Insults during the debate over the abolition of religious education

On topic.
Abolition of religious education in schools—seriously? Just what we need right now. I reported placidorca16 on the forum yesterday because of these claims...

I can't believe people actually fall for this—seriously, how do you even listen to this nonsense? It’s just pure delusion at this point.

Oh, come on, give me a break... Still out there looking for excuses for the Inquisition's persecution? Seriously? Along with all the haters trying to trash Bruno's contribution to science? Seriously? Are you guys actually serious right now?? Have you no shame at all!!?? 👎😠

By the way— Philosophy is a science too—period.Look, you clearly don't have a clue—you just want to play judge and jury on stuff you know nothing about. I'm sure, on the flip side, you've got zero issues with theology being shoved into "humanities," to the point where they actually managed to label religious education at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences as "scientific." Unbelievable! But let me guess—on that specific point, you're totally fine with it.😁 What hypocrites!

Look, this whole debate is happening over in the Politics PDF—not History or Religion—but honestly, who cares? It’s just a straight-up ad hominem attack at this point. First off, I’m only answering for what I actually wrote, which was just a take on Giordano Bruno's historical impact and significance, plus a note that we really need to judge him objectively.

It feels like I’m lowkey making excuses for why they burned Giordano Bruno!!

Explaining the historical context isn't an excuse!!

Also, the idea that philosophy counts as a science—just like the natural or social sciences—is super sketchy to me (even if they are definitely linked), but look, the main point for this post is... placidorca16 is over here trying to pin "my views" on the current drama at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and FF, which I haven't even addressed yet...

What’s next? Some kind of twisted banquet where we "safely" justify crowning Matija Gubec with thorns right before they execute him??

Honestly, this whole thread has gone totally off the rails over the last few pages... maybe we should just save that talk for the discussion about KC's political moves?

Lisa Jackson7 said:
On topic—
So, they’re actually going through with the abolition of religious education in schools—finally. I reported placidorca16 on the forum yesterday because of these comments...

Look, this debate is happening over on the Close Politician PDF—not in History or Religion—but honestly, who cares? It’s all just pure ad hominem at this point. Anyway, I'm only answering for what I actually wrote: I was simply commenting on the historical impact and significance of Giordano Bruno, while noting how important it is to judge him objectively.

I can't help but feel like I'm just trying to find ways to justify burning Giordano Bruno.

Explaining the historical context isn't an excuse—period.

Also, the idea that philosophy counts as a science—on par with the natural or social sciences—is pretty questionable to me (even if it is deeply intertwined with them). But more importantly for this thread... placidorca16 keeps trying to attribute "my views" regarding the current drama at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to me—which, for the record, I haven't even commented on yet.

What’s next? Am I supposed to find some "safe" way to justify crowning Matija Gubec with thorns right before his execution??

Honestly, this whole discussion has gone completely off the rails over the last few pages—maybe we should save that stuff for the thread about KC's political influence?

Are you seriously not even a little bit embarrassed to bring up the whole "objective evaluation" thing regarding Mr. Bruno? You haven't actually explained any of the historical context—you just kept insisting that Bruno—Not exactly a scientist—not by a long shot.".

I think that it is—well, you know. Ad hominem attacks and straight-up lies—classic. So, what you're claiming about Giordano Bruno—that he... Not exactly a scientist—not that anyone expected him to be.Just like I stated and confirmed right here—

So then you claim to be offering "explanations"—which you've decided aren't just raw, 19th-century ideology—but you don't actually add anything to back up your claim that Bruno wasn't a scientist. Instead, you just drop a link to a book by I. Rowland, a professor of Classical Greek Architecture and Archaeology, titled *Philosopher/Heretic*, without providing any actual reasoning to debunk your own previous assertion that Bruno "wasn't a scientist."

And then you claim that... It’s not even about science—it’s all just "philosophical speculation.": basically means you don't consider philosophy to be a science—a point you pretty much double down on in this post by complaining about its status—but before you go any further, you really ought to read...The "regulation on scientific and artistic fields, branches and disciplines" (Official Gazette 118/2009)—specifically that section regarding "humanities"—is quite something.And that field under section 6.01— Check out this link to the Official Gazette 118/2009—just some riveting reading if you're into that sort of thing. It’s written right there—plain as day:

"6. Humanities branch—just a little heads-up.
Field: 6.01. Philosophy.
Branches:
6.01.01 logic—just because we’re starting there.
6.01.02 cognitive theory
6.01.03 ontology
Philosophical anthropology—6.01.04.
6.01.05 philosophy of nature
6.01.06 philosophical theology
January 6, 2007 — Aesthetics.
Ethics, Jan 6th, '08.

