lol that's about as poor a reading of history as a 6000 year old
earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity -
that's what I was talking about. The Greeks actually kept very
excellent records; there's a lot of myths within new atheism
about history that aren't generally regarded as historical
facts. Christianity's boom in the East was going on fine as the
West was getting eaten up by rats and after the East/West
Schism, all kinds of stupidity came out of Rome. The East had
their heydey - and the Muslim and Greek Christians had a decent
relationship, if imperfect. Even after the occupation of
Constantipole in 1200-something for 200 years, Islamic leaders
allowed schools to continue, eventually leading to a few Greek
schools to show up in Italy, fueling the Renaissance in the
West. But then that hard-ass Islamic ruler came in.. I forget
his name - around 1493 or so... the Fall of Constantiple...
pretty much marked the end of the East in Christiandom for a
long time. Western Christiandom was a bit of a joke, with
Inquisitions and other bits of stupidity, rightfully mockable.
Timeline of Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The
purpose of this timeline is to give a detailed account of...
en.wikipedia.org 35 mins * Like * 1 * Remove Preview Kenneth
Udut Joe NapolitanoThanks for the Like - I appreciate it. I get
vigilant on the historical part of things (I spent a few years
in my 20s totally immersed in Eastern Orthodox Christian stuff,
so I learned a lot of history they don't teach us here - all the
missing parts) - because I keep seeing historical errors
cropping up over and over again by people who are otherwise
extremely highly intelligent people. The guy that makes me
cringe heavily is one of my favorites too: Neil Degrasse-Tyson.
He's awesome - he's my black science man, and I enjoy it when he
talks about modern science. But when he dives into history, I
find myself going, "no no no no no no NOOOOO!" - he repeats a
lot of the same errors (supposed persecution (and torture!?) of
Gallileo; Gallileo was a bit of a jerk; they let him publish his
hypothesis but not as fact (and, in turns out, they WEREN'T
facts... he was wrong although on the right track) - and even
*that* wouldn't have been so bad, but he mocked the current Pope
of the time. They put him under house arrest. Not tortured. An
Inquisition was like a court trial; there were many
inquisitions. The mistake often made (and hearing Degrasse-Tyson
repeat it would make me yell at the TV) - is lumping them all
together. The Spanish Inquisition was an entirely unique affair;
the fact that they both shared the same title (Inquisition) is
all they really had in common. Another common error is lumping
together anything with the word Inquisition and "burning at the
stake" and the witch trials in America. Had nothing to do with
each other. Different historical events entirely. One may decide
to consider it a "symptom of a disease" - that's fine. But
Gallileo wasn't tortured, even though he was arrested for
personal reasons (he gave a fictional character in one of his
books the words spoken by the current Pope; and the Catholic
Church *did* finally apologize for it; although it took them a
long time ) I'm not defending their activities; that Pope was an
idiot; I'm just defending a more rounded view of History.... and
I hold educators like Tyson at a higher standard because they
influence so many people... and basic factual errors from a man
of science who is a public figure and well-regarded is something
I don't expect to see in 2014.
