If I can find an answer to these questions, I will turn back to religion

[clarkgamble1]

Why would God create the entire universe for the sole purpose of having people worship him?

How could God desire love and relationship before He created the very things that make love and relationship possible and meaningful. Love cannot exist without an object to love. Nor can a relationship exist, even in concept, if only one entity exists. For a single lone entity, the love concept is meaningless and undefined. Nor can a relationship have any meaning without some other entity already existing. Could God even comprehend love if nothing existed yet for Him to love?

 

[Theo520]

I was raised Catholic and have always been very interested in religion, however I have two problems (with all religions) that I’ve never been able to find a sufficient answer to, which has caused me to become more spiritual than religious. I guess I’m just hoping to find answers to these questions that make sense to me so that I can turn back towards organised religion.

I’m afraid there is no hope for you if you are playing these “If Then” games on whether or not you will apply yourself to organized religion.

Religion is about your own personal spiritual growth.

If you are being thankful to God, then by default your focus has moved outside a very self centered view. It’s an anti-narcissist view.

Focus on your spiritual growth, not whether everything said about God makes logical sense.

 

[setarcos]

Ahhh Gorgias, always running when you would be more prudent to walk.
It is good to reason with you though.

Close, but not quite. The Church instructed Galileo not to say that his theory was proven, given that he couldn’t prove it. Big difference. In fact, he was permitted to teach his theories as theories.

I’m not sure how much you’ve studied the discourses of Galileo but during the time in question Galileo to my knowledge did not state that the Copernican theory was proven. His argument was that the Copernican theory was more in line with the scientific observations he had made, especially after he improved upon his telescope, than was the geocentric theory. Galileo was actually reluctant to embrace Copernicanism until years after Copernicus’s presentation of his ideas. As I’ve stated earlier when he voluntarily went to Rome his intellectual arguments for Copernicanism against the geocentric view were superior to the opposing views. Even though this was the case, as I’ve said before in a political move, Cardinal Bellarmine’s warning to Galileo against holding the belief of, or publishing a defense of Copernicanism, (as if it were true) was purely a delaying tactic in order for the church to gather up a defense and explanation of its position ( a false one) should Copernicanism be overwhelmingly proved true. There would be a lot of explaining to do if one could show that the leadership of Gods church interpreted scripture wrong and given Galileo’s visit and arguments this must have crossed their minds. It would have been deemed a possible threat to their authority. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s special injunction for Galileo reveal, according to the minutes of their meeting; Bellarmine warned Galileo to completely abandon his Copernicanism, and " henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same Galileo acquiesced in this injunction and promised to obey." The irony of the issue was that the Church couldn’t prove Geocentrism true either yet publicly held the firm belief that it was true. What Galileo was forced to do was not hold the Copernican view at all. I would say that you were close as well but according to the minutes of the inquisition on the meeting between Galileo and Bellarmine I have to say you missed the mark here.

 

[setarcos]

Right. And his approach “not to overly provoke the Church” is to put the argument for geocentrism in his book in the mouth of a character, “Simplicio” – that is, “Simpleton” or “Idiot.” And you know what? One of Simplicio’s monologues is a nearly verbatim account of something that Pope Urban himself had written earlier.

Umm… that’s “not provoking the Church”??? Uhh… right.

Lol, once again running to prove your point when you should be walking. That’s the way with a lot of Catholics in my experience. Waving around an answer for everything but rarely having an actual answer without resorting to misdirection, equivocation, or esoterically ill defined concepts. You really need to brush up on the times and places Galileo lived in and the relationships he had during these times in question. The situation Galileo found himself in with the Church is a bit more complicated than simply stating that the rude and arrogant meanie Galileo decided to write his “Dialogue” in order to provoke the Church into having no other choice but to prosecute him for insulting the Popes intellectual prowess.
Have you read the Dialogue in question?
First off to believe that Galileo wrote the character Simplicio as a literary caricature of the Pope is an extreme contention which goes against the sense of the text and also would have to assume that Galileo was a self destructive imbecile. Galileo was no imbecile and there is absolutely no indication in his actions or writings that would indicate that he was inclined to self destruction. He was a devoted Catholic and went out of his way to appease the Church’s injunction against Copernicanism. Second, it is certainly true and understandable that seeing the popes vanity was stung by seeing his theological opinions placed into Simplicios callow and student-like mouth but probably not in the simplistic way your thinking. Maffeo Barberini’s theological ideas were not silly nor sophistic nor would Galileo had thought so. Galileo actually waited until after Barberini became pope precisely because he thought that given their past relationship; as a Cardinal Maffeo expressed support for Galileo during some scientific debates, in may of 1612 he wrote him praising him for his rare intellect and suggested that their minds vibrated in harmony, in 1620 Maffeo wrote a poem praising Galileo and in 1624 he granted Galileo’s son, Vincenzio, an annuity of sixty crowns and urged Galileo to write the definitive treatise on Copernicanism…a work which later became the Dialogue; he would be safe to do so. There was a bigger dynamic going on which caused Maffeo to persecute Galileo for writing the same book he himself had proposed. We are dealing with a paradigm shift in how information about the natural world was to be received. Simpicio was a representation of the old Aristotelian conceptions of the universe which were failing to live up to modern scientific observation.

 

[setarcos]

I don’t think we’ve correctly defined love. I believe love is a self contained state of being. If God’s being is love, but we define love as lacking if there is no relationship to express itself in then there never was a state in which God was alone. Which means God would not be the creative source of all created things. Things which exist eternally as God does cannot have a been created. This is contrary to scripture. As I’ve said, I believe we’ve mis defined “love”. What do you mean when you say Love cannot exist without an object to love? Love is a reactive state of being not a projection contingent upon an action. I do not create love through my actions. I act because of my love…or lack there of. Scripture says…“love wants nothing” and indeed there is nothing that it is in need of to want including an object with which to express itself. Love is merely the reactive element of a being which has its capacity.

 

[setarcos]

Hmm not many replies on here lately…have we all moved on I wonder?

 

[Gorgias]

Ahhh Gorgias, always running when you would be more prudent to walk.

On the other hand, St Paul didn’t tell us that he had walked the race.

I’m not sure how much you’ve studied the discourses of Galileo but during the time in question Galileo to my knowledge did not state that the Copernican theory was proven.

Right. He just made the claim that his own assertions were true, although he couldn’t prove them.

It would have been deemed a possible threat to their authority.

That’s why Bellarmine was open to finding a different interpretation of Scripture, if the science was true, then?

Bellarmine warned Galileo to completely abandon his Copernicanism, and " henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him.

Two thoughts:

• Those were the words of Lodi, not Bellarmine.
• Galileo claimed that the sun was at the center of the universe. Was he correct?

I would say that you were close as well but according to the minutes of the inquisition on the meeting between Galileo and Bellarmine I have to say you missed the mark here

Ironically, since you were quick to run to a conclusion, it seems you are the one who missed the mark. Next time, walk through the documents a bit more carefully, my friend.

Lol, once again running to prove your point when you should be walking. That’s the way with a lot of Catholics in my experience. Waving around an answer for everything but rarely having an actual answer without resorting to misdirection, equivocation, or esoterically ill defined concepts.

Ironically, that’s what you’re doing here.

setarcos:

You really need to brush up on the times and places Galileo lived in and the relationships he had during these times in question.

Interestingly enough, it’s not me who’s saying this, but secular scientists at the U of Arizona: Galileo Stereotype is Only Part of the Truth, Astronomy Scholar Says | University of Arizona News

setarcos:

First off to believe that Galileo wrote the character Simplicio as a literary caricature of the Pope is an extreme contention which goes against the sense of the text

That’s the consensus of contemporary historians.

setarcos:

[Galileo] went out of his way to appease the Church’s injunction against Copernicanism.

You seem enamored of this claim, against the witness of historical evidence.

setarcos:

Second, it is certainly true and understandable that seeing the popes vanity was stung by seeing his theological opinions placed into Simplicios callow and student-like mouth

So… you admit the claim, while denying the conclusion? No wonder you love Galileo.

 

[IWantGod]

Lets not pretend that Galileo was not discriminated against just because we are Catholics. Why would they put Galileo under house arrest unless his theory was a threat to their sense of power. Regardless, their reaction to Galileo was clearly unreasonable.