Like I said before—there really isn't much else for me to add beyond what I've already laid out here.

And here too: I can't believe people actually fall for this—it’s honestly kind of sad. Everyone thinks they're being so deep when they're really just repeating old tropes—it's all quite exhausting, if you ask me.

You still haven't actually provided any of those extra "explanations" I asked for regarding your claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist." So—honestly—I don't see the point in you constantly repeating that he was just some "philosophical speculator" or whatever. It makes me wonder what the goal is here—both yours and brisknomad13's—in pushing these inaccurate takes on Mr. Bruno. Since philosophy is a science, much like the math and physics he worked with, why keep up the act? Are you trying to justify the Inquisition's treatment of him or something? You still haven't answered that.

placidorca16 Lisa Jackson7 said:
Are you seriously not even a little bit embarrassed to bring up the whole "objective evaluation" thing regarding Mr. Bruno?? You didn't even bother explaining any actual historical context—you just straight-up claimed that Bruno was—Not even a scientist.".

I think that it is... Pure ad hominem—total lies. What you're claiming about Bruno—that he... Not even a scientist.Like I already stated and confirmed right here:
I can't believe people are actually buying into this—seriously, give me a break! It’s like some folks just refuse to look at the actual facts right in front of them. Honestly, it's exhausting watching everyone jump to conclusions without doing any real digging first.

Should they even feel any shame? Using a crackpot source??

Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote

So, about the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote—it’s actually legit. The staff of editors includes folks with doctorates and professors from universities all over, especially in English-speaking countries. Basically, it's great.

Launched back in '95, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy aims to give everyone open access to deep, scholarly dives into major philosophical topics and thinkers. This thing doesn't take any outside funding—it runs entirely on the grit of volunteer editors, authors, and tech folks. Even so, they pull in over a million visitors a month and nearly 20 million page views annually. The Encyclopedia is free. Plus, the staff of editors includes about 300 authors who all hold doctorates and teach at universities globally, mainly in English-speaking countries.

Renaissance Philosophy

Bruno went way more radical with his cosmology—and man, that guy was a non-stop writing machine. His most significant works cover everything from the art of memory and Ramon Llull's combinatory method to those moral dialogues like *The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast* (1584), *The Kabbalah of the Pegasean Horse* (1585), and *The Heroic Frenzies* (1585). Most of what makes him famous actually comes down to those three cosmological dialogues he dropped back in 1584: *The Ash Wednesday Supper*, *On the Cause, the Principle and the One*, and *Universe and the Worlds*. In those pieces—drawing a ton of inspiration from Lucretius, the Neoplatonists, and especially Nicholas of Cusa—he really builds out this super coherent, intense version of ontological monism. He basically sees individual beings as just little accidents or modes of one single, massive substance—the universe itself. He describes it as this living, breathing thing that stretches out forever and holds countless different worlds inside it. Bruno adhered to Copernicus's cosmology but took it way further—he actually proposed an infinite universe. Sure, he didn't invent the idea of infinity itself, but he was the first guy to drop a heliocentric system right into the middle of infinite space. It didn't go well, obviously. In 1600, the Inquisition burned him at the stake just for his heretical teachings.

While these New philosophies of Nature certainly paved the way for what we now call early modern thought, their methods just couldn't keep up with the rapid scientific breakthroughs happening at the time. The methodology of Galileo was fundamentally rooted in math. Plus, this whole era of discovery was driven by rigorous observation and hands-on testing—think about Galileo using his telescope or running those experiments with inclined planes. Sure, when thinkers like Telesio, Campanella, Patrizi, and Bruno started tearing apart Aristotle's old teachings, it definitely shook things up, but it was really the new philosophy emerging in the early 1600s that finally killed off the Aristotelian way of seeing the world and kicked off a whole new era.

