Re: How Christianity Ended the Tyranny of the Great Year and Freed Intellectual Investigation
This thread presents a study in various forms of propaganda, and in the need to put comments in context. DWill’s view that this is “just talking about things” neglects the extent to which such discussion is a serious matter.
For example, I said “Jaki's idea of a linear cosmology is incredibly stupid and dangerous, as it embeds the idea we are headed for destruction rather than renewal, and that this apocalyptic destruction is somehow the will of God.”
This is not an ad hominem criticism, but rather a specific analysis of how obsolete ideology is the sort of thing that leads to ships hitting icebergs, to use the Titanic as analogy. No one would say the captain of the Titanic should have ignored people calling him incredibly stupid and dangerous for his cavalier view about his indestructible ship.
Church propaganda does in fact present a linear path from Eden to Armageddon. Now some may see that as innocuous and safe, but I don’t. DWill sees "nothing to be afraid of" in the promotion of catholic fantasy, whereas my view is that a transformation of Christianity is rather urgently needed to reconcile it with science. http://thepropagandaproject.wordpress.c ... ropaganda/
explains that propaganda comes in shades of white, black, and gray. White propaganda is honest and transparent persuasion, while black propaganda is credited to a false source and spreads lies, fabrications, and deception. Gray propaganda is somewhere in between, with dubious sourcing and accuracy.
I submit that my persuasion efforts here are a much lighter shade than those of the original propagandists, the Roman Church, and of their advocates here who have spread disinformation about themes such as tyranny, communism, science and atheism. For information on the great inspirers of Dr Goebbels see the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12456a.htm
Of the provocative comments I have made in this thread in response to the Catholic disinformation campaign, I don’t think any are untrue, unfair or ad hominem when read in context. There is something ‘semi-medieval’ about Mariolatry, and about the author’s argument
that "...the Catholic Church has a legitimate right and authority to veto scientific conclusions which directly contradict divinely revealed dogma." My comment about worms was essentially a book review, and is fair comment. It really is that bad.
My comments about malice were in response to such gems from ant as “the arguments presented by the resident atheists are not for the goal of truth”, his calling me an “atheist communist” who apparently wants to ban and burn all books with a religious slant, and his opening line about “atheists that have more than one brain cell”. Now poor ant is talking about being “civil, cordial, and gentlemanly”, having clumsily tried to stuff his bloody mace back in its scabbard.