Glad you are open to the idea. Try looking into the research done on the Shroud of Turin (I like the pollen on it that only occurs within a 50-mile radius of Jerusalem) and Bethlehem’s Star (Jupiter). You may find enough evidence to convince you that Jesus is “highly likely” to be sent by the Creator. Once you accept that, realize that if the Creator put someone on earth to teach, that it would be foolish to send a liar. Follow it long enough and you’ll make it back to the Catholic Church (which BTW developed the scientific method and laws of evidence). We’ll be waiting for you with open arms to welcome you home.
I check out the History Channel too. I think that my post made it pretty clear that I’m open to the idea that Christ’s appearance on earth was one of many attempts to teach the turkeys from within the flock. Difficult work, and the outcome suffered by Jesus Christ was inevitable, irrespective of prophecy. It’s what happens when someone who knows a lot tries to teach nitwits who are certain that the little they know represents everything that there is to know.
A few centuries after Christ’s appearance, the Church held a council and codified its beliefs, for political reasons. The men who did that probably made a choice which was correct in the context of history, for they prolonged the Church’s survival. In that respect, they were merely behaving like the bosses of any organization. But in doing so they changed the purpose of the Church, which moved from finding and teaching truth, to declaring truth and perpetuating its own existence.
I suspect that history will see these as correct choices, for they had a powerful long term effect upon the development of human civilizations and individuals. The Church ruled with an iron fist, when an iron fist was needed.
My opinion is that the Church had a critical decision to make when confronted with Copernican theory and Galileo’s discovery of the scientific method, and that it made the wrong choice. But my sense of “wrong” is limited to a logical and scientific perspective. In a wider sense, right and wrong might also be determined by long term cultural and political circumstances.
Curiously, the choice made by the Church seems to be the result of a personal relationship rather than a general consensus.
This suggests to me that this particular choice, coming from the conflict between Galileo and his childhood friend, which occurred entirely as the result of Galileo’s personal choices, was intended, planned, and important.
This is something I’ve realized in the course of this and other conversations on CAF, so thank you all for the opportunity to converse and challenge ideas. I’d not expected to challenge my own opinions, but it’s not the first time. I’ll think about this and come back if I figure out exactly why, when faced with the opportunity to integrate its ideas with science or divorce itself from science irrevocably, the Church chose, or was induced to choose, divorce.
Thank you for bringing up an interesting issue.
Incidentally, your notion that the Church is responsible for the scientific method is absurd. The Church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for thinking, and threatened the man who is the father of the scientific method, Galileo, with torture and death, thus inducing him to recant the writings which, once smuggled out of the Church’s domain, fueled the development of science.
While my connections to the Church and to some of its fundamental ideas, such as the existence of a Creator, are probably irrevocable for the course of this ugly lifetime, do not invite me to rejoin any organization whose believers rewrite history. Even simpler, do not invite me to join any organization, directly or implicitly. I’ve yet to find one that wasn’t run by nitwits whose agenda was to reinforce their beliefs.
You dishonor your own intelligence, however limited, by making absurd statements. Read real books written by objective people. (Same advice I’ve given to Darwinists and atheists in general.) I’m really tired of “believers,” of all stripes and colors.
The Church did not embrace me with open arms when I was a member thereof, and accepted its teachings. My parents had insufficient money to interest the local priesthood, and zero political clout. I don’t see you as a credible spokesman for Vatican interests.
Whenever I’ve stepped into open arms, I’ve ended up with a kick to the groin and a hammerlock lasting long enough to empty my pockets. Don’t take my refusal of your invitation too personally.