You still haven't actually given me any of those extra "explanations" I asked for regarding your claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist." So, honestly, I don't see the point in you constantly harping on how he "wasn't a scientist" or was just a "philosophical speculator," etc. It makes me wonder—what's the goal behind you (and brisknomad13) pushing these wrong ideas about Mr. Bruno? Since philosophy *is* a science, just like the math and physics he worked on, are you just trying to find a way to justify the Inquisition's treatment of him? You still haven't answered that.

Look, Bruno wasn't a scientist in the same league as Johannes Kepler or Galileo; despite knowing his math, he never actually tied it to experimental work—which he didn't even bother doing.
Even Copernicus blew him out of the water in that department...

It was a transition period, moving from the Renaissance toward the Enlightenment, where science—then called "natural philosophy"—was slowly breaking away from pure philosophy.

Giordano Bruno was an incredible, brilliant mind in plenty of ways, but you're clearly only interested in how radically he clashed with the Church. To make that case, people felt they had to credit him with a fully developed, proven scientific theory about the movement of Earth or the idea of an "infinite number of worlds"... mostly just to paint the Church as the "enemy of progress."

Bruno didn't get sentenced because of science; it was because of his theological attacks (heresy) and the way he implicitly challenged the Church as an institution... all happening right before the Thirty Years' War.

Philosophy isn't a science—not since the 19th century, anyway—even if it's deeply tied to various scientific branches. That's not even up for debate. And obviously, when I mention "philosophical speculation," I'm not being condescending, nor am I attacking philosophy itself.

I don't even get why you're quoting the Official Gazette; that's just about how academic institutions are organized... what does that have to do with the actual definition of the relationship between philosophy and science?

I honestly have no clue how you can justify the insults you keep throwing around...

Moderators??

I mean, if we start acting like Giordano Bruno was burned just for "opposing science," then people are going to use that as an excuse to label everything the Church has ever done—past or present—as totally unacceptable or "socially harmful."
The whole goal would be to lump the Church's political role back in the 1500s together with how it functions today... and once they get that momentum, they’ll claim they shouldn't even be allowed to "intervene in public education" anymore.

Is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually legit?

Copernicus

Pope Clement VII actually seemed pretty into that talk about Copernicus's theories back in the day.They actually rewarded the speaker with a rare manuscript—can you believe that? We don't have any clue how Pope Paul II reacted to *On the Revolutions* since it was dedicated to him, but apparently, a close advisor named Bartolomeo Spinola (1474–1546) was totally planning to condemn the thing. He was going to go after it, but he fell ill and passed away before he could pull it off (check out Rosen, 1975). So, back in 1600, the Catholic Church didn't even have an official stance on the Copernican system—it definitely wasn't considered heresy back then. When Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it actually had zero to do with him backing Copernican cosmology. You can see that pretty clearly in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno. Check out Blumenberg’s third part, chapter 5—it's called “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno.”

Just another "crackpot"...

The Genesis of the Copernican World

Giordano Bruno basically needed Copernicus's heliocentric system just to back up his own theological beef with the KC—it gave him the leverage to challenge everything from Trinity dogmas to the divine nature of Jesus, and so on.

Look, I never once trashed Giordano Bruno or what he did to kickstart modern thinking—so let's get that straight.

Nah, let's not even get into more deep dives for the PŽK... honestly, what am I even supposed to be ashamed of?

If I’ve got nothing to hide, then shouldn't the one spreading lies be the one feeling the shame? Seriously.

How does this forum handle slander according to the rules?

Lisa Jackson7 said:
Should they be feeling some shame too? — Or is this just another crackpot source?
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote
Renaissance Philosophy

No—they aren't actually trying to claim that Bruno wasn't a scientist, which is exactly what you're attempting to do.

Bruno isn't exactly a scientist—not by any modern definition, anyway. Just like Kepler and Galileo—math aside—he had that... He didn't exactly connect the dots with the experiments—not that anyone expected him to. There were certain things he just couldn't pull off—even Copernicus actually had him beat in that regard...

😲So, you're back at it again with the whole "Bruno wasn't a scientist" thing—except now you’ve actually added some "proof"—claiming he didn't conduct experiments. Groundbreaking.🙄 So, what now? Experimentation is just one way to do science—hardly the only one, anyway.. I What? Are you really going to spend all this time trying to prove yourself?