 

[LilyM]

You didn’t need to be a threat to anyone’s sense of power, just a jerk to the wrong people at the wrong time - which by all accounts Galileo could be.

It’s not like he went to the dungeon or the scaffold, which was the general lot of those who were seen as a genuine threat.

 

[Gorgias]

Lets not pretend that Galileo was not discriminated against

It was a different time. The approaches used by people then, are different than the approaches used by people now. Let’s not pretend that this isn’t true, just because we’re 21st century westerners.

However, let me ask you a question: how should one respond to a scientist who says to the leaders of the day, “ya’ll are idiots! I’m absolutely right, and you’re absolutely wrong… even though I can’t prove it”?

 

[IWantGod]

However, let me ask you a question: how should one respond to a scientist who says to the leaders of the day, “ya’ll are idiots! I’m absolutely right, and you’re absolutely wrong… even though I can’t prove it”?

Well assuming that he did call them idiots, i hardly think that imprisoning him in his own home is a reasonable response. Galileo doesn’t strike me as a subversive. It was a political response to a perceived threat, and it was an unreasonable response to a perceived or potential loss of power in my opinion.

They knew that there would be potential problems regarding any theory that diverged from theories that favored a more literal theological presentation. But you can’t stop progress, and so they wanted to control the situation. They really didn’t want Galileo’s views becoming the de-facto scientific theory for political reasons and they obviously handled it poorly, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it now.

That is of course my opinion, and while i could be wrong, that is what it looks like.

 

[Gorgias]

Well assuming that he did call them idiots, i hardly think that imprisoning him in his own home is a reasonable response.

Again: 17th century, man.

They really didn’t want Galileo’s views becoming the de-facto scientific theory for political reasons and they obviously handled it poorly, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it now.

Except that this is precisely the opposite of what Bellarmine said! To wit:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

Bellarmine isn’t saying “I’m afraid that Galileo’s theory takes control away from the Church” – he very literally said “we’ll have to find a better interpretation of Scripture”! And he’s saying that the Church isn’t going to stand in the way of a proven fact of science, but should act in accord with it!

They really didn’t want Galileo’s views becoming the de-facto scientific theory for political reasons

Right. For political reasons – as opposed to scientific – they wanted Galileo to stop claiming that the sun was the center of the universe. Good thing he didn’t – 'cause today, we all know that that’s true.

they obviously handled it poorly, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it now.

No – we’re talking about it now because it fits the contemporary meme that the Church hates science.

while i could be wrong, that is what it looks like.

I would encourage you not only to look a little harder… but also to read what contemporary historians are saying about the affair.

 

[IWantGod]

Except that this is precisely the opposite of what Bellarmine said! To wit:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

So it was for political reasons since there was a fear that such a theory would conflict with scripture, and since the church enjoyed much of their power at that time precisely because the literal theological view of things were unchallenged, they wished to control the flow of information.

Their behavior was unreasonable.

 

[Gorgias]

So it was for political reasons since there was a fear that such a theory would conflict with scripture, and since the church enjoyed much of their power at that time precisely because the literal theological view of things were unchallenged, they wished to control the flow of information.

No. You continue to refuse to hear the words of Bellarmine: if it had been demonstrated (i.e., ‘proven’), that would be one thing. It wasn’t proven, however. Therefore, Bellarmine said “stop saying you’ve proven what you haven’t proven.”

Is that so unreasonable a demand on a scientist? That’s not a political statement, it’s a statement about scientific method.

Of course, you can continue to rail at God, if you wish. Just, when you do, recognize that you yourself are answering the question “why is this still an issue to this very day?” It’s because some folks like to rail at God and the Church.

 

[IWantGod]

No. You continue to refuse to hear the words of Bellarmine: if it had been demonstrated (i.e., ‘proven’), that would be one thing. It wasn’t proven, however. Therefore, Bellarmine said “stop saying you’ve proven what you haven’t proven.”

And is that the real reason why Galileo was kept in his home? Because he hadn’t proven it?

You seem to be under the impression that there wasn’t a religious dimension to political power, influence and control in those times. The idea that the earth was the center of the universe and that science was not in conflict with that view was a favorable position to be in for the church. Lets not pretend that any changes to the scientific paradigm wouldn’t have a huge effect both theologically and politically. Even if they had to change, they wanted to have control over the result.

