Questions for those who do not believe

[ralphinal]

I think the church deserves a bad wrap on the Galileo affair. They will claim that Galileo was punished for his theological positions (for instance insisting verses such as Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 104:4, etc. shouldn’t be taken literally … of course everyone today, including the RCC, understands those verses are indeed figurative).

The problem is you cannot distinguish between Galileo’s theory of a heliocentric universe and debunking the churches interpretation of Psalm 104:5 (and various other verses). They’re inseparable ideas … so it’s such a red herring when church apologists use this tactic. Galileo proposed a scientific theory pertaining to the structure of the universe that debunked the churches interpretation of several biblical passages. He had to say and believe those verses cannot be interpreted literally (since he proved with absolute certainty that a literal reading of those verses could not be true).

No, he said that the verses had to be changed to fit science. No one can do that.

In the end he was in fact punished for advocating Heliocentrism. More specifically he was charged with heresy for holding the opinions that the earth is not the center of the universe, and it (the earth) moves (contrary to the literal language of verses like Psalm 104:5). Not only did the RCC charge a man for the content of his ideas and his scientific work … but they proved their own fallibility in the process (I might add they evidenced their fallibility in the particular area where they claim infallibility, faith e.g. interpretation of scripture).

Nope. There were others saying the same thing that did not get in trouble. Besides, the CHurch NEVER infallibly taught those verses. Only a handfull have been defined and those are not among them.

Galileo even recanted (yet he was still imprisoned, a sentence later commuted to house arrest). There was something of a rumor that he made a rebellious remark during his inquisition … but there’s no evidence indicating this story is true. Galileo was tried and convicted by the inquisition for publicly proclaiming the earth rotates around the sun. The church held the position that the earth didn’t move at all (interpreting Psalm 104:5 literally). So even the idea that it rotates (whether around the sun or not) was heretical. There’s no excusing this affair. It was an unfortunate event in the history of the church (certainly not its worse, Galileo did survive until a natural death after all & he wasn’t burned at the stake).

Again, he was told not to teach it until he had more proof and that he could not alter the bible. The fact that he was not punished worse prooves that it was not heresy that he was teachign

funny how none of those so called miracles are ever verified by secular doctors? Hmmm …

Wrong. The miracles of Lourdes have been verified by secular. Also, any miracles reported in the 20th century have been as well. Please check for yourself.

All of those miraculous events, healings, apparitions, etc. are just delusions. It is true, however, that ones state of mind can be critical to their well being and physical health. There are plenty of documented cases showing the connection between psychology and healing (and physical health generally speaking). There is, however, no credible documentation proving any divine miracle ever occurred at any point in history. None of these so called miraculous healings have ever been put to rigorous medical scrutiny.

Check the miracle of teh sun in Fatema Portugal. Again, check those of Lourdes.

yes that is true … there was an emperor worshiping regime in the Roman pagan belief system. However, under Constantine Christianity became the official religion of the empire.

Christianity took over because it gave hope to the hopeless. In other words it is the religion for the poor man, the down trodden, etc. (and there were plenty of those types in the ancient Roman empire). Nietzsche thought along these lines (and I think explained the psychology behind the attractiveness of Christianity among the ancients quite well). Of course this is only speculation. You will say it was an act of divine providence. How could have Christianity lasted so long if it weren’t for some invisible god? Well, western civilization still stands, Judaism still exists, heck the pyramids are still there right? What does all that prove? Not a single thing (except that the Romans were good at building and institutionalizing stuff).

And what does atheism give to those without hope?

not paying workers wasn’t the main impetus behind the Pullman strike (and other important events in labor history) … but that’s neither here nor there. A union is a collective & there’s nothing in scripture supporting the idea. It is a Euro-centric concept & that’s I think why the CC is supportive of it. Of course who really knows right?

Unions are also about protecting worker’s rights and dignity. Both of those are important in scripture. No collectives in the Bible? Check the apostles in Acts. The specific acts of Unions are not the real issue. The real issue is if a union should exist or have had need to in the past, and if they should in the future.

I think at some point we need to look beyond events that occurred five or more centuries ago as the cause for current conditions in places like Latin America.

Maybe, maybe not. Colonialism is hard to overcome when it is never replaced with a valid government. Many of these nations have never had one.

