Also, Christian theologians have a tendency to argue, after a new theory or fact has been established in science, that the bible always stated or supported the same discovery or at least that it does not contradict the bible. Christos initially fight, tooth and nail, every idea thrown up in science. Then, when they can no longer keep their flock from buying into the facts or ideas contrary to the contents of the bible, they argue that 'the bible always said so'.
Secularism, religious tolerance, non-violence, respect for animals, anti-racism, rational thinking, scientific endeavours are all non-christian and opposed by the bible's teachings and church doctrine for centuries (some of them for millennia). Whenever the church lost out to common sense, they 're-interpreted' scripture to say that 'yes, the bible has always advocated secularism'. And then in time they pretend that christianity gave rise to secularism. To be fair, modern western secularism <i>is</i> in consequence to christianity: it arose as a way of preventing another genocidal war between protestants and catholics. In truth, secular Europeans gave rise to the idea that belief (or disbelief) is every man's private affair. Until then, the church had insisted that a person's belief was indeed the church's holy affair.
Christianity's habit of appropriating all contrary teachings that it cannot defeat is another hallmark of this religion. Anything that is popular or popularly accepted, it has to lay claim to. This is where IE studies fits in as well. Also illustrated in chapter 17 of <i>A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom</i> by Andrew Dickson White (referred to by Mudy earlier). http://www.infidels.org/library/historical.../Chapter17.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was much wrangling, but little earnest controversy. Here and there theologians were calling out frantically, beseeching the Church to save the old doctrine as "essential to the truth of Scripture"; here and there other divines began to foreshadow the inevitable compromise which has always been thus vainly attempted in the history of every science. But it was soon seen by thinking men that no concessions as yet spoken of by theologians were sufficient. In the latter half of the century came the bloom period of the French philosophers and encyclopedists, of the English deists, of such German thinkers as Herder, Kant, and Lessing; and while here and there some writer on the theological side, like Perrin, amused thinking men by his flounderings in this great chaos, all remained without form and void.[192] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While at the middle of the nineteenth century the theory of the origin and development of language was upon the continent considered as settled, and a well-ordered science had there emerged from the old chaos, Great Britain still held back, in spite of the fact that the most important contributors to the science were of British origin. Leaders in every English church and sect vied with each other, either in denouncing the encroachments of the science of language or in explaining them away.
But a new epoch had come, and in a way least expected. Perhaps the most notable effort in bringing it in was made by Dr. Wiseman, afterward Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. His is one of the best examples of a method which has been used with considerable effect during the latest stages of nearly all the controversies between theology and science. It consists in stating, with much fairness, the conclusions of the scientific authorities, and then in persuading one's self and trying to persuade others that the Church has always accepted them and accepts them now as "additional proofs of the truth of Scripture." A little juggling with words, a little amalgamation of texts, a little judicious suppression, a little imaginative deduction, a little unctuous phrasing, and the thing is done. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other examples of this (parts of this) process which are given in the same link:
- the consecutive paragraphs starting with "Nothing better reveals to us the darkness and duration of this chaos..." and ending with "making short work of the sacred theory--in fact, throwing it overboard entirely."
- And
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, the more thoughtful men in the Church endeavoured to save something from the wreck of the old system by a compromise. They attempted to prove that Hebrew is at least a cognate tongue with the original speech of mankind, if not the original speech itself; but here they were confronted by the authority they dreaded most--the great Christian scholar, Sir William Jones himself. His words were: "I can only declare my belief that the language of Noah is irretrievably lost. After diligent search I can not find a single word used in common by the Arabian, Indian, and Tartar families, before the intermixture of dialects occasioned by the Mohammedan conquests."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This constant process that Christianity goes through - from denying new theories/facts to compromising with them little by little, until they were finally 180 degrees from the biblical teaching (at which point the church and christianity appropriate the discovery as their own) - is also evident in the belief that (1) Adam was the first to write (2) Adam impossible, therefore Moses was first give writing to the world (3) Both are impossible, have to settle for what science has shown ('but gawd still gave writing to man somehow.') This example is also from Dickson White.
