> Jerry Kraus wrote:

>> On Sep 5, 7:10 am, rays...@webtv.net (Raymond Speer) wrote:

>

>>>Nine years before, the Roman Catholics burned Giordano Bruno, locking
>>>his mouth in an iron gag with a spike through his tongue to prevent
>>>heretical observations like the stars are sums and planets orbit around
>>>them.

>

>>>The apologists claim that, as an act of mercy, the Inquisition slit
>>>Bruno's throat before they burned him.  There is no factual declaration
>>>that happened:  just speculation by devout Catholics trying to
>>>white-wash the non defenseable.

>

>>>The bureaucratic murderer whose victims included Giordano Bruno was
>>>Robert Bellarmine, and that killer is a effing saint by Papal decree.

>

>>>By the way, Vatican toadies ought to mention the nature of Gaileo's
>>>arrogance.  Way back then, in imitation of Plato, scientific topics were
>>>presented as dialogue between characters in a playlet.  Gaileo was bold
>>>enough to put in the words of a fool some arguments that the Pope
>>>himself had privately presented to the scholar. That is enough to kill a
>>>man over. And the Church demonstrated clemency just by ruining the guy's
>>>life.

>

>>>The true testimony of what anyone thinks and does is when you give them
>>>absolute power over a situation and observe what they say and do then,

>

>> Giordano Bruno did everything short of begging the Inquisition to burn
>> him.  His introduction to "De l'Infinito Universo et Mondi", probably
>> his most important work, in which he postulates an infinite universe,
>> actually paraphrases Isaiah's discussion of the "Man of Sorrows", the
>> christ-like saviour who sacrifices himself for the good of humanity.
>> Bruno saw himself in these terms.  He was out of the Inquisition's
>> power, and chose, voluntarily to return to Italy.  He was imprisoned
>> for seven years during which he refused to renounce his views.  He
>> knew that martyrdom would attract attention to his ideas.

>

>> Galileo, I believe, simply underestimated the Pope.  He thought his
>> opponents were fools, and they weren't.

>
> No, he misunderstood his foes. He thought that they were rational and
> they were not.  They could not stand the idea that their views might
> be wrong because it meant the bible was wrong.  Rational people
> accept change.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -