C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Ah, but that would be just another form of “verse mining,” wouldn’t it?
- Status
D
DrTaffy
Guest
On the contrary, you started this thread, not inocente, and you seem to have done so in order to deny that the Church did anything wrong and accuse anyone who says otherwise of lying.
So yet another lesson you lot could learn from the Galileo affair is the importance of admitting your failures, at least to yourself, instead of attacking the victims of your failures to try to put them in the wrong.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Rather, the cops claimed, and probably genuinely believed, that the light was red, used this as an excuse to abuse their position of power to hassle and threaten Galileo, and it later turned out that the light was green all along!
(You do realise that not only had the church not proved heliocentrism false, and geocentrism true, but that it turns out that geocentrism is utterly false and heliocentrism far far closer to the truth?)
W
weller2
Guest
Then please provide you exegesis of this statement:
Really? So why the Church agreed to heliocentrism before stellar parallax was observed if, by your own standards, stellar parallax is the only valid proof for helicoentrism?
Also, could you please provide me with answeres to the following questions, which you have so far been avoiding:
- Can a statement be both true and heretical?
- You have claimed that Kepler’s prediction of position of Mars was insufficient, because the observers were unable to identify Mars. Can you name a celestial body which can be plausibly misidentified as Mars?
- You have claimed that Kepler’s prediction of position of Mars was insufficient, and a Mercury/Venus transit was needed to verify his model. Can you explain why exactly is that?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Doesn’t matter who started the thread, Inocente seems fixated on the " sins of the Catholic Church, " which is a dillusion, a Church cannot sin, it is the individuals in a Church which sin. So why is it that the world has always been fixated on the sins of Catholics, why is it that only Catholics ( and possibley Jews ) who are expected to apologize for the sordid events of history? Don’t Protestants, Baptists, Atheists ever sin? Why doesn’t the world " demand " and apology from them? You see it is all a double standard.
BTW, who did I accuse of lying?
I have never defended the Galileo affair. You can’t find anything I said which defends the affair. I have said it has been blown out of proportion, misinterpreted, and has been unfairly used as a stick to poke in the Church’s eye, solely to hurt the Church. And to no good effect. What earthly good can it possibly do? It certainly does not prove that the rest of the world is any better than Catholics, for that simply is not true. Even today the Catholic Church is without equal in its world wide acts of charity. And this has been historically true, it is not a recent phenomenon. Show me the world wide works of charity of the atheists? Show me the good they bestow on the world? Show me their missionaries? Show me their good works? Show me their unwed mother’s shelters? Show me the atheists who defend human life from conception to natural death? Show me the atheists who are paragons of sexual morality or even speak as though they cared two cents for sexual morality? Show me any one institution anywhere, any other Church anywhere who does all this things besides the Catholic Church? Yes, to destroy the Catholic Church would be a great boon - to the devil, just look at those countries who have nearly managed to do it. Are they not a kind of hell on earth?
Linus2nd
Stephen168
New member
You can’t universally defend it anymore than it can be universally condemned. But you can defend the five myths in the OP as myths. Those who are bent on condemning the Church have to find something wrong but they would never admit where the Church is right or where Galileo was wrong.
W
weller2
Guest
In case you missed it:
- Can a statement be both true and heretical?
- You have claimed that Kepler’s prediction of position of Mars was insufficient, because the observers were unable to identify Mars. Can you name a celestial body which can be plausibly misidentified as Mars?
- You have claimed that Kepler’s prediction of position of Mars was insufficient, and a Mercury/Venus transit was needed to verify his model. Can you explain why exactly is that?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Of course it matters. SInce you started the thread, if anyone is “fixated on the sins of the Catholic Church” it is you. But in your case, to present a revisionist version of history in which the Church never did anything wrong.
Inocente (and I) only react to the thread you set before us.
Interesting claim. So the Pope, the Cardinals, the Inquisition all persecuted Galileo, yet this was not the action of “the Church”? We’ll get back to this later.
They do. And they apologise. For example, the BBC apologised for the Jimmy Saville scandal.
What they do not then do (on the whole) is turn around and ruin the effect of the apology by claiming that actually they did nothing wrong and it is all down to others lying about them.
For example, in your OP:
Despite sneering that
you never backed up or retracted this assertion. Likewise you have accused Inocente of making ‘false assertions’ - before finally admitting that at least one of those accusations was baseless.
Again, your entire OP is a defense of the affair - again and again in this thread you have tried to argue that Galileo had not proven his case, and that this somehow justified the Church’s behaviour. To quote you again:
The most ‘egostistical’ thing Galileo did was try to express his genuinely held beliefs. What you try to pass off as mere vanity on the part of the Pope was the grotesquely immoral act of dragging a sick old man, his friend, across Italy in the middle of winter to threaten him with torture and death, force him to renounce his beliefs and affirm one that he held correctly to be false and then imprison him under house arrest for the rest of his life, censor his book and forbid anyone in the western world from even holding the belief that we now know to be true.
It is precisely because you do not see that this is defending a grotesquely immoral act that the Galileo affair remains relevant today.
Interesting. Contrast to the statement above that the Church cannot sin because “it is the individuals in a Church which sin”: why does “the Church” get the credit for any charitable act carried out by Catholics, but no blame for acts carried out by the Pope, the Cardinals and the Inquisition?
Typical anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists have, literally, nothing in common. All we have in common is a lack of a certain belief. So why would we do the Catholic thing of helping people but making darn certain that they know that this is an atheist helping them? We just help them, without making a song and dance about our personal religious beliefs. Many of those working even for ‘Catholic’ charities are atheist, let alone the many many secular charities such as Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Do you think that demanding recognition for your help makes you more virtuous than those who just help without demanding anything in return?
Most other churches, most western Governments, WHO, and so on. Get over yourself.
If I wanted to destroy the Catholic Church, I would be cheering you on. Nothing looks as bad as ‘apologising’ and then explaining that the whole thing was your victim’s fault.
Nor is it an ‘attack’ on the Church to point out that it is humanly fallible, has failed, and should admit that fact.
And the most atheist western countries are not only not “a kind of hell on earth” (show respect for other peoples’ countries, please) but have some of the highest qualities of life and societal health measures on the planet. It is religious countries who score poorly there.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Nonsense. I have no trouble admitting that Galileo was wrong about circular orbits or the tides, and have done so in this thread.
You on the other hand are still denying many facts such as the fact that the Church required Galileo (and everyone else under their thumb) to renounce heliocentrism and espouse the false doctrine of geocentrism.
From the ‘confession’ Galileo was forced to sign, under threat of torture:
Stephen168
New member
I’m not sure why you quoted me in light of your post because they don’t seem to be related.
As I tried to shown post #288, it seems like I’m having to to repeat myself. I’m not really interesting in that or tangents from the subject of the OP; the five myths of the Galileo Affair.
You never responded to this either. Maybe you missed it…
These don’t look like my claims, maybe you can quote,where I did.
I
inocente
Guest
No, I googled “john paul II apologies” and linked an article listing some of those apologies.
I did so because I’m being fed an excuse, that because JPII wasn’t wearing the right cap or didn’t use the right rubber stamp, his apology on Galileo was just him and nothing to do with the Church.
But that would mean that all of JPII’s other apologies would be just him saying sorry and not the Church, and that would make a big difference to many affected people. So I listed just some of the apologies he made to show that this is about more than one case.
And for accepting JPII’s word and for accepting that apologies made by Popes are made by the Church, I’m accused of bad-mouthing the Church and called self-righteous.
JPII’s concern was to right wrongs wherever possible and bring light into the Church, while yours seems to be to invent excuses and hide away the past in whitewashed sepulchers.
Still, go on calling me names, it seems that in your book whatever makes you feel good must be good.
“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.” - Pope John Paul II
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." - Matt 23
I
inocente
Guest
Que? The phrase means taking a verse or short quote out of its original context to support whatever the quoter has in mind, with no respect for the author’s intent. I got the phrase from Catholics on CAF.Ah, but that would be just another form of “verse mining,” wouldn’t it?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
A typical biased response. Continual denials do not amount to truth. Of course you disagree, that is expected. Nothing of substance here.Of course it matters. SInce you started the thread, if anyone is “fixated on the sins of the Catholic Church” it is you. But in your case, to present a revisionist version of history in which the Church never did anything wrong.
Inocente (and I) only react to the thread you set before us.
Interesting claim. So the Pope, the Cardinals, the Inquisition all persecuted Galileo, yet this was not the action of “the Church”? We’ll get back to this later.
They do. And they apologise. For example, the BBC apologised for the Jimmy Saville scandal.
What they do not then do (on the whole) is turn around and ruin the effect of the apology by claiming that actually they did nothing wrong and it is all down to others lying about them.
