Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Everybody accepted to geocentric model you fool, including the men who wrote the bible.
    so? your claim was that it was a religious view. It was a scientific view that as you said everyone believed. same as heliocentricity is today.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      so? your claim was that it was a religious view. It was a scientific view that as you said everyone believed. same as heliocentricity is today.
      Do you seriously mean to imply that religion did not play a role in this?
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        yes. your argument was stupid.
        He was pointing to a fact: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."

        It would be interesting if you could prove him wrong.
        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Charles View Post
          He was pointing to a fact: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."

          It would be interesting if you could prove him wrong.
          it would be interesting if you actually followed the conversation from the beginning instead of jumping in the middle and sticking your nose in with out of context comments.

          let me summarise:

          Tassman said people should not question the scientific consensus on AGW.
          I said that I guess copernicus should not have questioned the scientific consensus of his day: geocentrism.
          Tassman claimed it wasnt a scientific view but a religious view
          I said it was a scientific view started long before Christianity by Greek astronomers
          Shuny said that it was religious because Christians like Martin Luther believed it.
          I said that means that heliocentrism must be a religious view then because Christians believe it today.

          Now you are all caught up. You're welcome.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            it would be interesting if you actually followed the conversation from the beginning instead of jumping in the middle and sticking your nose in with out of context comments.

            let me summarise:

            Tassman said people should not question the scientific consensus on AGW.
            I said that I guess copernicus should not have questioned the scientific consensus of his day: geocentrism.
            Tassman claimed it wasnt a scientific view but a religious view
            I said it was a scientific view started long before Christianity by Greek astronomers
            Shuny said that it was religious because Christians like Martin Luther believed it.
            I said that means that heliocentrism must be a religious view then because Christians believe it today.

            Now you are all caught up. You're welcome.
            I knew all that (apart from your presentation not being too exact) but did not get an answer. Can you prove Shuny wrong when he said: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."?

            What Shunny pointed to was the well known fact that many people held and defended the view based on the testimony of the Church Fathers. He did not claim that the view in itself in all understandings of it would have to be religious but pointed to a fact that you are yet to adress, namely that many people held to this view and defended it because of the testimony of the Church Fathers.
            Last edited by Charles; 09-23-2017, 01:01 PM.
            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              You still haven't read the article, have you?

              "...the Galileo affair was mainly an intra-Catholic and intra-ltalian problem, and not a gigantic battle between Christianity as such and science as such. The Court of Inquisition did not accuse Galileo of teaching against the Bible, but of disobeying a papal decree ... The pope initiated the trial for personal reasons, while the Inquisitors were quite lax. Some of the ten judges seem to have been mainly interested in their own forthcoming, while others applied the brakes. In the end, the final decision lacked three signatures, at least two of them out of protest. The only cardinal who zealously pushed the trial forward was the pope’s brother ... There is little doubt that the decision to instigate proceedings was Urban VIII’s, who felt that Galileo had played a confidence trick on him."
              https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...c-hagiography/

              As much as a simpleton like you wants to believe it, this wasn't a war of science versus religion. On the contrary, "One must not forget that the Copernican hypothesis itself was never denied by the Inquisition, but only that it was not allowed to be presented as a scientifically proven theory or as a truth," which was a perfectly sensible position to take at the time.
              Thats what we would call "fake news" today MM. Answersingenesis is an apologetics site, in other words its a christian spin machine.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Thats what we would call "fake news" today MM. Answersingenesis is an apologetics site, in other words its a christian spin machine.
                This is what we would call summary dismissal without bothering to actually evaluate. You should be aware that essentially all sources spin to some extent. Even highly biased sources, when the bias is noted, can contain useful information.

                I'll not bother waiting for your buddy Starlight to call out your snarky one-liner.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • AGW is not like the belief in heliocentralism though. The point was at some point people thought this was the case, now we know better. AGW isn't really on the same level as we now know it is the case.

                  People discuss the specific amount of AGW and it's effects- but not the fact that it's happening. Same with an old earth- the discussion is maybe regarding how old it is exactly, but not that it's old.

                  The whole thing is a false equivalence, so I don't see the need to discuss what the church fathers thought about it- it's irrelevant.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                    He was pointing to a fact: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."

                    It would be interesting if you could prove him wrong.
                    Let's pretend you didn't notice my calling out Tassman's "fact".
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      This is what we would call summary dismissal without bothering to actually evaluate. You should be aware that essentially all sources spin to some extent. Even highly biased sources, when the bias is noted, can contain useful information.

