OK, so how come when I read about these witch trials they all seem to be started by some friar or bishop?
Then you are not reading sufficiently rigorous histories. The worst of the witch trials happened in the 17th century (the 1600 execution of Bruno is right in this time frame) in the Protestant sections of Europe. While these were often instigated by superstitious commoners (the North Berwick witch trials in Scotland were started by accusations from a maid) the Catholic Church cannot be held responsible for these attrocities.
I just read the wiki on a number of them from the Bruno time period. As I said before most all I checked said they were led by Bishops, Friars, etc.
Seems you have cherry picked a small one that killed like 70 people. That must have taken you some time to find, or maybe that’s all they teach in Catholic school. This one supposedly killed 1000 and was started by a bishop: Trier witch trials - Wikipedia
Seems you really want to cast the church in as good a light as possible. You make a good apologist.
I am not sure about that. This seems like science to me: a medical doctor examines a patient, makes a preliminary diagnosis, does tests, updates the diagnosis, treats the patient, does follow-up exams and tests, etc.
Science doesn’t have to be ground-breaking.
I know, that’s why I explained my background. 
A lot of what makes me me is cultural. That doesn’t make it foolish, unless the thousands of other preferences I have make me foolish.
But my background is not the only thing that determines me, either. I’ve had many discussions and done much thinking that affects my beliefs as well.
Huh? Why should people not use their personal experiences to inform their choices? Lack of evidence does not prevent decisions.
False dichotomy. The Bible is not monolithic. It does not have to be either all true or all false.
A good scientific hypothesis should predict. But not all scientific hypotheses must be good. (Sometimes you have to make do with poor ones until more data comes in.) And I am not claiming the Bible makes scientific hypotheses.
I actually don’t give a damn about the church. I just do not see why you want to demonize one Authority more than any of the other barbarous authorities in Europe at that time.
Are you saying that one aspect of religious history cannot be discussed unless we discuss everything else that was wrong at that time?
No. But context is important in history, and the execution of Bruno (as the example which prompted this threadjack) is not significantly more barbarous than what most other European authorities were doing at the time. I find I do not have much interest in railing against an institution for what they had done four hundred years ago.
I don’t think anyone has said the Bible is all false have they? But if we all agree the Bible has a lot of things that are false in it, all the miracles stories have to be at the top of the list with regards to likeliness of falsehood. That’s just common sense.
Because the/a church seemed to behind a great lot of the barbarism even you were talking about. And the Church burning Bruno at the stake seems particularly barbarous no matter how you try and white wash it.
Kable writes:
> Because the/a church seemed to behind a great lot of the barbarism even you
> were talking about.
Give us a complete list of barbaric acts committed in Europe during the Middle Ages. Point out the ones that were committed by the Catholic church.
I don’t think anyone can give a complete list, even of those committed just by the Catholic Church. It would be way too long wouldn’t it?
Is it also common sense to pick and choose in other topics, such as academic subjects (as taught in college), statutes (including traffic laws), doctors’ medical advice, instructions that come with purchased products, and so on? Or do you consider yourself privileged enough to be inconsistent and hypocritical about it?
If a doctor’s advice was wrong a great deal of the time would you continue to go to that doctor? If the instructions that came with a product didn’t match up with reality would you follow them anyway? If the traffic laws were written so that no two courts could agree on what they mean would they not eventually be struck down and/or rewritten?
Because it’s still around, and still claims to be innately morally superior and is always trying to dictate morality to the rest of us.
Where do you get your morality from?
I’m going to assume its is from the innate monkey-troupe ethics we have evolved with. With a little effort, a person can extend thier within-tribe considerations to people outside their immediate tribe, and therefore share nice.
Instinct, enlightened self interest, and the centuries of trial and error that came before me. Centuries which show religion based “morality” to be exceedingly horrible and best rejected.
I have been burned on this message board for suggesting that a particular doctor’s advice was anything other than infallible. And I have never hesitated to question product instructions that did not jibe with the obvious performance/nonperformance of the product. And, as a paralegal, I have little difficulty dealing with nuances of statutes that policemen and courts wrangle over, the same as anyone in the legal profession.
Now if you see fit to take issue with something in the Bible for this reason, give me a citation. And I will quote from a translation in contemporary English (which the King James version was at the time of its translation). And I am also aware of the context, so spare me the intellectual dishonesty.
Exactly what do you think I am being inconsistent and hypocritical about?
What intellectual dishonesty?