For example, in your OP:
Despite sneering that
you never backed up or retracted this assertion. Likewise you have accused Inocente of making ‘false assertions’ - before finally admitting that at least one of those accusations was baseless.
Again, your entire OP is a defense of the affair - again and again in this thread you have tried to argue that Galileo had not proven his case, and that this somehow justified the Church’s behaviour. To quote you again:
The most ‘egostistical’ thing Galileo did was try to express his genuinely held beliefs. What you try to pass off as mere vanity on the part of the Pope was the grotesquely immoral act of dragging a sick old man, his friend, across Italy in the middle of winter to threaten him with torture and death, force him to renounce his beliefs and affirm one that he held correctly to be false and then imprison him under house arrest for the rest of his life, censor his book and forbid anyone in the western world from even holding the belief that we now know to be true.
It is precisely because you do not see that this is defending a grotesquely immoral act that the Galileo affair remains relevant today.
Interesting. Contrast to the statement above that the Church cannot sin because “it is the individuals in a Church which sin”: why does “the Church” get the credit for any charitable act carried out by Catholics, but no blame for acts carried out by the Pope, the Cardinals and the Inquisition?
Typical anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists have, literally, nothing in common. All we have in common is a lack of a certain belief. So why would we do the Catholic thing of helping people but making darn certain that they know that this is an atheist helping them? We just help them, without making a song and dance about our personal religious beliefs. Many of those working even for ‘Catholic’ charities are atheist, let alone the many many secular charities such as Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Do you think that demanding recognition for your help makes you more virtuous than those who just help without demanding anything in return?
Most other churches, most western Governments, WHO, and so on. Get over yourself.
If I wanted to destroy the Catholic Church, I would be cheering you on. Nothing looks as bad as ‘apologising’ and then explaining that the whole thing was your victim’s fault.
Nor is it an ‘attack’ on the Church to point out that it is humanly fallible, has failed, and should admit that fact.
And the most atheist western countries are not only not “a kind of hell on earth” (show respect for other peoples’ countries, please) but have some of the highest qualities of life and societal health measures on the planet. It is religious countries who score poorly there.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t remember calling you names? However you seem to be doing so.
I never said that all apologies are misplaced. I only mentioned the on for Galileo affair. And one cannot logically blame the entire body of the Church in any period of history for the excesses and deficiencies of individual men and women.
Linus2nd
I
inocente
Guest
You might as well claim that a nation can’t sin and so America bears no responsibility for the No Gun Ri and My Lai massacres. The world rightly sees such attempts to shirk responsibility as duplicitous nonsense.
Only God is perfect, and very obviously any institution will make a lot of mistakes over a 2000 year time span. That’s not fixation, that’s just common sense.
The belief that there’s a worldwide conspiracy against the Church overlooks the patently obvious - how many other long-lasting religions are centrally organized into a hierarchy with a center of power where the buck stops?
Loyalty is commendable but can easily be overdone. Look at the recent priest scandal. Those who refused to acknowledge it or spent all their energy trying to deflect blame or brush it under the carpet, not only did nothing for the victims but allowed it to continue and get worse. It takes a real leader, such as JPII, to have the courage to do what is right.
A large institution such as the Church cannot avoid making mistakes. The test is whether it can acknowledge them, ask for forgiveness, right the wrongs and move on, not whether it can slide around like a jellyfish inventing excuses and blaming the rest of the world.
Galileo wasn’t put on trial for raping and pillaging, or for shop-lifting, or even for forgetting his sainted mother’s birthday. He was put on trial because the Church at that time confused a bronze age text with empirical knowledge, and it attempted to impose that on the world.
And the world and the Church remember, as well they should.
I
inocente
Guest
I remembered the following quote on another thread, and repeat it here as the thoughts of another recent Pope on the Galileo affair:
*One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …
I believe that this view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall*
*One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. …
I believe that this view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall*
Stephen168
New member
The world and the Church remember many myths about the trial including the ones listed in the OP:
- “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
Actually, he did not. - “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo’s staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists. - “The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally.”
The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally - “Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake.”
In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome. - Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.
Stephen168
New member
D
DrTaffy
Guest
And yet in the Galileo affair, the Church very clearly and explicitly used a literal interpretation of the Bible to conclude that heliocentrism was false. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “lalala I can’t hear you” will not change this fact, and merely illustrates how some Catholics still do not understand what St Augustine clearly warned you against.
- Status