I guess that’s an area of ample theological dispute right? Did god will the Jewish holocaust? Did he will slavery or 9/11? Anyways …

No, they were not God’s will in the sense that He caused them. However, He never let the evil reach its highest point and good has come from it. Study the Catholic Teaching on it and you will be enriched.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, he said that the verses had to be changed to fit science. No one can do that.

That’s not exactly right, nor is it why he was punished by the Inquisition. Galileo did question the veracity of Joshua 10:13, but again he was imprisoned because he advocated heliocentrism.

Nope. There were others saying the same thing that did not get in trouble. Besides, the CHurch NEVER infallibly taught those verses. Only a handfull have been defined and those are not among them.

There were others who proposed a heliocentric universe much earlier than Galileo (i.e. Copernicus); but Copernicus took a different approach as compared to Galileo. First, Copernicus wrote a book as tribute to Pope Paul III. Secondly, Copernicus was very hesistant to publish his work (many believe due to fear of religious persecution).

However, again the idea that Galileo was punished for his theology versus his science is a red herring. His science necessitated a new outlook on theology (there was no third alternative). Frankly even if he was punished for his theology (albeit there’s no way to distinguish theology from science in the context of the Galileo affair & that era of European history) it doesn’t make your church look any better. The CC punished a man for his ideas; the classic definition of tyranny and oppression.

Again, he was told not to teach it until he had more proof and that he could not alter the bible. The fact that he was not punished worse prooves that it was not heresy that he was teachign

being imprisoned is not punishment? Of course Galileo was punished (he was initially imprisoned but his sentence was later reduced to house arrest).

Wrong. The miracles of Lourdes have been verified by secular. Also, any miracles reported in the 20th century have been as well. Please check for yourself.

Yes it has been confirmed that 67 people who visited Lourdes later recovered from their illnesses. However, 67 out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have visited Lourdes is such a small percentage; and roughly the same rate of healing occurs among people who have not visited Lourdes (or any other religious shrine for that matter).

In other words they would have been healed regardless of whether they visited Lourdes or not. There was no miracle it was just a normal statistical occurance. Not everyone who gets sick dies, religious or not. Sometimes they get better & we don’t always know why.

Check the miracle of teh sun in Fatema Portugal. Again, check those of Lourdes.

First with regard to Fatima, the reports of what happened that day vary dramatically.

There were reports ranging from the sun spinning and then plunging toward the ground, to the sun seeming to be vailed with a transparent haze, then breaking through the clouds and appearing to spin. Some mention the appearance of beams of all colors of the rainbow. Of course, in any atmospheric phenomena involving clouds (water vapor) and bright light, the appearance of the full rainbow of colors isn’t remarkable, due to the refractive properties of tiny droplets of water.

In modern times, claims of miracles are often investigated by sceptics; yet none have been found reliable. Fatima was an atmospheric event and nothing more.

And what does atheism give to those without hope?

It gives them a life apart from mythology where they can base their decisions and actions on reality, not fantasy.

Unions are also about protecting worker’s rights and dignity. Both of those are important in scripture. No collectives in the Bible? Check the apostles in Acts. The specific acts of Unions are not the real issue. The real issue is if a union should exist or have had need to in the past, and if they should in the future.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to squeeze support for unions out of the bible. Sure there’s some degree of support implicit in some of the concepts presented by scripture (as you say we can infer that human rights and dignity are presented as virtuous by scripture). However, scriture nowhere advocates labor unions. There are certainly many other ways to protect workers rights. For instance we now have labor laws that protect workers. Those laws range from minimum wage laws to safety laws, prohibitions against child labor, etc. The concept of labor unions grew out of the medieval trade guilds of Europe.

Maybe, maybe not. Colonialism is hard to overcome when it is never replaced with a valid government. Many of these nations have never had one.

superstition and remaining mired in ancient mythology certainly can’t be helping matters though. What is the value of hope if it’s false hope?

Why not allow people to be guided by truth.

No, they were not God’s will in the sense that He caused them. However, He never let the evil reach its highest point and good has come from it. Study the Catholic Teaching on it and you will be enriched.

I was raised thoroughly Catholic & none of their teachings have ever enriched me in the past (so why pick it back up now). At any rate Hitler happened because Hitler happened. There is no god and no invisible devil making us do things (or swaying us through temptation).

I guess I’m not sure what to say about the idea that god never let evil reach its highest point? If there is a god then he let evil reach a pretty high point (it seems pretty hard to top the holocaust).