Hi Joanne,

I don't actually need to be told twice, but do appreciate your vigilance.

Joanne Wrote:

> Sophie
>
> Clarification: I did not say it IS the position
> of the church; I said it HAS BEEN the position of
> the church, "has been" as in past tense. Please
> try reading what I actually write!!

To be precise, "has been" is the past imperfect tense. It suggests the past up to and potentially including the present and is frequently used in the ambiguous way you have used it.

> A review of the early church history up through
> 16th & 17th centuries will show you a good
> deal of evidence supporting this idea was held by
> believers. As it is borderline -- if not
> completely off-topic -- for this board, and a red
> herring for this thread, I am not willing to put
> any time into tracking down references, and I am
> not going to put any more time into this thread.

We are not talking just about a religious institution, but a cultural and social one as well that has had an enormous impact over the 2000 years it has been in existence. The subject at hand is well within the purview of discussion on this board. No moderator has said not.

The purpose of this thread is to nominate "the greatest human disaster/loss/setback in history." Following Robert LaFrance, you have named the "Roman church" [www.hallofmaat.com] and make various claims and raise a large question:

"That is what allowed the conquest of the Americas, as well as the Inquisition, and the Crusades. How much knowledge and wisdom has been lost to us all because of that one institution?"

Pete Clarke, Steve Delaney and Simon have presented effective counter arguments to your (and Robert's) broad claims, which you have not effectively countered in return, imo. I chose to focus on a specific broad claim, because I am genuinely interested in it. And now you say you cannot be bothered to supply evidence because the subject is off-topic? Until you can supply some evidence it appears you have none.

In the meantime I will simply add that Arianism, which you mentioned, is a full-blown heresy; and Joachimism, which Bernard brought up, verges on that. Both have been repudiated by the church. It is hardly fair to claim that these views were, have been or are now the official position of the church.

Maybe it's time to consider your signature motto. It feels as though there may be a bias at work in your stubborn streak, at least in this case.

> "We see things not as they are, but as we are."

I also wonder, if this is absolutely the case, how can one ever hope to be "objective"? But that's another discussion we didn't finish.

Sophie