Harvard Study: Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger In The US.

[seer]

I just make sure not to wander too close to the edge of the earth.

You would have stoned Copernicus!

[One Bad Pig]

You would have stoned Copernicus!

The medieval church didn't really have a problem with Copernicus. Galileo's problem was not that he advanced a different theory, but that he insisted it was truth.

[Cow Poke]

You would have stoned Copernicus!

You mean the Horn of Copernicus, like THIS?

Thanksgiving-cornucopia_1.jpg

[Cerebrum123]

The medieval church didn't really have a problem with Copernicus. Galileo's problem was not that he advanced a different theory, but that he insisted it was truth.

Him being an arrogant jerk and putting the words of the Pope into the mouth of the character names Simplicio didn't help either. He made a lot of enemies, and they would use any ammo against him that they had.

[JimL]

And when something is attested as a fact of history by multiple credible witnesses then only a fool would deny it. See Simon Greenleaf's "The Testimony of the Evangelists".

There are no credible witnesses, there are only the story tellers, the gospel authors, who even scholars of the bible say that they copied from each other some 40 or 50 years after the so called facts. The only people/characters in the stories, who were said to be with Jesus when doing his miracles, like his walking on water, didn't write those passages, and they weren't written for decades later. So, there are no multiple credible witnesses. There are authors of stories, stories like walking on water, stopping the wind, feeding 5000 with 2 fish, casting demons into a herd of pigs. Incredible stories, written by non-credible authors, without any credible witnesses.

[Teallaura]

There are no credible witnesses, there are only the story tellers, the gospel authors, who even scholars of the bible say that they copied from each other some 40 or 50 years after the so called facts. The only people/characters in the stories, who were said to be with Jesus when doing his miracles, like his walking on water, didn't write those passages, and they weren't written for decades later. So, there are no multiple credible witnesses. There are authors of stories, stories like walking on water, stopping the wind, feeding 5000 with 2 fish, casting demons into a herd of pigs. Incredible stories, written by non-credible authors, without any credible witnesses.

There were credible witnesses - you are committing the a priori fallacy here. Also, the account is NOT what determines credibility - the witness' character, circumstances at the time, motivation and other factors determine credibility - not your incredulity.

The Gospels do not read as mere myth or stories - they read as re-countings of events. Again, your incredulity isn't sufficient analysis. Compared to real stories of the time, the Gospels have way too many odd elements (mentions of real, accessible locales, and of living persons). Myths are never set in a accessible time - and few are set in contemporary locales (or accessible ones - let's see you climb Olympus using contemporary equipment).

The Gospels hold up under modern evidentiary procedure - myths and stories simply don't. Some ancient histories won't, either.

[rogue06]

The medieval church didn't really have a problem with Copernicus. Galileo's problem was not that he advanced a different theory, but that he insisted it was truth.

He actually had a great deal of support in the RCC -- and a great deal of opposition. Interestingly there was very little support to be found among Protestants of his time.

[Tassman]

There were credible witnesses - you are committing the a priori fallacy here. Also, the account is NOT what determines credibility - the witness' character, circumstances at the time, motivation and other factors determine credibility - not your incredulity.

The Gospels do not read as mere myth or stories - they read as re-countings of events. Again, your incredulity isn't sufficient analysis. Compared to real stories of the time, the Gospels have way too many odd elements (mentions of real, accessible locales, and of living persons). Myths are never set in a accessible time - and few are set in contemporary locales (or accessible ones - let's see you climb Olympus using contemporary equipment).

The Gospels hold up under modern evidentiary procedure - myths and stories simply don't. Some ancient histories won't, either.

No they don't. The gospels don't "hold up under modern evidentiary procedure". There are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story in the gospels. No historians of the first century mention the alleged dramatic events n the gospels...e.g. the resurrection, triumphant entry, the saints rising from their graves, the nature miracles etc...despite there being many contemporary writers who wrote about Jewish events. There are no known Roman records that mention Jesus. All of the gospels are anonymous and believed to be based upon oral tradition, i.e. second or third hand hearsay, probably highly embellished. And none of the gospels are written in the first person;

[JimL]

There were credible witnesses - you are committing the a priori fallacy here. Also, the account is NOT what determines credibility - the witness' character, circumstances at the time, motivation and other factors determine credibility - not your incredulity.

Name the credible eyewitnesses.

The Gospels do not read as mere myth or stories - they read as re-countings of events.

No, they read the way the reader reads them.

Again, your incredulity isn't sufficient analysis.

It isn't simple incredulity, it is incredulity based on the lack of any credible evidence to the contrary. Oral traditions that mirror the more ancient myths put into book form decades after the supposed events occured by unknown authors is not credible evidence of the fact of those events and should not be believed by rationally thinking human beings any more than you would believe someone relating such similar claims today.

Compared to real stories of the time, the Gospels have way too many odd elements (mentions of real, accessible locales, and of living persons). Myths are never set in a accessible time - and few are set in contemporary locales (or accessible ones - let's see you climb Olympus using contemporary equipment).

That was the whole point of the gospels Tea, to turn the myth into a reality. Borrowing from the myths was akin to the way the N.T. authors used the O.T. in order to create their new religion.

The Gospels hold up under modern evidentiary procedure - myths and stories simply don't. Some ancient histories won't, either.

No, actually the gospels as historical facts in and of themselves don't hold up at all. There is a history, and the gospel myths are woven into that history, but the details of the gospels themselves are no more held up by evidentiary evidence than are the assertions of a Donald Trump today.

[Cow Poke]

No, they read the way the reader reads them.

That's actually an interesting statement, Jim!

[Mountain Man]

The medieval church didn't really have a problem with Copernicus. Galileo's problem was not that he advanced a different theory, but that he insisted it was truth.

It was a little more complicated than that. Galileo advanced a hypothesis that was contrary to all available evidence at the time and was widely rejected by his own peers in the scientific community, so he tried to gain leverage by taking it to the Church as a doctrinal issue, and while the Church was sympathetic, they told him that it was a scientific rather than a theological question. The Pope at the time even encouraged Galileo to write a book on the matter and offered some of his own arguments in support which Galileo mockingly put into the mouth of a character named Simplicio. That and the fact that Galileo was an egotistical jerk who insisted the only reason he couldn't satisfactorily prove his hypothesis was because everybody else was too stupid to understand his arguments didn't earn him many defenders.

[One Bad Pig]

It was a little more complicated than that. Galileo advanced a hypothesis that was contrary to all available evidence at the time

Not really. It was merely difficult to tell from the available evidence.

and was widely rejected by his own peers in the scientific community, so he tried to gain leverage by taking it to the Church as a doctrinal issue, and while the Church was sympathetic, they told him that it was a scientific rather than a theological question. The Pope at the time even encouraged Galileo to write a book on the matter and offered some of his own arguments in support which Galileo mockingly put into the mouth of a character named Simplicio. That and the fact that Galileo was an egotistical jerk who insisted the only reason he couldn't satisfactorily prove his hypothesis was because everybody else was too stupid to understand his arguments didn't earn him many defenders.

Try reading Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry by Owen Barfield. The issue wasn't his new hypothesis per se, in that it saved the appearances just as well as the Ptolomaic hypothesis then in vogue, but that he insisted it wasn't merely the appearance, but truth (that he was a real jerk in the process didn't help). Scientific proof wasn't something people worried about overmuch at the time.

[rogue06]

It was a little more complicated than that. Galileo advanced a hypothesis that was contrary to all available evidence at the time and was widely rejected by his own peers in the scientific community, so he tried to gain leverage by taking it to the Church as a doctrinal issue, and while the Church was sympathetic, they told him that it was a scientific rather than a theological question. The Pope at the time even encouraged Galileo to write a book on the matter and offered some of his own arguments in support which Galileo mockingly put into the mouth of a character named Simplicio. That and the fact that Galileo was an egotistical jerk who insisted the only reason he couldn't satisfactorily prove his hypothesis was because everybody else was too stupid to understand his arguments didn't earn him many defenders.

Not so radical as that. He was building off Copernicus' work and actually had a good deal of support among the astronomers in the RCC at the time. But you're right in that how he handled it and insisted how the Church regarded it allowed his opponents to gain free reign in dealing with him.

[Teallaura]

Name the credible eyewitnesses.

John, Peter, Mary, et al - your incredulity is not impeachment.

No, they read the way the reader reads them.

Then why are you bothering to argue? Just admit you do not understand how to read history, myth or literature sufficiently well enough to distinguish them without the help of a librarian.

It isn't simple incredulity, it is incredulity based on the lack of any credible evidence to the contrary. Oral traditions that mirror the more ancient myths put into book form decades after the supposed events occured by unknown authors is not credible evidence of the fact of those events and should not be believed by rationally thinking human beings any more than you would believe someone relating such similar claims today.

It is simple incredulity - you have no genuine basis for discrediting any of the witnesses - 'I don't believe it' is not a genuine basis. Or legitimate. Or rational.

That was the whole point of the gospels Tea, to turn the myth into a reality. Borrowing from the myths was akin to the way the N.T. authors used the O.T. in order to create their new religion.

An assertion with zero evidence is just an assertion - you can't impeach the witnesses appropriately; you can't distinguish myth from history; and that gives me perfect grounds for discrediting you as an expert witness - which makes this all baseless assertion.

I'll remind you now that you began this argument with your assertions - the burden is still on you.

No, actually the gospels as historical facts in and of themselves don't hold up at all. There is a history, and the gospel myths are woven into that history, but the details of the gospels themselves are no more held up by evidentiary evidence than are the assertions of a Donald Trump today.

Nonsense - the Gospels not only hold up, but time and again they have been proven correct when historians thought they were in error.

Incredulity and a poor interpretation of literary forms do not help you case.

[Rushing Jaws]

Interesting!

“One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God.”

Maybe they do, but:

1. What is meant by holding that belief ?
2. From a Christian POV, merely notional belief is worth nothing.
3. Holding that belief is not central to Christianity. The centre of Christianity is not the Bible, but Christ. Reverence for a sacred book or for sacred books is not peculiar to Christianity.
4. To hold that, is perfectly compatible with a “form of religion”, that lacks any transforming power - which is one kind of superstition. Is the belief held, held as anything more than superstition ?
5. What exactly is meant by “The Bible is the actual word of God” ?