It was that awkward transition period—moving from the Renaissance toward the Enlightenment—where science, then known as "natural philosophy," slowly started breaking away from philosophy.
Giordano Bruno was an absolutely brilliant mind—in more ways than one—but... What actually matters here is how he radically pushed back against the Church. To make that stick—to really paint the Church as this massive roadblock to progress—they had to pin those advanced scientific theories on him, like his ideas on the movement of the Earth or that whole "infinite worlds" concept.
Bruno wasn't actually sentenced because of science—it was more about his theological attacks (heresy) and the way he implicitly called out the Church as an institution.And all this was happening right before the Thirty Years' War—just when things were getting intense.

🙄 Of course Bruno was charged as a "heretic"—it’s almost too predictable, isn't it?A "heretic"—burned alive just for having an opinion.Basically, he went head-to-head with the "untouchable" Church authority—and ended up calling their entire theological foundation into question. And that’s exactly where the problem lies—if you can even call it that.. Anything that dared to challenge theological dogma from a scientific perspective—essentially anything that actually worked—was slapped with the "heretic" label. Simple as that.But hey, it clearly isn't an issue for you—not by a long shot. You’re actually out here claiming he "stole" certain scientific theories just to make the Church look like some sort of roadblock to progress—as if she wasn't, and still isn't, according to your logic.🙂 What else is there to say about this—besides... What a joke—honestly.!🤣

Philosophy isn't exactly a science—not by any stretch of the imagination.At least since the 19th century—though its ties to various scientific branches are pretty undeniable—it’s hardly a point of contention. And, just to be clear, I'm not using "philosophical speculation" in some derogatory way, nor am I attacking philosophy itself.

Hahahaha... 😂

I don't see the point in citing the Official Gazette—we're talking about the organizational structure of academic institutions here... what does that have to do with how philosophy and science actually relate to one another?

Hahaha... This isn't exactly some grand "structure for scientific and educational institutions"—it’s just a "regulation on scientific and artistic fields." scientific ...and artistic. scientific and artistic fields, branches, and disciplinesWhich was brought about by the National Science Council—as if that would actually change anything. Science—or whatever we’re calling it these days. The National Science Council of the US—the top authority for research here—clearly states that "philosophy" falls under the "humanistic sciences" umbrella, specifically as its own scientific "field" with various "branches." Are you actually playing dumb, or are you just trolling?🤷

So, why would anything that "isn't science" be tucked away in there? You're insisting it isn't philosophy—how does that work? Apparently, the official federal regulation on scientific and artistic fields means absolutely nothing to you—you're still out here claiming philosophy "isn't science." Honestly—either you're completely clueless or you're just playing dumb to troll me. 🤷

Honestly, I have no clue how you can justify keeping up the insults—really, I’m stumped.
Moderators??

People aren't blind—they can see exactly who's being insulted here. You've been trying to tear down Bruno's scientific work and his actual contributions to science from the get-go, and honestly, you just proved it again right here: I can't believe we're actually back at this—it’s like Groundhog Day, only with more heated debates and less coffee. Honestly, some people just love circling the same drain over and over again.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around what you're trying to pull here—who exactly gave you the authority to dismiss his work like this, and what’s the end goal? It’s not really your call to make—you aren't in a position to judge, you lack the capacity for it, and frankly, nobody asked for your take in the debate regarding the abolition of religious education. Scientists from all sorts of disciplines already did that evaluation ages ago. Otherwise, Bruno wouldn't even be mentioned in the history of science, physics, math, or in philosophy anthologies worldwide. Plus, you’re probably being pretty unfair by labeling the Church as some "brake on progress."🙄

You jumped right into my debate with brisknomad13—who, by the way, was also trying to drag down Bruno's scientific legitimacy. They kept pushing this whole argument about how he was just into "magic, Hermeticism, and the occult," basically claiming he "wasn't a scientist" or whatever—it’s still all pretty unclear. What exactly are you trying to achieve with all this repetitive circling—assuming, of course, that you aren't actually trying to justify an Inquisition trial?Anyway, thanks a million—you’ve already given me more than enough to work with. I can draw my own conclusions from all this. No need to go any further.

placidorca16 said:
You just had to jump right into my argument with brisknomad13...

Look, please stop dragging my name into your posts on every random topic.
You were doing this even when I was banned, trying to claim I was making excuses for what happened to Bruno—which is total BS. Plus, the insults.
And honestly, after all this time, you’re still at it.

The moderators are letting all of this slide, which pretty much proves the point of this whole thread.

