4 ms·

Really, the protestant are taliban? did the Catholic Church never wage jihads and inquisitions? Were the protestants the ones going apeshit over the heliocen

Really, the protestant are taliban? did the Catholic Church never wage jihads and inquisitions? Were the protestants the ones going apeshit over the heliocentric model?

p_l 1y ago
It's more a reference to "sola scriptura" and the dismissal of scientific thought related to it. Similar movement happened, with way more success, in Islamic world AFAIK. And yes, protestants were actually going more apeshit about heliocentrism than catholic church. The preface "explaining away" heliocentrism as just mathematical device instead of description of reality was by lutheran theologian, the catholic church being big patron of astronomy at the time. It was mathematicians and astronomers who were against heliocentric model who were "expert witness" for inquisition, and despite their arguments the only thing inquisition struck was pieces about theology. Galileo got slammed originally for claiming his work as established fact, and the further problems were more political in nature when he attacked pope in his next book and alienated his previous supporters. Not great, not terrible, honestly pretty good outcome for the time period.
- snickerbockers 1y ago
  Sola scriptura was primarily a rejection of all Catholic theology outside of the Bible; I've never heard of it being applied to subjects outside of the Bible but I'll admit I'm uneducated in this aspect as my knowledge of protestantism relates primarily to modern protestantism and I don't know that much about the history of the religion. >The preface "explaining away" heliocentrism as just mathematical device instead of description of reality Isn't that actually the way newtonian mechanics describes all motion? using earth as your frame of reference creates needless complexity when you have to describe how the other planets move since obviously the sun's gravity is the dominant force but it's ultimately just a change of coordinates. You can put your fixed reference anywhere you want and some places are better than others but there aren't any hard rules. Anyways I'd never argue that the protestants haven't committed their share of oppression against Catholics, Jews, Islam, rational thought, gays, etc because they definitely have and in many instances still do. I just find it bizarre that they're the taliban in this analogy and not the Catholic Church, because the primary contention between the Catholics and protestants that drove the reformation was a rejection of the church's claim to divine authority, and it only really became a separate religion when the Pope excommunicated Martin Luther and supposedly condemned him to hell.
  - p_l 1y ago
    > Sola scriptura was primarily a rejection of all Catholic theology outside of the Bible. From my understanding, at the time, there was no real segregation of "theology" and "description of reality" - and there was considerable conflict over catholics "permitting" different description than ones in Genesis because such a thing was seen as turning away from the perfect word of God, or something like that. Don't want to bog down in pointless (because I don't know everything nor do I actually want to do religious advocacy :D) catholic vs protestant stuff, but over time I did find out that a lot of "big bad inquisition" and "anti-science church" was propaganda or mixing different groups together. There's quite a lot of difference with how modern groups are, and even there you have non-trivial sectarian .... locally (sorry, old polish in-joke about how our local area catholic church operates)
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      I understand what you mean lol, I don't even consider myself a christian anymore but i still feel this weird sectarian loyalty to the protestants. I guess I still admire Martin Luther because I see the concept of the priesthood not claiming to be a representative of God as a necessary pre-requisite for secularism; not that I think that the early protestants deserve credit for that (it obviously wasn't their intention and many of them probably would have run back to catholicism if they knew what this would lead to) but must of the populace in secular countries is still religious to some degree and it's hard to convince them to separate the church from the state when the church is literally a proxy for God almighty. Of course, I'm also well-aware that there's plenty of latitude to disagree with and even criticize the pope (eg, JD Vance) but my understanding is that came about gradually in the centuries after the protestant reformation as the two groups became less antagonistic towards each other and both sides became more open to adopting beliefs and philosophies from each other.
defrost 1y ago
I have no particular love of the Catholics but as a point of history it wasn't the heliocentrism that saw Galileo on trial over a book he was asked by the Church to write, a book that drew heavily on data gathered by other Church sponsered observers of the cosmos. His crime was "mocking the Pope" (who he (IIRC) got on quite well with earlier in time) by casting him as a useful idiot asking dumb questions. His trial was pushed not by the Pope (again, IIRC) but by others who he had savagely mocked in other works who saw their chance to exact revenge. This is more a tale of the curmudgeonly partial outsider within a highly political top heavy bureaucracy falling foul of ladder climbers with a personal axe to grind.

