Science has no business saying a single word about special creation. Unless you can show a single scientific paper that analyzes Genesis or God, then all we have here is pure speculation.
I respect your right to disagree. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what I was saying in the entire post 55. “different sorts of claims” is not applicable to how the visible Catholic Church operates. Nor is there one kind or mode of teaching within the visible Catholic Church.
Can you show me what in that link contradicts what I wrote?
Nice try, Leela, but I didn’t quote that post, nor did I claim that “Flew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior or supports a theistic conception of God.”
I accept the distinction between moral and scientific teaching. Though we agree that the church was scientifically wrong on heliocentrism, the church was also morally wrong in its treatment of Galileo. We all know today that it is immoral for the church to force a scientist to recant his scientific views. We have a right to freedom of speech that the church stepped on in the case of Galilieo. It would be immoral for the church to imprison someone for heresy today. If we are not moral relativists, then it was wrong then as well.
You said with your usual “LOL!” …
I would have thought it is a moral act to imprison someone for heresy, some would say imperative. For if one believes in a soul, and God, and all the rest of Catholicism, and this is tainted by heresy, then that heresy puts people in danger of losing immortal life. So, the process of seperating the heretic from the general population is crucial to the preservation of many people’s immortal souls. What the Church did at that time was justified, at least in so far as imprisoning a heretic.
What you are referring to is the application of moral teaching.
And YOUR source for making the above statement is???
The LOL is justified for one of two reasons: Either you had the facts wrong and were continuing on your merry little way based on 2001 data. Or you knew the post-2001 facts but dishonestly chose to present only a reference to the 2001 facts, which were obviously not relevant as a response to my post (and, on the basis of presuming that you *are *honest, suggested that you were in fact ignorant of the post-2001 facts). Either way…
Didn’t this thread mention earlier that Galileo’s theory was incorrect in certain parts? Such as he thought everything revolved around the sun in perfect circles?
My apology, but I have to leave this interesting discussion. Moral teachings basically follow the Ten Commandments. When speaking about Catholic moral teachings, one needs to distinguish the actual teaching from the actions of Church members. People rightly or wrongly can follow or ignore any kind of teaching. Catholicism does not hold to the philosophy of relativism.
Fair enough.
I disbelieve in God, Jesus, the virginity of Mary, the authority of the church. I am as much of a heretic as could be. Should I imprisoned?
Would it be justified now? If not why not? Has morality changed since then?
Saying that the idea was unknown at the time is no defense for an institution which claims to have transcendent knowledge about morality. The church claims that its teachings are not contingent products of historical development but eternal truths that it has special access to.
Oh, Leela, you are so enamored with the idea of bringing the Church to its proverbial knees that you’re willing to skew all reality. The Church accepted the science of the time; it didn’t outright create it. There are still people that hold the geocentric conception. And, really, you don’t know that the Earth is not the center of the universe and neither do I.
The Church and the State had a very different affinity, in the middle ages, as well as the times before it. Politicians were almost invariably Catholic, at least in tradition, and didn’t want to be in contrast to the Church’s positions. So, secular authorities took much upon themselves to sit as authorities for the Church. But, if you can figure out a way to stab the Church, you will.
God bless you Leela,
I totally agree with the Popes astronomer. Does that surprise you Leela?
I say the Church authorities behaviour was unreasonable and paranoid. Did Galileo actually say anything that was heretical to the Catholic faith?
That, dear Leela, would be a start!
No, he taught theory as fact. The Church had no problem with him teaching heliocentrism as theory and while we know it is a fact now, the point is that it was not provable at that time. Galileo got in trouble not just for intransigence on that point but also for insisting that the interpretation of certain passages in scripture was properly the province of scientists, not the Church. Not surprisingly that didn’t sit well with the pope.