish," except whisky, which is "scotch."


Second -- Harry Browne was a Populist, rather than a member of the Libertarian Party.

[PSUFAN]

Yeah Rosyln Chappel doesn't exist right? And it wasn't completed at least 50 years before CC set sail right? John Drummond wasn't present at the Spanish court either was he? John Drummond, Nicolo Zeno, Antonio Zeno, Amerigo Vespucci, and Christopher Colombus were all neither associated nor members of the Knights of Christ either.

None of which support the hoax you are clinging to. The Zenos are simple frauds. Their map is a complete joke. Henry St. Clair appears to have landed at Nova Scotia somewhere around 1400. The End.

Claims of trading with natives for 300 years is complete and utter bullshit as are the interpretation of the carvings at Rosyln Chapel.

History is littered with hoaxs like this.

Henri St. Clair is of Norman/Norse descent. His antecendants were among those Norsemen who were sailing to the Americas as early as the 9th century.

Explain the 13th century venetian cannon discovered on Nova Scotia oh great all knowing being. Cause all Vikings and Scottsmen used Italian gun powder pieces on their sea going vessels.

First off...it's pretty widely accepted that all of the Scandinavians that settled the New World died or left. It would be hard to claim ancestry from them.

Secondly, no Western Vikings (Norse who settled Iceland, Greenland, and beyond) were ever "Norman". "Norman" refers to Norse who settled in Normandy, and then invaded England (bringing French with them).

Thirdly, where have you seen it mentioned that the Norse sailed with cannons - cannons from anywhere?

[Diogenes]

Still haven't seen any evidence that the Catholic Church taught that the world was flat. Not suprised, since none exists.




http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educ ... cs105.html

[SunCoastSooner]

First off...


It's fucking "Scotland," you remedial dipshit. People from there are "Scots," anything else from there is "Scottish," except whisky, which is "scotch."


Second -- Harry Browne was a Populist, rather than a member of the Libertarian Party.

First off my family is scottish. My father and my grandfather both used/use the word scottish the people they descend from; that is where I picked it up. I don't know if it is properly used or not and don't really care either way. Considering that I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that my father is far better educated than not only you or I but just about anyone on this board I wouldn't think it is too remedial.

Those descendant of the Norse did die or leave Nova Scotia and I never stated otherwise. But they did need sponsorship and funding. What sort of people do you think were responsible for such things?

When I used Norman/Norse I thought you could figure out that he was a descendant of both people. JUst as when I type my heritage I usually state scot/choctaw/scicilian; it isn't meant as implication of all three being the same people just that I descendant of all three. Yes I know the normans came from France before England. They are the reason that the English nobility spoke French until the 14th century in English royal courts. Only shortly before the "Peasants Revolt" did they switch to English.

I've never said the Norse sailed with canons. Last I checked the venetians aren't norsemen.

As far as the link you provided mv I skimmed over it but at the very least #8 is incorrect. His grandson did mention it in the family history as a footnote. Secondly the author who wrote the article is Brian Smith who is an englishman whose life work as yet has been to discredit anything connected to scotland that might be considered contrary to English domination. He has also written slanderous articles aimed at the House of Stewart/Stuart, the Kirkwall Teaching Scroll, "The Peasants Revolt", The Cromwellian Revolt, and numerous other articles concerning Scotland. The "New Orkney Antiquarian Journal" is a publication that was intentionally set up to discredit anything Scot as well. Sorry if I don't find such a source as reliable despite his undying support from the House of Windsor.

[Diogenes]

Still waiting for those epic proofs that the CC promoted a flat earth concept, SCS.

If they are anything like the Sinclair/Zeno/Templar links, I could use the comic relief.

[SunCoastSooner]

Still waiting for those epic proofs that the CC promoted a flat earth concept, SCS.

If they are anything like the Sinclair/Zeno/Templar links, I could use the comic relief.

Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius was an very early Christian author of both theology and rhetoric. His works were endorsed by the Catholic Church long after his demise which occurred very early in the Church's history. He was directly sponsored by Constantine and Pope Sylvester. In his work he persistantly procliams the earth was flat. Now it is true that many scholars of his era disagreed with him but they were often silenced by Rome (either by the Bishop of Rome or the Emperor. The Early Catholic Church most certainly endorsed the concept of the flat world. It was a subject mostly ignored by the church in medievil ages.

[Diogenes]

Still waiting for those epic proofs that the CC promoted a flat earth concept, SCS.

If they are anything like the Sinclair/Zeno/Templar links, I could use the comic relief.

Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius was an very early Christian author of both theology and rhetoric. His works were endorsed by the Catholic Church long after his demise which occurred very early in the Church's history. He was directly sponsored by Constantine and Pope Sylvester. In his work he persistantly procliams the earth was flat. Now it is true that many scholars of his era disagreed with him but they were often silenced by Rome (either by the Bishop of Rome or the Emperor. The Early Catholic Church most certainly endorsed the concept of the flat world. It was a subject mostly ignored by the church in medievil ages.

From the previous link...

Historians of science cannot fail to recognise the important influence of Greek philosophers on those who came after. Aristotelianism in particular was extraordinarily powerful as a philosophical system and Aristotle clearly taught the Earth’s sphericity. Nearly all the Greeks who had a view on the shape of the Earth agreed that it was a sphere. Eratosthenes’ measurement of the Earth’s circumference (250,000 stades) was very close to the modern figure. Ptolemy came up with a smaller value (180,000 stades). These calculated dimensions were known to the medieval world. It was considered very important for medieval students to learn geography, where it was part of their studies in astronomy and geometry. Medieval leaders (Bede, Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Giles of Rome and others) all affirmed the Earth’s sphericity. It is also relevant to note that the kings of the Early Middle Ages held a royal orb. The golden ball represented the spherical Earth and the cross that was part of the orb symbolised Christ’s sovereignty. The message conveyed was that the king held the orb as one entrusted by God with governance.

The early church leaders saw no need to distance themselves from the Greeks’ understanding of the Earth’s sphericity. The only identifiable flat-earthers are Lactantius (c.265-345), Cosmas Indicopleustes (c.540), Severian of Gabala (c.380), possibly Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-430) and possibly Diodore of Tarsus (d.394). Of these, Lactantius and Cosmas are the prime characters appearing in the Flat Earth literature. Russell discusses both of these characters in a sympathetic way, pointing out that neither was influential in their own time nor in the Medieval period. How then did those responsible for the Flat Error create such a serious misrepresentation of the influence of these men?

According to Russsell, the first seed was sown in innocence by Copernicus in "De revolutionibus" (1543). "In the Preface, Copernicus used Lactantius to illustrate how the ignorance of opponents of the round Earth was comparable to that of those insisting on geocentricity in his own time" (p.64). Note that Copernicus did not suggest that Lactantius was in any way typical, nor did he point to any contemporaries with similar views, nor was anyone mentioned who could have been involved in discussions regarding pioneer ocean voyages. Nevertheless, some later writers picked up the name of Lactantius and made much of his bigotry and opposition to the "truth".

The "ground" on which the "Flat Error" grew was prepared by Compte (1798-1857). Auguste Compte developed the philosophy of positivism, with its concept of progress, step by step, from superstition to science. This led to the idea that "religion" (in particular Catholic and Protestant Christianity) was but a step beyond superstition but definitely a step back from real science. Religion had to be swept away if mankind was to progress to truth. This approach led to the metaphor of "warfare" to describe the relationship between science and religion. Such a conflict was first articulated by William Whewell, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1837. Important developments of the warfare metaphor were by John Draper in "The history of the conflict between religion and science" (1873) and by Andrew Dickson White in his "History of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom" (1896).

All three of these men pointed at Lactantius and Cosmas as influential leaders of the Flat Earth belief. Their historical errors are analysed and discussed helpfully by Russell. It has to be said that the "warfare thesis" was a largely successful exercise and several generations of people have soaked up the idea that Christianity is inherently anti-scientific and that it has frequently acted to oppose science.


http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educ ... cs105.html


A couple other links...