I even reported your posts while I was banned because you kept bringing me up in such a negative way. But nothing happened, so clearly the mods are just giving you the silent okay.

brisknomad13 said:
Please stop dragging my name into all these different threads.
You did this back when I was banned, too—constantly implying that I’m trying to justify the crime committed against Bruno, which is a total lie. Not to mention the insults.
And here we are, all this time later, and you're still at it.

The fact that the moderators allow all this just proves the title of this thread is accurate.

That’s just not true. After my ban, the only time I mentioned your name was right here during a debate with Lisa Jackson7—specifically regarding the claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist," since you were the one who first wrote that, followed by Lisa Jackson7. I didn't quote anything you said while you were banned. Before that, I only used your quotes to ask you for explanations for the claims you made against Bruno, because you never actually explained them:

As for this "implying" business—you still haven't explained why you felt the need to insist that Bruno was "hardly a scientist at all", or that he "didn't perform experiments" but instead focused on "magic, Hermeticism, and the occult"? What exactly are you trying to prove there, if not an attempt to justify—or at least "soften"—the Inquisition's actions? (Because honestly, how do you even "soften" or downplay burning a man alive for his ideas? Even if he had been the dumbest person on the planet instead of a scientist.) And then you have the nerve to mock me, asking "where would I know," as if it's some "private publication"? 🙄 You even took a jab at the Renaissance itself. Who are you to question the validity of Bruno's science, and what are you actually trying to achieve here, brisknomad13?

placidorca16 said:
Who even are you to question the validity of Bruno's science, and what's your actual goal here, brisknomad13?

Anyone can ask questions or analyze anyone else's work.
Just because someone is labeled a scientist doesn't mean they weren't up to other things too.
And by the way, there are written records about it. Even in American English.

But whatever, I won't derail this. Stop dragging my name into random topics, especially when you try to imply I'm defending a crime—the murder of Giordano Bruno.
And stop trying to psychoanalyze my intentions; you don't know mine, or anyone else's. You only know your own.

Regarding the topic of the abolition of religious education, believers on this forum are being insulted, specifically by blaming them personally for the actions of people who held church positions in the past.
If the moderators actually cared about the dignity of this forum and basic decency, they wouldn't allow these kinds of ad hominem attacks.

brisknomad13 said:
Anyone can question or analyze someone else's work.
Just because someone is labeled a scientist doesn't mean they didn't engage in other activities.
By the way—there are written records of this. Even in American.

Anyway, I won't drag this out. Stop dragging my name into various threads—especially when you try to imply I'm somehow justifying the murder of Giordano Bruno.
And stop speculating about my intentions, because you can't possibly know mine—or anyone else's—other than your own!

Regarding the topic of the abolition of religious education, believers on this forum are being insulted—specifically by attributing the actions of past church officials directly to them as individuals.
If the moderators actually cared about the dignity of this forum and basic civility, they wouldn't allow such ad hominem attacks.

That’s why I’m asking you to explain your intention—if you want to, of course, since I don't quite get it. If not, fine. Everyone will just interpret it however they see fit.😁
From now on, I won't just be "mentioning" your name; I'll be quoting you too. But you don't get to dictate what I write or who I quote. You aren't that powerful—though, I don't know, maybe you'd love to use Inquisition-style tactics if you had the chance?😁 Look, if you think you have the right to tell others what to write or whom to cite, then go ahead and start your own private forum with those rules.

placidorca16 said:
That’s why I’m asking what you're actually after—if you feel like explaining, obviously, since I don't really get it.

I already laid out my intentions in my posts: I want to paint a more complete picture of Giordano Bruno and show the Renaissance in its true spirit.

placidorca16 said:
From now on, I won't just "mention" your name; I'll actually cite your quotes.

Exactly. That's how a debate should work—basing arguments on what people actually wrote instead of making up weird theories about their motives or launching ad hominem attacks. It's just basic logic. That's basically what you and the others in that thread are doing. Don't worry, nobody's banning you for it yet.

placidorca16 said:
But you can't tell me what to write or not.

And you can't tell me not to write about Giordano Bruno being into magic and Hermeticism either, because that's just fact.

brisknomad13 said:
My intention with these posts was to provide a more complete picture of Giordano Bruno, while also showing the Renaissance in its true spirit.
And that’s how it should work—when we debate, we debate based on what someone actually wrote, not by fantasizing about their intentions, goals, or motives—or worse, launching personal attacks—ad hominem.
That’s exactly what you, along with others in that thread, are doing. You haven't been banned for it, though.
Nor can you dictate that I shouldn't write about Giordano Bruno being involved in magic and Hermeticism, because that is fact.

