> On 5 Sep, 21:20, doug xx.com> wrote:
>

>>LudovicoVan wrote:
>>

>>>On 5 Sep, 20:01, doug xx.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>

>>>>>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.

>>

>>>The Roman Church has never been irrational. The reasons were just
>>>political, as they are for all revisionisms, and as they are and have
>>>always been in history.

>>
>>Irrational in the scientific sense means unwilling to accept reason.

>
>
> Irrational means not rational, that's all.

>
>

>>They were rational in the political sense as they wanted to keep their
>>power and priviledge.

>
>
> You are simplifying too much. We are not talking about this or that
> priest and not even about this or that Pope. We are talking about
> events at the transition from the middle ages to the modern epoch.
>

>

>>The church folk lived very well, for example
>>the Medici pope who spent all the church's money on wine, women and
>>song and had to start selling indulgances to finance his parties.

>
>
> This is not even a legend.
>

>

>>Although that did lead to the Protestant reformation which diluted
>>the power of the church.

>
>
> And this too: the reasons for the protestant reformation, and then the
> anglican, are again mostly political! The power and influence of the
> church had been overwhelming on all european countries for centuries.
> The reason why those reformations could happen is simply because the
> various kings and emperors had had enough: now they wanted their own
> empires.
>

> -LV