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/lactantius.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[SunCoastSooner]

Lactantius and Cosmas are the prime characters appearing in the Flat Earth literature. Russell discusses both of these characters in a sympathetic way, pointing out that neither was influential in their own time nor in the Medieval period.

I can't speak to how influential Lactantius' work was during the medievil age but one thing that is for certain was that he was definatly influential in his own time. Anything that states otherwise is simply propaganda that is revisionist innacuracy. Lactantius was requested by of Emperor Diocletian personally to be professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia, a major cbnter of learning in the Roman Empire, this despite being a known Christian. After Diocletian's demise he was directly sponsored by Emperor Constantine. He was even Constantines son's (Crispus) personal tutor. That is far flung from be ing a person who had no influence.

[battery chucka' one]

If you choose to belong to a religion, basically, you choose to adhere to that religion's tenets.

Why do people deem it necessary to make it into legislation, also?

For example, if your spiritual leader prohibits gay marriage, then by God, don't get gay-married.

If your spiritual leader says that drinking alcohol is an abomination against Allah, then switch to OJ.

Why do the radicals want to make these things into laws for society at large?

Here's the way I see it. Right now, we have the ability to worship as we see fit. However, let's say that the constitution is changed and, boom, now gay marriage is legal. Okay. Gays can now marry. Next, you narrow minded, contradictory, faithless wonders start complaining that our churches are 'closed minded' because we refuse to allow gays to marry in our sanctuaries, before the eyes of God, though we allow heterosexuals to marry and the government says that it's alright. Then, you start attacking our congregations for attending such a church, though our Bible says that it's alright, in God's eyes. Do I need to take this argument further, son?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The main driving force behind aggressive secularism in your country comes from Jews.

Good luck fighting it. Let me know how it turns out.

[battery chucka' one]

The main driving force behind aggressive secularism in your country comes from Jews.

Good luck fighting it. Let me know how it turns out.

Link?

Or are you refering to hollywood?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Don't play dumb. You know what I'm talking about.

[battery chucka' one]

Don't play dumb. You know what I'm talking about.

No, I don't. Either that or I just want you to say it. Now please, elaborate. Or else admit to being a outright liar.

[Goober McTuber]

Don't play dumb.

He's not playing dumb. He is dumb. Stupid-to-the-bone dumb.

[PSUFAN]

Next, you narrow minded, contradictory, faithless wonders start complaining that our churches are 'closed minded' because we refuse to allow gays to marry in our sanctuaries, before the eyes of God, though we allow heterosexuals to marry and the government says that it's alright.

You really are pretty thick.

I don't give a fuck what you want to do in your church, or backyard, or bedroom. None of that is my business, and I don't give a good goddamn.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A better question would be, if you don't believe the tenets of your religion (i.e. 'pro-choice' Catholics) why not join a differant church?

Here's my question: why is it that Catholics are singled out for this particular type of criticism? If I were to search for a religion with which I'm in complete agreement, I'd be searching long and hard. In fact, I'd probably wind up having to start my own religion.

On second thought, that might not be such a bad idea. Maybe I missed my calling. Religious cult leaders generally have pretty nice lives, at least until the Feds bring it all crashing down, anyway. :D

[PSUFAN]

See, the problem with accepting somebody else's moral guidebook is that you are essentially abdicating from making those judgments for yourself.

[battery chucka' one]

See, the problem with accepting somebody else's moral guidebook is that you are essentially abdicating from making those judgments for yourself.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Sad times in the Bible, to be sure.

[Diogenes]

A better question would be, if you don't believe the tenets of your religion (i.e. 'pro-choice' Catholics) why not join a differant church?

Here's my question: why is it that Catholics are singled out for this particular type of criticism?

A better question would be why did he say i.e. instead of e.g.?

I was actually just using apostate Catholics as an example. Because Catholicism is based on church authority (Papal infalibility), whereas most protestant denominations are less authoritarian it would seem to be a valid one. If a Mormon thought that Smith was a fraud, and still called himself Morman while denouncing the tenets of his religion it would be no less ridiculous.