Part 10 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

So who is or what is this similar ancestor? Why Ape not Man as the similar ancestor?

No sugar coating is needed only truth and real history.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.



Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

Anti Catholics always love to use the Galileo issue as a their tool to distort and attack the Catholic church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_reassessments_of_Galileo_in_later_centuries
The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.[138] In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorised the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works[139] which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.[140] In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained.[141] All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.[142]
In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments".[143] His close advisor of 40 years, Professor Robert Leiber, wrote: "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors (to science) prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo."

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome,[145] Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today".[146] Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."[146] The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views."

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[147][148] In March 2008 the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo, announced a plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[149] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.[150] A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.

Atheist and anti Catholics are now attempting to hijack Galileo and portrayed him as an anti Catholic figure which he never was and the church recognize devoutness of Galileo to Christ.

 

Not so simple. Some history is in order first.

The Israelites prior to Moses worshiped El, his consort Asherah, and Baal was one of El's sons. El was also the God that Abram's father Terah worshiped. El (Often referred to as Bull-El) was who the Israelites were reverting to.

Now while these people had previously worshiped El/Asherah/Baal ... These people had seen a real God work miracles with their own eyes. Look how devout folks are to religious beliefs these days and none has seen any real proof.

These people did. They saw real proof with their own eyes. It is a bit of a stretch, in fact way more than a stretch, in fact "unbelievable" to think that after one month these people would revert back to El. You are totally minimizing the impact of seeing God work miracles with ones own eyes.

It was not just the people though ... It was Aaron as well, Moses's own brother. Obviously Aaron was not that impressed. Obviously the miracles did not happen as written.

This is not where the story ends however. Moses, Gods chosen returns. One who everyone knows as a literal fact is Gods chosen due to the various miracles.

Now we are expected to believe something even more ridiculous. Moses lets the people know he is upset and says "are you with me/God or against me"

Now who in their right mind after seeing the miracles with our own eyes would go against Gods Chosen. It is not just one or two who we could perhaps write off as lunatics. It is at least 3000.

This is utter nonsense to think that 3000 would go against Gods Chosen . Moses then has these people killed.

So what was the real story ? The real story is that Moses was a shrewd military leader and when the some of his troops rebelled he ruthlessly put down the rebellion as shrewd military leaders do. You were either with Moses or against him. Later when the story was edited all the other fluff was added.

We will never know the real story but one interesting hypothesis is that after Akhenaten ( Pharaoh who promoted monotheism) his cult members had to flee.

Moses was likely the leader of this cult. Later stories such as the story of Sargon (united the city states of Sumeria into the words first empire 2400-2300BC) who was plucked out of the river as a baby floating in a reed basket, were attributed to Moses.

Sargon was thought to have a patron God who visited and favored him and helped to rise in power .. so goes the story of Moses
Sargon became leader of a great Nation ... so goes the story of Moses.

We will likely never know exactly what happened but what we know "didn't" happen was the miracle stuff.

It is not anywhere near the realm of the believable to think that 3000 people, after seeing the miracles with their own eyes, would go against Moses.

 

The Church spent over 1000 years destroying not just science almost all knowledge including literacy as thinking for oneself was thought to be a threat to the Church. It was illegal for anyone other than a priest to read a Bible.

Stop with the nonsense. The reason Galileo was persecuted is because he had an idea that was contrary to what the Church was preaching.

That it took the Church until the mid to late 1900's to actually admit to what science had known to be true for over 200 years is testament to how anti science the church was.

 

Well yes, to the living as they see you, you will indeed be dead to them.

But will you be really dead to yourself? Let me go on to explain.

Some believe when we die, we go into a deep sleep. Eventually we are going to be awakened from our deep sleep by God. It might be thousands of years from now or whenever the time God is ready to awaken us.

So because we are in this deep sleep with no awareness or consciousness, when God finally awakens us, it is going to appear to us as though we never had died at all, even though perhaps thousands of years had elapsed.

So yes, you will indeed be dead to the living who see your dead corpse but will you be really dead?

Oh and lastly let me say, for those who are saved, when God awakens them, they will be sent to heaven. For those who are not saved, they will stand before God in Judgment. Then after their Judgment, God will send them off to hell for punishment of their sins.

