[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[brewer]

What I have said is that I don't believe the catholics were honest and truthful for all of their reasons for conviction.

What I have said is that you haven't pointed to any sources to back this up. People who have actually read the prosecutor's reports have told us what the stated motives were. 

You can say over and over that they were hiding something, or that the real motives were different, but without some evidence this is just mind-reading. 
What history shows about how the church operated in those days makes your accusations unreliable. 

There is to much stink from the church over the Bruno being burned at the stake.

Too much stink made by whom? Frances Yates, Ingrid Rowland, other scholars with no connection to the Vatican who have examined the original documents?

There is nothing to read about them having nondisclosed motives. What part of this can't you understand?

I agree there is nothing to read about them having non-disclosed motives. This means that there is no documentation for non-disclosed motives. Which means that we have to find good reasons, other than mind-reading, to conclude that they had non-disclosed motives. 

This requires that we put the whole thing into context. I have mentioned several times now that a Cardinal in good standing with the church, a hundred years before Bruno, suggested a non-geocentric infinite universe with aliens on other planets. Bruno acknowledged that he got the idea from this Cardinal. The Cardinal was never reprimanded. 

So I think we'll need some good reason, argument, or evidence to conclude that you have insight into non-disclosed motives. Other than your a priori assumptions. 

And I read what I considered relevant. I don't have to read a slanted version that you consider relevant. 

This is an excellent way to pre-select sources that won't contradict your pre-judgment. 

You don't know that a source is slanted if you haven't read it. 

In my opinion, Yates and Rowland are not slanted. I have read their books. You haven't. 

Is the Stanford article that you pointed us to slanted? Because it doesn't say that Bruno used "science thought," or was in any way a working competent scientist.

---

And were the prosecutors reports independently reviewed and interviewed by an impartial source? What if they were the equivalent of AG Barr? You don't know.

What history says about the catholic church of the 1500's makes my suspicion completely founded.

The stink raised by the church, read.

I base my opinion by the catholic churches actions at the time.

I don't care if you don't accept what I think. You come into every thread with a religious bias.