- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeFirstly, it is not my responsibility to substantiate your contentions. It would be like me asking you to submit proofs for the existence of God on my behalf. Secondly, I cannot access that webpage nor find any matching articles on the site.
For a discourse on lightning rods and the chruch go to www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.hmt
I am surprised you could not find this yourself.
Edit: Never mind. My computer was at fault. Problem solved.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeAs a form of evidence, this article is not satisfactory. It does not actually give any evidence that the Catholic Church condemned lightning rods. What it does show is that some held superstitious opinions about the use of statues and bells and that some, in France particularly, opposed the use of lightning rods. This is weak. There is no citation of papal bulls, speeches or theological tracts which confirm this as a religious opposition. If you simply want to prove that superstitious people existed in the Church, you have succeeded; if you want to show that the Catholic Church opposed it, more evidence is needed.
For a discourse on lightning rods and the chruch go to www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.hmt
I am surprised you could not find this yourself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeThe same criticism holds here too. There is no mention of popes, theologians or bishops who opposed it. The only example given is a of a religious congregation of oblates. It lists a good many Anglican and Methodist theologians who opposed it but fails to list any similar Catholic speeches.
Here is an article about religion and vaccinations.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem10.html
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joethat is fine Jo Jo, but you must find reasons. Conrau to his credit at least attempted to reason with you, if you want to try to establish your point again, you must find reason. Its no good saying you are disappointed without recourse to reason. If you do not agree with Conrau reasons, you must provide your own and state why you consider them inadequate.
I had low expectations, and they were met.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrying to stir up the embers ? No matter what I say, he will not concede. I am confident in my assertions . It's a free country. He can beieive whatever he likes.
that is fine Jo Jo, but you must find reasons. Conrau to his credit at least attempted to reason with you, if you want to try to establish your point again, you must find reason. Its no good saying you are disappointed without recourse to reason. If you do not agree with Conrau reasons, you must provide your own and state why you consider them inadequate.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeLook, all I am asking is that you corroborate your statement with probative evidence. These articles do not constitute probative evidence. For one thing, to show that some Canadian Oblate priests opposed vaccination in the eighteenth century does not show that the Catholic Church, all over the world, opposed vaccination. The same criticism also applies to the article concerning lightning rods.
I am not surprised at your response.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI have proven my points to a reasonable observer. As I predicted, no matter what I show you, you will not be happy. I will put my effort into things that pay off, and not waste further of my finite time on the likes of you. Did I ever claim the entire Catholic church all over the world burned witches, and was against lightening rods and vaccinations? No. But I did say Catholics took those positions because of their (ignorant) theology and I am entirely correct. Have a good day my friend!
Look, all I am asking is that you corroborate your statement with probative evidence. These articles do not constitute probative evidence. For one thing, to show that some Canadian Oblate priests opposed vaccination in the eighteenth century does not show that the Catholic Church, all over the world, opposed vaccination. The same criticism also applies to the article concerning lightning rods.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeyou have issues man
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of human progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery,every moral progress that there has been made in the world, has consistently been opposed by the ...[text shortened]... l enemy of moral progress in the world. Bertrend Russell Why I Am Not A Christian 1927
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joehow could it be against their theology Jo Jo, the bible says nothing of burning witches, lightning rods nor of vaccinations?
I have proven my points to a reasonable observer. As I predicted, no matter what I show you, you will not be happy. I will put my effort into things that pay off, and not waste further of my finite time on the likes of you. Did I ever claim the entire Catholic church all over the world burned witches, and was against lightening rods and vaccinations? No ...[text shortened]... ons because of their (ignorant) theology and I am entirely correct. Have a good day my friend!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeAs I said, if you simply wanted to prove that some Catholics opposed vaccinations and the use of lightning rods, you have proved your point -- I do not deny it; if, however, you wanted to prove that the Catholic Church opposed these, then your evidence is unsatisfactory. I found this on wikipedia:
I have proven my points to a reasonable observer. As I predicted, no matter what I show you, you will not be happy. I will put my effort into things that pay off, and not waste further of my finite time on the likes of you. Did I ever claim the entire Catholic church all over the world burned witches, and was against lightening rods and vaccinations? No ...[text shortened]... ons because of their (ignorant) theology and I am entirely correct. Have a good day my friend!
"Claims about religious opposition to the use of lightning rods. Historians do cite evidence of widespread religious objections among the people of Boston, as well as the continuing practice in Catholic countries of ringing church bells during storms to ward off lightning. But some writers suggest that Catholic dogma condemned Franklin's invention, when in fact it did not. Others claim that a lawsuit by Robespierre gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. J Riskin mentions no such religious motives in "The Lawyer and the Lightning Rod"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_myth