 

You won't find a single valid history book out there that supports this outrageous claim. Nor would it even be possible to prove that a single organization destroyed knowledge on such a massive scale for that long. If what you said is correct, then there would be a 1,000 year gap of history. Which also means the so called "dark ages" weren't as dark as previously thought. It wasn't illegal for people to read the bible. Most of them simply couldn't read. Even in ancient Rome, the literacy rate was scacely above 10%.

Aristarchus, an Ionian Greek, long before Capernicus, and even before Ptolemy had proven the heliocentric theory. IMO, accepting Ptolemy's theory seemed more natural since the sun does apear to revolve around the earth.

 

Bringing up bad sinful behavior doesn't diminish/discredit the religion. Let me once again point out that we are all sinners and that the destructive power of sin can even infiltrate the church.

The current church leaders are working very hard to rid of this evil from within. And yes they were indeed wrong in the past to hide such awful sinful criminal conduct.

I'm not making excuses for them but they were very ashamed to admit it in the past, that is something understandable but still by no means is it acceptable.

Human beings by nature are not perfect beings, we are indeed flawed. We can only hope that we will learn from our mistakes.

Only God can be referred to as being "The Perfect Being"!

 

See, this is the typical non-sense that you do. You read someone's post then you twist it into something the poster is not saying, which is how you misinterpret the other poster.

WanRen made no such declaration that he, "live by fear and have faith"

Sorry but I don't see him making that statement.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about and little knowledge of history and nor do you give any support for your claims.

In ancient Rome it was shameful for a free person to be illiterate. In order to vote you needed to be literate. Literacy was looked upon as a means of upward mobility and anyone who wanted to have anything remotely to do with politics needed to know both Latin and Greek.

http://thriceholy.net/literacy.html

Freemen in both Greece and Rome were generally literate.

By the time the Christianity finished its war on knowledge many of even the highest ranks in society were illiterate. Some preachers could not even read the Bible.

There are sections of websites devoted to examples of how the Church destroyed knowledge. After the first 500 or 600 years of destruction it was not necessary to do much more because people had been dumbed down to such a low point and folks knew that having an original idea could mean a particularly horrible death by torture.

"Not a single history Book" ? Hilarious. The history books are rife with examples of Christian intolerance and knowledge destruction throughout the ages.

How many examples would you like ?

 

Politics? You mean elite? Yes, only the elite could read and write.

The idea of mass education is something that did not exist until the modern age. They simply lacked the technology(printing presses). http://researchist.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/reading-in-ancient-rome/

The problem with comparing literacy between Ancient Rome and Medevil Europe is that they're not the same thing. The numbers are likely going to drop since you are combining the population of a fallen Roman Empire with uneducated barbarians. It's an unfare comparison imo.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet or stupid Monty Python skits. History Books trump websites in most cases.

I would need tons of examples to prove 1000 straight years of destroying knowledge. I didn't say a single history book, but a single valid history book. Do real history books record any Christian intolerance? Sure! But is there anything which happened on the level you suggest? Of course not! In fact, the Church actually helped preserve knowledge in many cases. Come to think of it, you haven't come up with anything to back up your claims of 1000 years of doom and gloom and yet are demanding I do the same. Double standard anyone?

 

The church sacrifice itself for 1000 years in promoting the One True God that led to the expansion of modern science as God would want man to do not engage in witch craft, sorcery, voodooism or devil worship thanks to the church literacy rate in Western Europe and church control regions increased that led to the advancement of modern civilization and modern science and medicine. Anyone is welcome to read the Bible only the priest have the authority to interpret the Bible and the priest is answerable to Vatican and the Vatican to God.

I can understand your blind refusal to accept the true story of Galileo but the facts and history will remain the same Galileo was a victim of his own arrogance against his secular rivals and the church step in to protect his works and saved from being persecuted by his secular rivals.A devoted Catholic was Galileo the father of modern science that would led to the evolution of atheism.

I have no problem with your nonsense but the truth must be known and the public must be educated.

It took about 200 years because Galileo could be wrong too and partly he was wrong and the church is always careful to protect truth just like the church still have not received any substantial scientific proof that man evolved from apes and for that the church can not support that theory that IMO is a science fiction theory and a clear example of the Galileo situation.

because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

The church did the right thing in holding back until such time that solid evidence is available and 200 years later that evidence became available.

 

I believe we all have, which has to include non-believers. Which brings me to this question for you. Since you believe God doesn't exist, why do you ask questions concerning Him, why do you think about Him? When you are alone with your thoughts and God comes into your thoughts what are those thoughts?