This does not mean I support the 'discoveries' of IE philology or linguistics, it's only to show the pattern of the Church's behaviour when dealing with increasingly popular beliefs (IE) or with the discoveries of actual facts.
Secularism, religious tolerance, non-violence, respect for animals, anti-racism, rational thinking, scientific endeavours are all non-christian and opposed by the bible's teachings and church doctrine for centuries (some of them for millennia). Whenever the church lost out to common sense, they 're-interpreted' scripture to say that 'yes, the bible has always advocated secularism'. And then in time they pretend that christianity gave rise to secularism. To be fair, modern western secularism <i>is</i> in consequence to christianity: it arose as a way of preventing another genocidal war between protestants and catholics. In truth, secular Europeans gave rise to the idea that belief (or disbelief) is every man's private affair. Until then, the church had insisted that a person's belief was indeed the church's holy affair.
Christianity's habit of appropriating all contrary teachings that it cannot defeat is another hallmark of this religion. Anything that is popular or popularly accepted, it has to lay claim to. This is where IE studies fits in as well. Also illustrated in chapter 17 of <i>A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom</i> by Andrew Dickson White (referred to by Mudy earlier). http://www.infidels.org/library/historical.../Chapter17.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was much wrangling, but little earnest controversy. Here and there theologians were calling out frantically, beseeching the Church to save the old doctrine as "essential to the truth of Scripture"; here and there other divines began to foreshadow the inevitable compromise which has always been thus vainly attempted in the history of every science. But it was soon seen by thinking men that no concessions as yet spoken of by theologians were sufficient. In the latter half of the century came the bloom period of the French philosophers and encyclopedists, of the English deists, of such German thinkers as Herder, Kant, and Lessing; and while here and there some writer on the theological side, like Perrin, amused thinking men by his flounderings in this great chaos, all remained without form and void.[192] <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While at the middle of the nineteenth century the theory of the origin and development of language was upon the continent considered as settled, and a well-ordered science had there emerged from the old chaos, Great Britain still held back, in spite of the fact that the most important contributors to the science were of British origin. Leaders in every English church and sect vied with each other, either in denouncing the encroachments of the science of language or in explaining them away.
But a new epoch had come, and in a way least expected. Perhaps the most notable effort in bringing it in was made by Dr. Wiseman, afterward Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. His is one of the best examples of a method which has been used with considerable effect during the latest stages of nearly all the controversies between theology and science. It consists in stating, with much fairness, the conclusions of the scientific authorities, and then in persuading one's self and trying to persuade others that the Church has always accepted them and accepts them now as "additional proofs of the truth of Scripture." A little juggling with words, a little amalgamation of texts, a little judicious suppression, a little imaginative deduction, a little unctuous phrasing, and the thing is done. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other examples of this (parts of this) process which are given in the same link:
- the consecutive paragraphs starting with "Nothing better reveals to us the darkness and duration of this chaos..." and ending with "making short work of the sacred theory--in fact, throwing it overboard entirely."
- And
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, the more thoughtful men in the Church endeavoured to save something from the wreck of the old system by a compromise. They attempted to prove that Hebrew is at least a cognate tongue with the original speech of mankind, if not the original speech itself; but here they were confronted by the authority they dreaded most--the great Christian scholar, Sir William Jones himself. His words were: "I can only declare my belief that the language of Noah is irretrievably lost. After diligent search I can not find a single word used in common by the Arabian, Indian, and Tartar families, before the intermixture of dialects occasioned by the Mohammedan conquests."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This constant process that Christianity goes through - from denying new theories/facts to compromising with them little by little, until they were finally 180 degrees from the biblical teaching (at which point the church and christianity appropriate the discovery as their own) - is also evident in the belief that (1) Adam was the first to write (2) Adam impossible, therefore Moses was first give writing to the world (3) Both are impossible, have to settle for what science has shown ('but gawd still gave writing to man somehow.') This example is also from Dickson White.
This does not mean I support the 'discoveries' of IE philology or linguistics, it's only to show the pattern of the Church's behaviour when dealing with increasingly popular beliefs (IE) or with the discoveries of actual facts.