Galileo was treated the way he was because he was not helping their agenda. And i don’t think the way he was treated was right regardless of what year you slap on it.

 

[LilyM]

If Galileo RRALLY wasn’t helping their agenda, and REALLY was such an existential threat, then like most European rulers they would’ve thrown him in the deepest darkest dungeon - or better still executed him. Not house arrest.

Did they treat him nice? Not a hit. Was a lot of it his own fault? Yes. Did they act out of some mad snti-science prejudice? Not at all.

 

[IWantGod]

If Galileo RRALLY wasn’t helping their agenda, and REALLY was such an existential threat, then like most European rulers they would’ve thrown him in the deepest darkest dungeon - or better still executed him. Not house arrest.

Did they treat him nice? Not a hit. Was a lot of it his own fault? Yes. Did they act out of some mad snti-science prejudice? Not at all.

I guess they were being nice to Galileo then. The reason they didn’t kill him or throw him in a dungeon, is because they knew he was probably right.

Galileo found something he was not suppose to find, and the church leaders had a panic attack because they knew it would lead to people questioning the faith and their authority, and they dealt with the situation poorly.

I am not saying that the Catholic faith is evil, I’m just saying that they didn’t deal with it in the right way. You don’t put a scientist under house arrest just because he embarrassed the intellects of those in power. You only do that because you want to control something that’s getting out of control and you don’t want to do any harm to the person that you perceive to be the cause of it.

 

[setarcos]

On the other hand, St Paul didn’t tell us that he had walked the race.

Apparently you didn’t grasp the meaning of my witticism here…moving on.

Right. He just made the claim that his own assertions were true, although he couldn’t prove them.

His own assertions were true. Backed by empirical evidence and philosophical discourse. His arguments were superior to the oppositions. Should we believe Jesus never existed because it cant be explicitly and definitively proven that he did despite superior evidences to the contrary? Should we still believe the earth is flat despite evidences against

That’s why Bellarmine was open to finding a different interpretation of Scripture, if the science was true, then?

Not sure what your statement here is supposed to point out. I’ve contended all along that the Church sanctioned Galileo as a political maneuver in order to give them time to formulate their excuses since they were afraid he was correct but the Church had already made a definitive scriptural stance saying the earth did not move. The magisterium without equivocation stated their true belief in a geocentric interpretation from scripture but they were wrong. If the magisterium can be wrong with this then what else can they be wrong with

Two thoughts:

• Those were the words of Lodi, not Bellarmine.
• Galileo claimed that the sun was at the center of the universe. Was he correct?

Typical redirection to prove a point instead of sticking with the truth.
2 thoughts:
1 What I quoted was a part of the minutes of Bellarmine’s meeting with Galileo in which he gave him the injunction against Copernicanism. So what’s your point? You don’t believe in the accuracy of the inquisitions minutes?
2 What we are dealing with here is the fact that Galileo showed that Geocentrism was wrong and Copernicanism was closer to the truth given the empirical evidences available to him at the time. That’s called scientific progress. Sort of like when Einstein replaced the Newtonian model of the universe with his own conceptions. Your trying to imply that because Galileo was wrong in some things he was wrong in all things…a logical fallacy if ever there was one. And all because you wish to feed your ego as a superior thinker. That’s not why we come to reason together. Here’s your stupid little week for you since you love them so much.

Ironically, since you were quick to run to a conclusion, it seems you are the one who missed the mark. Next time, walk through the documents a bit more carefully, my friend.

I’m willing to be shown where I’ve erred so show me. This statement says nothing of import.

 

[deMontfort]

It never ceases to amaze me when I see people who CLAIM to be Catholic, yet pursue an anti-Catholic agenda…

 

[IWantGod]

It never ceases to amaze me when I see people who CLAIM to be Catholic, yet pursue and anti-Catholic agenda…

It never ceases to amaze me when fellow Catholics cannot accept when our Church leaders have done something wrong at some point or another and go to great lengths to accuse other Catholics of being anti-Catholic when they voice an acceptance of the fact that their church leaders haven’t always been a perfect example of all things virtuous.

It’s unreasonable.