Are you comfortable in what you believe? I can honestly tell you that things I don't believe in I don't ask questions about them, and I hardly ever think about them unless someone brings it up and so they are not really in my thoughts that much.

IMHO it has to be agonizing for you non-believers in God, in that you don't believe He exists and yet He is constantly in your thoughts on a daily basis.

The members who come here to this forum daily can't tell me they don't think about Him daily...that would be a lie...right?...lol

 

Well that's your choice...IMHO not a good/wise choice but that is your free will decision.

 

3000 out of a supposed 2,000,000, isn't that much of a stretch. Actually a pretty low number.

 

2 Tim. 2v15 KJV 'Study to show yourselves approved unto God.........'
Greek. Interlinear NT ' Be eager yourself approved to present to God, a worker unashamed, Cutting straight (or rightly dividing) the word of truth'
(Be eager to present to God yourself, approved, a worker unashamed, rightly dividing/cutting straight, the word of truth).

Bible study is very important, but 2 Timothy 2:15 is not just a command to study the Bible. Being an approved workman involves much more. Paul wanted Timothy to understand that to be a workman that God could approve, he would have to be diligent in his service to God. God is not the kind of Master that accepts shoddy work! By earnestly applying himself in service, Timothy would not need to be ashamed as he stood before God in the day of judgment. To be that diligent, approved workman, he would have to correctly handle the word of truth, what the King James Version renders, rightly dividing the word of truth. Of necessity, correctly handling the Bible, the word of truth will involve much study, contemplation, and prayer.

This is your downfall. You believe everything the Church tells you, whether it is proved to you right or wrong by others. This is the way the church maintained control down the ages. That's how the church got away with this:-

The Borgias are the most infamous family of Renaissance Italy, and their history normally hinges around four key individuals: Pope Calixtus III, his nephew Pope Alexander IV, his son Cesare and daughter Lucrezia. Thanks to the actions of the middle pair, the family name is associated with greed, power, lust and murder.

The Papacy you so much revere has been filled with men of all sorts of depravity. Some were 'deposed', even murdered, by disgusted Catholics for their vile behaviour. Divine succession?

Think for yourself if you're able.

 

Yeah, you know I agree, I mean I wouldn't believe in a book written by men to control other men, that's why I believe in the Holy Bible, after all it is the Word of God.

 

Sorry to hear you were traumatized by your Catholic priest at a very young age. And so I can understand your feelings, no wonder you are the way you are. You have resentment now, no wonder the hostility in much of your posts. It's all vividly clear now. I just don't know what else to say to you.

 

Exactly!...well said WR!

 

So the Church put Galileo on trial for heresy to "protect his works and save him from being persecuted"?

Wow.....at that point of apologia, it seems you could claim the Salem witch trials were to "save those women from coming down with VD from copulating with Satan" and that the Jews in the Spanish Inquisition were forced to convert to Christianity to "save them from the Holocaust 400 years later"

 

And the only way to be saved is to "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior" while you are alive, right? That's the ONLY way?

 

What do you want me to do? Have debates all day long? I have thousands of questions to answer and I really can't be bogged down too long with back and forth exchanges.

I see a question that is coherent enough for me to answer and I answer it, sometimes I do have a few exchanges but for the most part I need to move on.

So sorry if you don't like the arrangements, sometimes you just got to suck it up!

 

Yes while you are alive, repent your sins, ask for forgiveness of your sins, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord Savior. Now let me remind you that this doesn't mean you now have a license to go on a sinning spree.

Through time a person who is very sincere in wanting to be saved, they will eventually get rid of their sinful past entirely and so it won't be unusual for this person to sin from time to time but again eventually your sinful ways will be gone.

 

So what happens to the person who lived and died before ever hearing of Jesus?

They go to Hell?

 

Care to give an example? What original conclusions have you reached about your god?

I don't think about God, I think about religion. There's a difference.

If someone supports an economic policy that I don't agree with and I worry is a harm to the country, I'll ask them questions about it as a way of highlighting its flaws in the hope of convincing them or someone who may be observing of the error of their ways. This is no different.

 

Your authority for saying that?

 

Not necessarily, it depends on God's judgment on them and so some will be saved others not. But as far as people who lived prior to Jesus, God pardoned all those people and none of them will be condemned to hell according to Scripture.