[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[TimOneill]

It was saying that the Secretary of the Vatican State stated the execution was by a civil power. Damned apologists. Here's the link again: https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter

Which it was. All executions by the Inquisiton were. But in the context (as far as I can make out via garbled Google translation) he is clearly not saying "they did it, not us".

What do you mean "garbage"? Where did they get the history if not from catholics writings and those who wrote about the catholics at the time? After watching the catholics wack people who didn't tow the catholic company line, how much truth and accuracy do you think you'll get? Do we really need to go into how the catholics have a "history" of hiding their uncomfortable truths?

Do you think historians just take their sources at face value? Seriously? What you do think historians do? No scholar writing on this topic are just "repeating what catholics have said". To think that they would do anything like that is so staggeringly naive that it tells me you have absolutely no idea how history is studied.

Well, the "deny the execution" was in the Standford attachment. The objection was a catholic objection, catholic politics. If you have a problem with information in the attachment you should probably take it up with Mr Knox (but I seriously doubt you will).

 
I have never heard of anyone ever denying the execution happened. And Knox doesn't footnote that comment, so I have no idea what he's referring to.

If he was that nuts, why all the sciency/philsophizer accolades and a statue? See section 8: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/#BrunAfte   Like I said, this ain't passing the sniff test. 

Because "Bruno the martyr for science" became a popular myth that supported a narrative many people were heavily invested in. So did the wider (though more solidly based) idea of "Bruno the martyr for free thought and speech". Recognition that he wasn't a scientist at all and that his philosophy was largely a mystical dead end tends to spoil those stories. And most people invested in those stories and myths were not exactly historians or terribly interested in the reality of who and what he was - he became a symbol.

I think you're biased, have an agenda and want to hold onto a rebel atheist reputation which seems to be your claim to fame. 

"Fame"? I run a blog which is one of my many hobbies. My only "agenda" is getting some people to pay attention to what real historians say about this stuff and what the evidence shows. And it's interesting that the only people who think I'm "biased" just happen to be those with some strong biases of their own. I have no interest in defending Christianity. If you want to attack the Church for things they have done (colonialism, oppression of native peoples, child sex abuse and its cover ups etc.) you won't hear a squeak out of me. But when people mangle history and peddle pseudo historical myths, I show them how they are wrong. I am "biased" toward the accurate and objective analysis of history. That is my only "agenda". It's interesting that when I lambaste Christians for their similar distortions of history they make the same claims that I am "biased" and have an "agenda". See if you can work out what that means.

But I tire of you. Go and declare your victory.

I've been around internet debates for too long to bother with that crap. If I've not managed to get you to see that the Bruno legend is not accurate then all I can say is I've tried. But dismissing detailed analysis of the evidence and expert scholarship by someone who has studied this stuff for 35 years largely because you don't happen to like what they are saying is not rational. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you have that emotional reaction. Some biases of your own, perhaps?