Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

Um, the Donatists were around a 1000 years before the inquisition, and they probably baptized infants. They really only disagreed with the church on whether or not to receive back Christians who had lapsed under persecution.See Donatism - Wikipedia. I don't know how reliable wikipedia is, but in this case they're right, and their description is short and simple.The Albigenses were persecuted by the Inquisition, but they were accused of Manichaeanism. They were said to believe that Christ did not have an actual physical body. Infant baptism and belief in the Bible were not the issue for either of these groups.The Inquisition would have gone after a group for rejecting infant baptism, but then, so did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The Anabaptists or "Radical Reformation" was persecuted by Protestants and Catholics alike for their rejection of infant baptism.

Yes, they did get it from the Bible. Joshua told the sun to stand still in the sky. Isaiah had it go back ten degrees for...uh, shoot, I think it was for Ahaz, but maybe not.Either way, they would have argued, "If you're going to believe the Bible, then you need to believe the sun moves, not the earth, or how did Joshua command it to stand still?"I answer this, because later you talk about scientists defending Origin of Species, and the fact is that those who oppose evolution now are no different than those who persecuted Galileo and Copernicus. They don't have the political power to throw anyone in jail, but if they did, they would.My point is that some things the creationists and fundamentalists do are exactly like the Catholics and they don't reflect Christ very often, either.

Your web site contradicts your statements about Galileo. While the pope may have been irritated about being the model for Simplicio, Galileo was charged with teaching the Copernican theory, which is that the earth goes around the sun. Your article also points out that a fellow named Giordano Bruno was burnt to death by the Catholic Church in 1600 for the Copernican theory plus saying there was life on other planets.In fact, Galileo was originally threatened and ordered to stop teaching this theory because of the dastardly crime of interpreting the Bible without being a clergyman.All this according to your link.

You are going to have a really rough time on any debate board if you are going to take references to the RCC personally. The RCC--its hierarchy or whatever you want to call it--has take responsibility for making an error in Galileo's case, and in many other cases. You can't go around being offended because someones said "the Catholics did this" or "the RCC did this."To answer your question directly, the link suggests that Bruno was burnt at the order of the Inquisition, but it's only a hint, not a statement, so I didn't attribute it to the Inquisition directly. If you'll look at the post I was responding to, you'll see that it was very relevant. The person was trying to say the RCC didn't persecute Galileo over the issue of the centrality of the earth in the universe. He was wrong, and the link he gave contradicted him. Not only did it contradict him, but it gave another name that was put to death, around the same time, over that issue.You should easily have recognized the significance of this. You slobbered all over that post I was responding to, hoping you would find the RCC vindicated on this issue. Good grief, man, the RCC itself has apologized over the issue. I know this. I was raised Catholic, and I paid attention in Catechism, because I was pretty serious even as a child.Are you trying to justify this practice? You mention the dangers of the uneducated interpreting the Scriptures, but if a person could read the Scriptures, that probably meant they weren't uneducated in those days.Listen, that period of Catholic rule is known as the Dark Ages. The Roman Catholic hierarchy stifled and almost eliminated education for the common person. Don't try to defend it. Even the RCC itself has given up defending it.If the RCC will produce a holy, spiritual, and united congregation, I will praise them for it and have fellowship with them. I'm not even asking for them to unite the over 1 billion that exist; just one holy, spiritual, and united congregation. My problem with the RCC has nothing to do with the past. I'm willing to let those awful bygones by bygones (as long as the RCC agrees never to hold political power again).I was not attacking the RCC. I was opposing a revisionist version of history that was being offered. That's why I posted.