Really, the protestant are taliban? did the Catholic Church never wage jihads and inquisitions? Were the protestants the ones going apeshit over the heliocentric model?

p_l 1y ago

It's more a reference to "sola scriptura" and the dismissal of scientific thought related to it. Similar movement happened, with way more success, in Islamic world AFAIK. And yes, protestants were actually going more apeshit about heliocentrism than catholic church. The preface "explaining away" heliocentrism as just mathematical device instead of description of reality was by lutheran theologian, the catholic church being big patron of astronomy at the time. It was mathematicians and astronomers who were against heliocentric model who were "expert witness" for inquisition, and despite their arguments the only thing inquisition struck was pieces about theology. Galileo got slammed originally for claiming his work as established fact, and the further problems were more political in nature when he attacked pope in his next book and alienated his previous supporters. Not great, not terrible, honestly pretty good outcome for the time period.

snickerbockers 1y ago
Sola scriptura was primarily a rejection of all Catholic theology outside of the Bible; I've never heard of it being applied to subjects outside of the Bible but I'll admit I'm uneducated in this aspect as my knowledge of protestantism relates primarily to modern protestantism and I don't know that much about the history of the religion. >The preface "explaining away" heliocentrism as just mathematical device instead of description of reality Isn't that actually the way newtonian mechanics describes all motion? using earth as your frame of reference creates needless complexity when you have to describe how the other planets move since obviously the sun's gravity is the dominant force but it's ultimately just a change of coordinates. You can put your fixed reference anywhere you want and some places are better than others but there aren't any hard rules. Anyways I'd never argue that the protestants haven't committed their share of oppression against Catholics, Jews, Islam, rational thought, gays, etc because they definitely have and in many instances still do. I just find it bizarre that they're the taliban in this analogy and not the Catholic Church, because the primary contention between the Catholics and protestants that drove the reformation was a rejection of the church's claim to divine authority, and it only really became a separate religion when the Pope excommunicated Martin Luther and supposedly condemned him to hell.
- p_l 1y ago
  > Sola scriptura was primarily a rejection of all Catholic theology outside of the Bible. From my understanding, at the time, there was no real segregation of "theology" and "description of reality" - and there was considerable conflict over catholics "permitting" different description than ones in Genesis because such a thing was seen as turning away from the perfect word of God, or something like that. Don't want to bog down in pointless (because I don't know everything nor do I actually want to do religious advocacy :D) catholic vs protestant stuff, but over time I did find out that a lot of "big bad inquisition" and "anti-science church" was propaganda or mixing different groups together. There's quite a lot of difference with how modern groups are, and even there you have non-trivial sectarian .... locally (sorry, old polish in-joke about how our local area catholic church operates)
  - snickerbockers 1y ago
    I understand what you mean lol, I don't even consider myself a christian anymore but i still feel this weird sectarian loyalty to the protestants. I guess I still admire Martin Luther because I see the concept of the priesthood not claiming to be a representative of God as a necessary pre-requisite for secularism; not that I think that the early protestants deserve credit for that (it obviously wasn't their intention and many of them probably would have run back to catholicism if they knew what this would lead to) but must of the populace in secular countries is still religious to some degree and it's hard to convince them to separate the church from the state when the church is literally a proxy for God almighty. Of course, I'm also well-aware that there's plenty of latitude to disagree with and even criticize the pope (eg, JD Vance) but my understanding is that came about gradually in the centuries after the protestant reformation as the two groups became less antagonistic towards each other and both sides became more open to adopting beliefs and philosophies from each other.

defrost 1y ago

I have no particular love of the Catholics but as a point of history it wasn't the heliocentrism that saw Galileo on trial over a book he was asked by the Church to write, a book that drew heavily on data gathered by other Church sponsered observers of the cosmos. His crime was "mocking the Pope" (who he (IIRC) got on quite well with earlier in time) by casting him as a useful idiot asking dumb questions. His trial was pushed not by the Pope (again, IIRC) but by others who he had savagely mocked in other works who saw their chance to exact revenge. This is more a tale of the curmudgeonly partial outsider within a highly political top heavy bureaucracy falling foul of ladder climbers with a personal axe to grind.