                      I'll not bother waiting for your buddy Starlight to call out your snarky one-liner.
                      I'm sure there's some interesting titbits in AiG, but it's premise in a young earth is obviously false, and has been shown to be false on multiple occasions. Having to go through an re-disprove them is basically a waste. If AiG and it's ilk can't be discounted on the age of the earth, Noah's ark etc, then I don't know what can.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        Let's pretend you didn't notice my calling out Tassman's "fact".
                        I did read it. I fail to see how it makes the case that Luther did not hold and defend his view based on his reading of the Bible. The fact that the Bible could be read differently does nothing to prove that wrong.
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EvoUK View Post
                          I'm sure there's some interesting titbits in AiG, but it's premise in a young earth is obviously false, and has been shown to be false on multiple occasions. Having to go through an re-disprove them is basically a waste. If AiG and it's ilk can't be discounted on the age of the earth, Noah's ark etc, then I don't know what can.
                          Surely there are significant aspects of an article on Galileo which are not related to the age of the earth.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                            I did read it. I fail to see how it makes the case that Luther did not hold and defend his view based on his reading of the Bible. The fact that the Bible could be read differently does nothing to prove that wrong.
                            Because in the context of Luther's times it would be highly unlikely. Luther was educated in a Catholic university which inevitably taught geocentrism, taught for years in the same system, and only later decided to break with the church and come up with his own interpretations. You think it took 1500 years for someone to notice the verse and its possible application to geocentrism?
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Surely there are significant aspects of an article on Galileo which are not related to the age of the earth.
                              Agreed in this instance, though my interesting titbits may not have been obvious enough. Still think it's a false equivalency for AGW though.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                                Allow me to quote some lines from the Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo:



                                Earlier on it is said in a more simple form:



                                (Emphasis is mine)

                                Read the entire text: http://www.famous-trials.com/galileo...2-condemnation
                                And...? Nothing there contradicts the article at Answers in Genesis.

                                The primary issue was that Galileo was asked to refrain from treating an unproven hypothesis as if it was true. In Galileo's own words, "Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it."

                                Then there's the following illustrating just how personal and politically motivated the charges against Galileo really were:

                                Source: Famous Trials

                                Summoned before Bellarmine on February 25, 1616 and admonished, Galileo--according to a witness, Cardinal Oregius--"remained silent with all his science and thus showed that no less praiseworthy than his mind was his pious disposition." Oregius' account, and Galileo's own writings, indicate that Galileo did not "refuse to obey" the Church's admonition. It is assumed, therefore, that Galileo was not formally enjoined. Yet, surprisingly, in the Inquisition file there appeared the following entry:

                                "At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was...warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter...the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey."

                                Many things about the entry are suspicious. It appears in the Inquisition file where one would expect the actual Bellarmine injunction (if it existed) to appear. Moreover, the entry appears on the same page as the entry for the previous day--and every other report, legal act, and entry in the entire file begins at the top of a new page. It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was "a false injunction": the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo's enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                It continues:

                                Source: Famous Trials

                                In 1623, Galileo received some hopeful news: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini had been elected Pope. Unlike the dull and mean-tempered Pope Paul V, the new Pope Urban VIII held a generally positive view of the arts and science. Writing from Rome, the Pope's private secretary, Secretary of the Briefs Ciampoli, urged Galileo to resume publication of his ideas: "If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions."

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Galileo eventually published his book after some political maneuvering; however:

                                Source: Famous Trials

                                By late summer, Galileo's hopes turned to fears when he learned that orders had come from Rome to suspend publication of his book. On September 5, the full scope of Galileo's problems became clearer when Pope Urban told Francesco Niccolini, who had come to the Vatican to protest the suspension decision, "Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things that he ought not and with the most grave and dangerous subjects that can be stirred up these days." Jesuit enemies of Galileo had convinced the Pope that the Dialogue was nothing but a thinly-veiled brief for the Copernican model. The Pope complained that Galileo and Ciampoli deceived him, assuring him that the book would comply with papal instructions and then circumventing them. The Pope seemed especially embittered by Galileo's decision to put the Pope's own argument concerning the tides into the mouth of the simple-minded Simplico--an attempt, as he saw it, to ridicule him.

                                The Pope swung the machinery of the Church into motion. He appointed a special commission to investigate the Galileo matter. Riccardi, the chief licenser, was severely lectured. Ciampoli was exiled to obscure posts, never to return to Rome.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Then the trial began:

                                Source: Famous Trials

                                Four days later, Galileo officially surrendered to the Holy Office and faced Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, and his assistants. Firenzuola informed Galileo that for the duration of the proceedings against him he would be imprisoned in the Inquisition building. After putting Galileo under oath, the Commissary deposed Galileo concerning meetings he held with Cardinal Bellarmine and other church officials in 1616. Galileo seemed to have trouble remembering who might have been present with Bellarmine on that fateful February day seventeen years earlier, as well as exactly what restrictions--if any--had been placed upon him. Firenzuola told Galileo that he had been commanded to "neither hold, defend, nor teach that [the Copernican] opinion in any way whatsoever." Galileo quibbled with the language--suggesting "I do not remember...the clause "in any way whatsoever"--, but accepted most of what the Commissary said. After a series of questions concerning the licensing of the Dialogue, Galileo signed his deposition in a shaking hand.

                                [...]

                                The trial by the Congregation moved to its conclusion. Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.

                                http://www.famous-trials.com/galileotrial/1014-home

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                So like I've been saying, this wasn't a case of science versus religion but a political exercise by Galileo's enemies. The fact that some of the judges were in favor of the book's continued publication is proof enough of that. The changes they wanted, and which were earlier requested by Urban, were to present the heliocentric hypothesis as more speculative whereas Galileo presented it as a proven theory despite his lack of proofs.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                328 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X