What "complete picture"? Are you suggesting you've "uncovered" something about Bruno that we didn't know, or are you just trying to prove your ongoing point that Bruno "wasn't a scientist"? What exactly are we supposed to be proving or disproving here?

Are you implying this "fact" you mentioned sheds some new light on why the Inquisition went after him? Does it change the established facts—that the man was burned at the stake for his views? How does that change anything?

Everything you wrote, I simply quoted. I didn't invent your claims that Bruno "wasn't a scientist," that he was a "scientist—not by a long shot," or that he dabbled in "magic, occultism, and Hermeticism." I am literally repeating your own words:

Here, you kept insisting Bruno practiced magic:

And when I asked why he wouldn't have:

After that, you even lumped the concept of the Renaissance in with "suspicious" terms related to magic, alongside several other thinkers and philosophers:

Are they worthy of Christian love, or are they also "heretics" that need to be wiped off the face of the Earth?😁

Here, you repeat that Bruno was a "magician" and an "occultist," and that the "dark sides of the Renaissance are yet to be discovered":

And even our fellow forum user Judolino pointed out that your posts could be interpreted as implying that "maybe science is just black magic to you," though he noted that isn't "exactly proof."😁

placidorca16 said:
You just jumped right into my argument with brisknomad13—who was already trying to trash Bruno's scientific legitimacy and contributions by claiming he dealt in "magic, hermeticism, and occultism" and basically insisting "he wasn't a scientist," etc. It’s still totally unclear what you're actually trying to accomplish by repeating yourself over and over, unless you're secretly trying to justify the Inquisition's trial? But hey, thanks a lot, you've already said more than enough. I can draw my own conclusions from that. No need to go any further.

Look, I'm just trying to steer clear of both political idolatry and the demonization of Giordano Bruno—basically, just sticking to the facts.

Both idolatry and demonization rely on half-truths and lies.

Anyone calling me an apologist for the Inquisition is clearly blinded by some ideological or political agenda.

The truth is, Giordano Bruno was burned for political reasons.

And let's be real—nobody supports those political motives centuries later... like rebuilding the union of the Spanish and Austrian branches of the Habsburg feudal house, or restoring a Catholic empire "where the sun never sets"?
Or crushing the Reformation?

If we're supposed to be having a serious discussion here, then calling this PDF "Close Politician" is a massive understatement—the old title was way more accurate.

I'm done going back and forth with you.

brisknomad13 said:
Regarding the topic of the abolition of religious education, believers on this forum are being insulted—specifically by having the actions of past church officials pinned on them personally.
If the moderators actually cared about the dignity of this forum and maintaining decent civil discourse, they wouldn't allow these kinds of ad hominem attacks.

I'm with @brisknomad13 on this request to the moderators...

placidorca16 said:
So what does any of this actually change?
You kept harping on how Bruno was into magic:

You're wasting your breath trying to list everything here.
The bottom line is that Giordano Bruno was into magic and other occult stuff.
I've already cited literature, but I can find more. I've got the English sources, and honestly, I could just snap photos of the pages from my own library.
What's the issue?
Not sure if it changes anything, but knowing a fact about someone isn't bad—it's useful... especially when you're trying to get to the root of their actual science.
Here's your move: try arguing that Bruno didn't represent Hermeticism or magic during certain phases of his life, instead of insulting anyone who writes about it or guessing at their intentions.
For example, check out Frances A. Yates' work on Bruno and the Hermetic tradition......etc.
The link shows the chapters too.....all pretty big names.
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/...bo3639032.html

placidorca16 said:
Are they even worthy of Christian love, or are they just more "heretics" that need to be wiped off the face of the Earth?😁

That's your take, not mine.

I'm done grinding away at this thread, too.

Listen, folks, we aren't here to debate the life and times of Giordano Bruno.
I’d like to request that the moderators keep a closer eye on this religious studies thread, though one has to wonder if this discussion even belongs here; wouldn't it be more appropriate under History?
Perhaps that is the simplest solution: strip away the arguments that have nothing to do with the actual subject matter, and everyone will be better off.