Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 91 of 91

Thread: What do you make of Tim O'Neil's "History for Atheists"?

  1. Top | #91
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    5,843
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim ONeill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim ONeill View Post
    Ummm, did you actually read my article on Pius XII?
    Yes.
    Okay. Then it's very strange that your conclusion would be that "Now you could say that accommodation and acquiescence was the most pragmatic (official) policy, but you can't really call it unaccommodation." I don't say that at all. What I note is (i) Pacelli and his predecessor were both vehemently anti-Nazi from the 1920s onward and were seen as enemies by the Nazis as a result, (ii) once the Nazis came to power, Pacelli and Pius XI were among many (the German conservatives, Stalin, Chamberlain) who thought Hitler could be constrained by agreements, so chose the Concordat as the best of an array of bad options, (iii) when it became clear that this was a failed policy, they switched to an approach of thinly veiled outward neutrality while working behind the scenes with both the Allies and the German resistance to see Hitler overthrown and/or assassinated. To call that "accommodation and acquiescence" is a bizarre distortion of history. They sought to have Hitler killed. That's about as anti-Nazi as you can get.
    Yes, but instructing German bishops to more or less (almost) as much as support the nazis (if correct, and I am relying on wiki, and you did not tell me that what I said was incorrect) is not about as anti-Nazi as you can get. The dissenting German Bishops were perhaps as anti-Nazi as you could get, but Pacelli apparently silenced them.

    The word nuance does not appear to be sufficiently woven into in your lexicon here Tim. It's not there for your 'church had no problem with medieval science' thing either. If, as seems to be the case, the church merely had 'no problem' until the 'science' came up against the theological dogma, if they had a list of banned books, and so on and so forth....you seem to be whitewashing a bit. We can all agree that the church-bashing has been overstated, including the making of incorrect claims on the part of some atheists, but you appear to be risking going too far the other way, imo. The medieval church's attitude to what we might call 'free enquiry' still appears to need a few more quite significant qualifiers than you are giving it.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 10:12 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •