The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct. Generally when I post my opinion or view point in a discussion forum its, as you some what rudely put it, to "set the rest of you straight"

It would be nice if I could do that without the insults and snide remarks.

It would indeed be nice. Why not try dropping the insults and snide remarks?

So if I'm posting in a thread I find interesting and wish to engage in but am being insulted and called smug but a fellow poster, nothing to do with the topic at hand, my course of action is to simply leave the thread?

Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that your participation in the BC&P thread has been one of unblemished innocence where you have never been rude to another poster.

If you find Christian beliefs so smug that you cannot stomach one of us pointing out a deficiency in your posting style then yes, as a poster and as a mod I am advising you that one course of action would be to leave the thread.

Another course of action, of course, would be to interact with Fanny Cradock as you would with any other poster without trying to pretend that his Christian beliefs somehow disqualify him from holding a valid opinion of your posting style.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be nice if I could do that without the insults and snide remarks.

You normally do get to make your point with people resorting to rude remarks. While my remarks were stated forthrightly, I struggle to find a way to dumb it down. I think that you condescended people and I gave two examples you produced concurrently.

Wicknight wrote: »

So if I'm posting in a thread I find interesting and wish to engage in but am being insulted and called smug but a fellow poster, nothing to do with the topic at hand, my course of action is to simply leave the thread?

I didn't call you smug. I said that there was an air of smug superiority evident in your posts. It seems that while you are will to accuse some people of "mental biases" (and you are somehow immune?) you are unwilling to accept any criticism.

Fanny Cradock

I've attempted to clarify my position. But if you are convinced that my words were intended as insults (as opposed to a criticism of the patronising style you sometimes employ), I suggest you report me to the c-mods. Hopefully they don't suffer from "mental bias" like the rest of us theists.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that you condescended people and I gave two examples you produced concurrently.

Why? What does that have to do with the topic or the thread?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I didn't call you smug. I said that there was an air of smug superiority evident in your posts. It seems that while you are will to accuse some people of "mental biases" (and you are somehow immune?) you are unwilling to accept any criticism.

I'm happy with criticism Fanny when the criticism is with regard to my points or posts.

But general your posts are smug comments is neither criticism nor on topic.

Have you read your own charter, particularly point 3 and 6.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Why? What does that have to do with the topic or the thread?

I criticised the conclusions you reached and the manner in how you expressed yourself.

Wicknight wrote: »

Have you read your own charter, particularly point 3 and 6.

Then take it to the C-mods. I retract not a word until my words have been judged to be a personal attack as opposed to a criticism of the posts you made and the way you make them.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I criticised the conclusions you reached and the manner in how you expressed yourself.

I know. Again what does that have to do with the topic?

Think how fun Christianity would be if every second post was someone saying to you "You know what, your posts sound really racist/smug/xenophobic/homophobic, just an observation Fanny, not an insult" etc etc

Not a particular post, but your posts, in general. Yet thats a good precedent to set there Fanny. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then take it to the C-mods. I retract not a word until my words have been judged to be a personal attack as opposed to a criticism of the posts you made and the way you make them.

Already have Fanny, making the same point as above. I guess we will await their opinion.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I know. Again what does that have to do with the topic?

What? The Bible, Creationism and Prophesy? Like many of the post here (including the your own initial post in our confab), not a great deal. I'm not sure why off topic posting on this thread of all has suddenly become an issue.

J C

Lads ... please stop the 'cat fighting'!!!:eek:

... and 'turn the other cheek'!!!!:)

... on a serious note, I find that most Atheists are just as committed to the belief that God doesn't exist ... as Theists are to the belief that He does!!!

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I actually think there is good evidence to suggest that we are all born with an innate sense of intentionality and purpose in the world around us. Check out this talk by Justin Barrett called Born Believers: The Naturalness of Childhood Theism.

... there is a very good reason for this ... Human Beings were created by God to love and live with Him for eternity ... unless we decide not to.
Young children (who haven't yet been dominated by the Materialist/Evolutionist worldview) have a natural affinity with God ... and that is why childhood theism is the natural or default belief state for young children.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While we both would condemn the worst excesses of religion, suggesting that religion is nothing more than a method of subjugating people is fascicle and unhistorical. I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by the "human condition".

... 'the worst excesses of religion' also includes the worst excesses of the Materialistic 'religions'.
.... and BTW although many Christians are members of various religions and none ... Christianity isn't a religion ... it is a Saving Faith in Jesus Christ.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you think that everything starts and stops with nature then there is no explicit responsibility to seek truth or anything else. That is just you concocting purpose in an otherwise purposeless and indifferent universe.

... fair point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have no idea why you are informing me that science is not the Devil's work. I'm sure that even the most hardcore creationist (of which I am not) will turn to science (what I happen to think of as a corruption of it) to make their case.

I have found that many of the leading scientists in their fields are Creation Scientists ... and the real corruption of 'origins' science is the fact that it has now been delimited by the Materialists (with the passive co-operation of many theists) as excluding any supernatural explanations ... even when the only logical and evidentially supported 'origins' explanation is supernatural.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair enough. But then not only are you not talking about the God of Christianity, I'm afraid I don't even know what you mean when you use the word "God".

He is talking about the supposed impersonal 'nature gods' of forces ... but, of course, God is actually a personal God of love and mercy!!!

Fanny Cradock

BTW, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "fascicle". That was supposed to be facile.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While we both would condemn the worst excesses of religion, suggesting that religion is nothing more than a method of subjugating people is fascicle and unhistorical. I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by the "human condition".

Excuse me? What made the dark-ages dark? It was the sustained terror campaign implemented by the pope. Are you suggesting that 'The Edict of Faith' was not a tool of subjugation?

The 'Human Condition' includes a desire to attain happiness; the Catholic church made that a sin. It includes a natural tendency to express oneself; to grow; the church impeded the progress of the Christianised peoples. The effects are still very much in evidence in countries such as Ireland and Spain where Catholic indoctrination has stunted the growth of entire societies. And this was done to benefit a very few people in the higher eschalons of the Vatican and some of those in their service.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you think that everything starts and stops with nature then there is no explicit responsibility to seek truth or anything else. That is just you concocting purpose in an otherwise purposeless and indifferent universe.

What was me 'just concocting...'?

If the Catholics had their way, we would still be living in a geo-centric universe. We certainly wouldn't have large hadron colliders and suchlike. In the end, the church was unable to supress science so they re-wrote their rule-book and decided that it would be better to make religion fit science rather than the other way round.

My larger point though, going back to the OP for a moment, is that scientific discoveries have shown that things such as planetary motion can be accounted for by processes previously thought to be divinely controlled. Freak weather conditions were once thought to be evidence of a displeased God but climatology has accounted for these without recourse to divine intervention.

In other words, decade by decade science has encroached on the divine order territory to the extent that it is now understood that even without a God, the universe would behave just as it does.

Science shines a light where Catholicism would prefer darkness. Faith is about living in the dark. Science is about seeing.

Everything does start and stop with nature and I'm prepared to accept nature, the tendency of creation to exist in the form it does, as a definition for God. And science is attempting to understand nature. In doing so, it may lead to proof of God and then we can all have faith.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Excuse me? What made the dark-ages dark? It was the sustained terror campaign implemented by the pope. Are you suggesting that 'The Edict of Faith' was not a tool of subjugation?

The 'Human Condition' includes a desire to attain happiness; the Catholic church made that a sin. It includes a natural tendency to express oneself; to grow; the church impeded the progress of the Christianised peoples. The effects are still very much in evidence in countries such as Ireland and Spain where Catholic indoctrination has stunted the growth of entire societies. And this was done to benefit a very few people in the higher eschalons of the Vatican and some of those in their service.

... the dark ages were dark because of the decline in liberal christianity ... and you seem to be conflating the actions of various religions ... with the actions of Saved Christians.
In any event, when it comes to abuse of power, the dark ages pale into insignificance, in comparison with the actions of various murderous regimes during the 20th Century.

... and we have an example of pseudo-liberal suppression of alternative opinion over on the A & A this morning ...
... such 'in your face' suppression of alternative opinion ... would make a conservative 1950's bishop cringe with embarassment ... and to be honest, he wouldn't have dared to do it ... and if he did, even in the 1950's, he would be roundly condemned !!!!

... please cut out the hypocracy of condemning intellectual suppression in the Middle Ages ... while supporting it in the 21st century ... over on the A & A!!!:(

BTW I am not questioning the right of the A & A to engage in suppression of alternative opinion ... but I do think that pointing out such suppression is very pertinent ... when one of its number turns up on a Christian forum loudly shouting about intellectual suppression in the Middle Ages

himnextdoor wrote: »

If the Catholics had their way, we would still be living in a geo-centric universe. We certainly wouldn't have large hadron colliders and suchlike.

Could I gently point out that Galileo was a Roman Catholic!!!!

... and as for the Hadron Collider ... it exists with no opposition that I am aware of from the Roman Catholic ... or any other Christian Church.

... please stop making patently untrue comments ... other may judge any other comments you make to be equally unreliable!!!

... and if you are as worried as you claim to be about intellectual suppression ... then go back and condemn it now on the A & A ... before coming here to condemn it in the Middle Ages !!!!:(

Note ... the posts have now been un-deleted and placed on the origin of specious nonesense thread on the A & A.

PDN

J C wrote: »

... and we have seen a perfect example of pseudo-liberal suppression of alternative opinion (mine and others on the moon landings hoax, as it so happens) over on the A & A this morning ...
... such 'in your face' suppression of alternative opinion ... would make a 1950's bishop cringe with embarassment!!!!

... we will certainly enter a new 'dark age' of intellectual suppression if youirself and your fellow A & A friends have their way in the rest of society!!!!

Let's have no discussion of how another forum is run or modded.

If you have complaints about anything in A&A then boards.ie has a Dispute Resolution Procedure.

J C

PDN wrote: »

Let's have no discussion of how another forum is run or modded.

If you have complaints about anything in A&A then boards.ie has a Dispute Resolution Procedure.

I fully accept your ruling and I am not questioning how the A & A is modded.

J C

My deleted posts now seem to have turned up on a different thread over in the A & A!!!!

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Excuse me? What made the dark-ages dark? It was the sustained terror campaign implemented by the pope. Are you suggesting that 'The Edict of Faith' was not a tool of subjugation?

Try reading up on the Dark Ages. The term describes a period of time that followed in the wake of the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm afraid you give the pope (Which one? Or are they all to be considered super evil villains?) far to much credit.

The idea that these were intellectually barren times might well be a nice story if you want to push the idea that Christianity repressed progress (and you desperately want to make such a claim) but it isn't historical.

himnextdoor wrote: »

The 'Human Condition' includes a desire to attain happiness; the Catholic church made that a sin. It includes a natural tendency to express oneself; to grow; the church impeded the progress of the Christianised peoples. The effects are still very much in evidence in countries such as Ireland and Spain where Catholic indoctrination has stunted the growth of entire societies. And this was done to benefit a very few people in the higher eschalons of the Vatican and some of those in their service.

I'm not aware that the RCC ever made the desire to attain happiness a sin. Still, it's ironic that you accuse the RCC of stunting the growth when I'm going to assume that you live in one of the societies founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. Societies that didn't have such foundations (and this is not to say that it in any way suggests that Christianity is true) often didn't fare as well in ways that you take for granted.

Of course, the hidden assumption here is that society is always moving in the "right direction". For that matter, you are also assuming that talking about a concept like "right" makes any real sense in a universe devoid of such concepts beyond it being an illusion in your head.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What was me 'just concocting...'?

The notion that the human race can choose to ignore a necessary responsibility. One might suggest that there are responsibilities - truth, justice etc. - but without God these are subjective concepts of the mind and are not the same as cosmically encoded imperatives. You are making a category error.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If the Catholics had their way, we would still be living in a geo-centric universe. We certainly wouldn't have large hadron colliders and suchlike. In the end, the church was unable to supress science so they re-wrote their rule-book and decided that it would be better to make religion fit science rather than the other way round.

Well, that's not quite true, is it? Not only was Urban VIII initially a keen supporter of Galileo and his theories, members of the clergy - that is to say, a sizeable proportion of those actually doing natural philosophy - supported Galileo even after Urban's shameful reaction to Galileo's ill-advised Simplicio insult.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say the RCC rewrote their rule-book.

himnextdoor wrote: »

My larger point though, going back to the OP for a moment, is that scientific discoveries have shown that things such as planetary motion can be accounted for by processes previously thought to be divinely controlled. Freak weather conditions were once thought to be evidence of a displeased God but climatology has accounted for these without recourse to divine intervention.

Oh! So there must be no God. Either Christians are still arguing for the God of the gaps, or you don't actually understand what your opponents believe.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Science shines a light where Catholicism would prefer darkness. Faith is about living in the dark. Science is about seeing.

You are keen on these "just so" stories. Told without an inclining of doubt, they obviously coddle your favourite hypothesis that science marches inexorably along the shining light of enlightened progress. Of course, you can't know that any of this is true (especially in light of things like nuclear weapons, climate change and the astounding barbarity of the 20th century). You believe (and desire) it to be true. And while I'm not normally given to defending the RCC, I find your black and white analysis of their part in history, specifically the churches interface with science, to be hopelessly biased.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Everything does start and stop with nature and I'm prepared to accept nature, the tendency of creation to exist in the form it does, as a definition for God. And science is attempting to understand nature. In doing so, it may lead to proof of God and then we can all have faith.

Then I suggest you look into pantheism.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Try reading up on the Dark Ages. The term describes a period of time that followed in the wake of the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm afraid you give the pope (Which one? Or are they all to be considered super evil villains?) far to much credit.

I think you're very naive.

True, the collapse of the Roman Empire created times of great uncertainty. The people of Europe felt lost, hopeless and probably lived in great fear of marauding barbarians and then came the Catholics selling (literally) hope. The people were desperate and so they bought.

When the Vikings were raiding the British Isles they would hit towns and villages of course but their best hauls of treasure came out of the monastaries. ("It was just resting in my account..." - Father Ted )

At first the people had faith and dutifully attended church and generously contributing to the collection plate but hope was never realised. God didn't protect them; their lives hadn't changed in any meaningful way and they started to lose their faith. So the church, desperate to save the souls of the people, sysematically engaged in a campaign of murder and torture; they indulged in intrigue and conspiracy (I don't think the Knights Templar were treated with the honour they deserved) and forced people under the pain (exteme) of death to 'support' the church.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The idea that these were intellectually barren times might well be a nice story if you want to push the idea that Christianity repressed progress (and you desperately want to make such a claim) but it isn't historical.

I'm not suggesting that there were no intellectuals or that there was no appliction of scientific principles throughout the dark ages.

Christianity (and Jews, I suppose) must have taken the rapid rise of Islam quite badly. Right there you have a cultural battlefield. Jerusalem.

At that time Christianity wasn't an empire; it didn't have a well-trained army to command. The church knew it would have to bide its time and build slowly and yes, they would have realised that science can give you an edge in war and yes they would have wanted great minds to consider the questions of science but as a common person, having scientific apparatus in your possession could be viewed as evidence of heresy. You could be accused by simple folk of being in league with the devil and if it suited the Catholic cause the charge would stick and you would die horribly.

Don't forget about the book-burning.

So, if you were one of the masses of poor-people, would you bother with things like science?

There can be no doubt that Catholicism is the most succesful tool of repression ever to be devised by men. It's all about guilt and sin and punishment. That is what I call dark ages. Is it a coincidence that it covers a similar period of history?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not aware that the RCC ever made the desire to attain happiness a sin. Still, it's ironic that you accuse the RCC of stunting the growth when I'm going to assume that you live in one of the societies founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. Societies that didn't have such foundations (and this is not to say that it in any way suggests that Christianity is true) often didn't fare as well in ways that you take for granted.

When you program a society using instruments of torture it becomes unhappy and afraid. The RCC trained christians to be mortally afraid of the consequences of even the smallest sin, such as owning a Hoffman Voltameter. Generation after generation indoctrinated into submitting to the church. Confess, repent, pray for forgiveness. Sin, eternal damnation. WHERE IS THE LIGHT!!

The RCC may not have specifically legislated against the persuit of happiness but they made everybody believe they had. Repressed. Inhibited.

The Western societies who are faring well? Didn't the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans have solid social foundation? And yes, I'm sure that Big Macs and coke make God just glow with pride.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, the hidden assumption here is that society is always moving in the "right direction". For that matter, you are also assuming that talking about a concept like "right" makes any real sense in a universe devoid of such concepts beyond it being an illusion in your head.

You rather make my point; God doesn't care.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion that the human race can choose to ignore a necessary responsibility. One might suggest that there are responsibilities - truth, justice etc. - but without God these are subjective concepts of the mind and are not the same as cosmically encoded imperatives. You are making a category error.

Au contraire; you are.

Do atheists want to be treated fairly? With or without God - truth, justice etc. - are subjective concepts. The absense of a God does not invalidate such notions and it can be scientifically shown that the chances of survival are increased by having a moral compass. Natural selection. An accident of mutation no different, evolutionarily speaking, to the development of the eye.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, that's not quite true, is it? Not only was Urban VIII initially a keen supporter of Galileo and his theories, members of the clergy - that is to say, a sizeable proportion of those actually doing natural philosophy - supported Galileo even after Urban's shameful reaction to Galileo's ill-advised Simplicio insult.

The ban on helio-centric work was lifted in 1757 as a result of Newton's work.

Anyway, doesn't that make Urban VIII a hypocrite and guilty of the same heresy as anyone else who believed in the helio-centric model? Oh, actually wasn't Gallileo condemned for supporting the work of Copernicus, a sworn enemy of the church.

No, people like popes and Gallileo don't get burned at the stake, poor people do.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say the RCC rewrote their rule-book.

One day it's a sin and the next day it's not. The term is u-turn. The church was forced to rethink its doctrine and revise it. Homosexuality and female priests; u-turns.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh! So there must be no God. Either Christians are still arguing for the God of the gaps, or you don't actually understand what your opponents believe.

They believe in magic. And that belief in magic is what has decorated the Vatican.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are keen on these "just so" stories. Told without an inclining of doubt, they obviously coddle your favourite hypothesis that science marches inexorably along the shining light of enlightened progress. Of course, you can't know that any of this is true (especially in light of things like nuclear weapons, climate change and the astounding barbarity of the 20th century). You believe (and desire) it to be true. And while I'm not normally given to defending the RCC, I find your black and white analysis of their part in history, specifically the churches interface with science, to be hopelessly biased.

And that's your argument?

The 'Edict of Faith' was was not a trust-building exercise and the auto da fe's were not happy religious festivals. They were the church flexing its muscles in order to control simple people in a simple way; fear is much more effective than respect. And repression is the result.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then I suggest you look into pantheism.

Why do I need pantheism when there is physics?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... the dark ages were dark because of the decline in liberal christianity ... and you seem to be conflating the actions of various religions ... with the actions of Saved Christians.
In any event, when it comes to abuse of power, the dark ages pale into insignificance, in comparison with the actions of various murderous non-christian and anti-christian regimes during the 20th Century.

... and we have seen a perfect example of pseudo-liberal suppression of alternative opinion (mine and others on the moon landings hoax, as it so happens) over on the A & A this morning ...
... such 'in your face' suppression of alternative opinion ... would make a conservative 1950's bishop cringe with embarassment ... and to be honest, he wouldn't have dared to do it ... and if he did, even in the 1950's, he would be roundly condemned !!!!

... we will certainly enter a new 'dark age' of intellectual suppression if youirself and your fellow A & A friends have their way in the rest of society!!!!

... please cut out the hypocracy of condemning intellectual suppression in the Middle Ages ... while supporting it in the 21st century ... over on the A & A!!!:(

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054990656&page=81

BTW I am not questioning the right of the A & A to engage in suppression of alternative opinion ... but I do think that pointing out such suppression is very pertinent ... when one of its number turns up on a Christian forum loudly shouting about intellectual suppression in the Middle Ages


Could I gently point out that Galileo was a Roman Catholic!!!!

... and as for the Hadron Collider ... it exists with no opposition that I am aware of from the Roman Catholic ... or any other Christian Church.

... please stop making patently untrue comments ... other may judge any other comments you make to be equally unreliable!!!

... and if you are as worried as you claim to be about intellectual suppression ... then go back and condemn it now on the A & A ... before coming here to condemn it in the Middle Ages !!!!:(

Note ... the posts have now been un-deleted and placed on the origin of specious nonesense thread on the A & A.

I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. Don't you think it noteworthy; religion shouts angrily while science talks sofly?

I enjoy your animated-ness though.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Oh, actually wasn't Gallileo condemned for supporting the work of Copernicus, a sworn enemy of the church.

That is a truly extraordinary claim.

Copernicus was a Catholic cleric who obtained a doctorate in Canon Law and was encouraged to start his astronomical studies when he was a vistor to the Vatican.

Copernicus lived and died as a son of the Catholic Church, and his great work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published at the urging of the Archbishop of Capua. There were appproving lectures delivered in Rome outlining and supporting Copernicus' cosmological ideas and these were attended by Pope Clement VII.

Only somewbody who is determined to rewrite history according to some partisan and ideological agenda could ever describe Copernicus as "a sworn enemy of the church".

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. Don't you think it noteworthy; religion shouts angrily while science talks sofly?

I enjoy your animated-ness though.

You were shouting angrily about something that went on in the Middle Ages and has no direct bearing on either yourself of your fellow posters.

I was shouting loudly about a crass attempt at banning free speech being directed at me by you guys currently

Everybody has the right to defend themselves against real and present danger ... and if shouting is required, then so be it!!


[snip...]

No cross-forum chat, please

We have a long standing agreement that this type of thing (better know as bitching) isn't allowed between the two forums.

FC

J C

J C wrote: »

[snip...]

No cross-forum chat, please

We have a long standing agreement that this type of thing (better know as bitching) isn't allowed between the two forums.

FC

I can understand the rule in relation to bitchiness ... but could I just clarify, if the agreement also extends to banning the praising of good ideas over on other forums ?

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

I can understand the rule in relation to bitchiness ... but could I just clarify, if the agreement extends to banning the praising of new ideas over on other forums ?

In principle I don't think so. But then again it depends on the nature of the point being made.

A problem really arises when people feel they have been hard done by by one side and they use the other side as a place to air grievances and to say stuff they wouldn't otherwise get away with. I'm not saying you were doing this. However, rulz is rulz.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In principle I don't think so. But then again it really depends on the point being made.

A problem really arises when people feel they have been hard done by by one side and they use the other side as a place to air grievances and to say stuff they wouldn't otherwise get away with. I'm not saying you were doing this. However, rulz is rulz.

Thanks.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

That is a truly extraordinary claim.

Copernicus was a Catholic cleric who obtained a doctorate in Canon Law and was encouraged to start his astronomical studies when he was a vistor to the Vatican.

Copernicus lived and died as a son of the Catholic Church, and his great work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published at the urging of the Archbishop of Capua. There were appproving lectures delivered in Rome outlining and supporting Copernicus' cosmological ideas and these were attended by Pope Clement VII.

Only somewbody who is determined to rewrite history according to some partisan and ideological agenda could ever describe Copernicus as "a sworn enemy of the church".

On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[94] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[95]
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[96] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[97] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.[98]

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[94] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[95]
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[96] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[97] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.[98]

While all of that demonstrates how silly the Vatican's Index was, it in no way supports the assertion that Copernicus was ever "a sworn enemy of the Church". Copernicus lived and died as a faithful Catholic.

Btw, the reason why the Catholic Church hassled Galileo was because his theories contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day as represented by Aristotle. They were so busy defending their educated notions of Aristotle that they ignored a faithful Catholic and scientific genius who was in their midst. As often happens, the wisdom of man was foolishness that hindered the work of a devout believer who was fully convinced that his theories were consistent with Scripture.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

You were shouting angrily about something that went on in the Middle Ages and has no direct bearing on either yourself of your fellow posters.

I was shouting loudly about a crass attempt at banning free speech being directed at me by you guys currently

Everybody has the right to defend themselves against real and present danger ... and if shouting is required, then so be it!!

If I came across as shouting then I apologise.

I honestly believe that the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy are detrimental to human progress.

The Bible is a collection of stories, collected and collated very carefully by men who would have us believe that it is an un-abridged document produced by God. It is not. I would accept that some of the moral direction, don't kill', steal, lie, etc., are socially beneficial but the stories of Adam and Eve, Samson, Noah's Ark are no more historically relevent than Homer's Iliad or The Adventures of Sinbad. But the stuff that can be loosely described as historical account, the story of Moses, Abraham, David etc., actually paint a disturbing and dark picture of 'The Glory of God'.

How many times has God destroyed mankind? And why? To me, it seem likes a bad workman blames his tools. Or a bad baby-sitter shaking a child.

Creationism is just misleading and to force that view as a starting point on science does science a dis-service.

Prophecy is another word for 'agenda'. The 'apocalypse' is the fruit of some plan. But whose plan? God's?

If you can 'educate' people to think that the future is fore-told then they are less likely to try and alter their path to oblivion. They will even contribute to ensure that what is foretold will come to pass.

That put's owners of nuclear weapons in a strong position.

And just to put a counter-balance in, I believe that many branches of science exhibit a similar kind of possessiveness of knowledge and a similar kind of faith in their discipline when comparing other disciplines.

If you ask a quantum scientist to explain the origin of the universe, you get a story very similar to "In the beginning was the word...".

J C

PDN wrote: »

While all of that demonstrates how silly the Vatican's Index was, it in no way supports the assertion that Copernicus was ever "a sworn enemy of the Church". Copernicus lived and died as a faithful Catholic.

Btw, the reason why the Catholic Church hassled Galileo was because his theories contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day as represented by Aristotle. They were so busy defending their educated notions of Aristotle that they ignored a faithful Catholic and scientific genius who was in their midst. As often happens, the wisdom of man was foolishness that hindered the work of a devout believer who was fully convinced that his theories were consistent with Scripture.

Ironically, a similar mistake appears to be happening today on the 'origins' issue ... the Vatican seems to have come full circle from outright hostility to Evolution, at the time of Darwin (including the censure of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the placing of some of his books on the Index) to now embracing Evolution wholeheartedly ... because it perceives it to be the current scientific orthodoxy, I suppose!!!

... and this is placing many eminent Roman Catholic Creation Scientists at odds with their Church.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

If I came across as shouting then I apologise.

I honestly believe that the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy are detrimental to human progress.

... considerable progress has been made (and was very often led) by Jews and Christians ... so I don't think your accusation really stands up.

himnextdoor wrote: »

The Bible is a collection of stories, collected and collated very carefully by men who would have us believe that it is an un-abridged document produced by God. It is not. I would accept that some of the moral direction, don't kill', steal, lie, etc., are socially beneficial but the stories of Adam and Eve, Samson, Noah's Ark are no more historically relevent than Homer's Iliad or The Adventures of Sinbad. But the stuff that can be loosely described as historical account, the story of Moses, Abraham, David etc., actually paint a disturbing and dark picture of 'The Glory of God'.

... yes, its a 'warts and all' account of the darkness of some of the interactions between mankind and God ... as well as many uplifting encounters as well ... and it serves as a salutory warning to us all not to make the same mistakes ... but of course, we are always free to do so.

himnextdoor wrote: »

How many times has God destroyed mankind? And why? To me, it seem likes a bad workman blames his tools. Or a bad baby-sitter shaking a child.

In a sense God destroys all of Mankind all of the time ... because (physical) death still remains ... but God calls death an 'enemy' ... of both Himself and us ... and promises to remove it at the end of time and to reverse it effect by restoring our physical bodies to us at that time.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Creationism is just misleading and to force that view as a starting point on science does science a dis-service.

I agree that it would be scientifically wrong to force creation as a starting point ... but it is equally wrong to exclude creation from scientific consideration altogether.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Prophecy is another word for 'agenda'. The 'apocalypse' is the fruit of some plan. But whose plan? God's?

Yes, it is God allowing Mankind to suffer the consequences of their choices.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If you can 'educate' people to think that the future is fore-told then they are less likely to try and alter their path to oblivion. They will even contribute to ensure that what is foretold will come to pass.

That put's owners of nuclear weapons in a strong position.

... it could also have the opposite effect of warning people to be very careful about what they choose.

himnextdoor wrote: »

And just to put a counter-balance in, I believe that many branches of science exhibit a similar kind of possessiveness of knowledge and a similar kind of faith in their discipline when comparing other disciplines.

... that is self-willed Human nature in action ... and it isn't unique to science ... but it does indicate thet proper checks and balances need to be constantly maintained ... and that includes proper protection for the holders of alternative opinions on scientific issues within science.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If you ask a quantum scientist to explain the origin of the universe, you get a story very similar to "In the beginning was the word...".

They are getting there ... slowly!!:D

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... considerable progress has been made (and was very often led) by Jews and Christians ... so I don't think your accusation really stands up.

I think that what you are calling progress is actually an increasing dependancy on technology. If there was a collapse of the western social infrastructure then most people would starve or freeze to death because they have forgotten their survival skills such as hunting, making fire, etc. Humans have become more like farm animals whose role is simply to serve authority by paying taxes, eating food from Tesco's and pretending that democracy is working. It would be fair to say that progress is undermining the relationship between man and nature.

J C wrote: »

... yes, its a 'warts and all' account of the darkness of some of the interactions between mankind and God ... and serves as a salutory warning to us all not to make the same mistakes ... but of course, we are always free to do so.

The choice is submit to the will of God or die. That is not a choice, it's coercion.

J C wrote: »

In a sense God destroys all of Mankind all of the time ... because (physical) death still remains ... but God calls death an 'enemy' ... of both Himself and us ... and promises to remove it at the end of time and to reverse it effect by restoring our physical bodies to us at that time.

Jam tomorrow.

J C wrote: »

I agree that it would be scientifically wrong to force creation as a starting point ... but it is equally wrong to exclude creation from scientific consideration altogether.

Agreed but when empirical evidence show a theory to be wrong then the theory should be either modified or abandoned.

J C wrote: »

Yes, it is God allowing Mankind to suffer the consequences of their choices.

Or to enjoy the fruits.

J C wrote: »

... it could also have the opposite effect of warning people to be very careful about what they choose.

Almost the whole of the western population think that it was wrong to murder Iraqi citizens in the 'Gulf War'. Two-million people marched in London against the war. People do not choose, they have decisions foisted upon them.

J C wrote: »

... that is self-willed Human nature in action ... and it isn't unique to science ... but it does indicate thet proper checks and balances need to be constantly maintained ... and that includes proper protection for the holders of alternative opinions on scientific issues within science.

I am in total agreement with this. Bigotry in all its forms is ugly.

J C wrote: »

They are getting there ... slowly!!

LOL.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

At first the people had faith and dutifully attended church and generously contributing to the collection plate but hope was never realised. God didn't protect them; their lives hadn't changed in any meaningful way and they started to lose their faith. So the church, desperate to save the souls of the people, sysematically engaged in a campaign of murder and torture; they indulged in intrigue and conspiracy (I don't think the Knights Templar were treated with the honour they deserved) and forced people under the pain (exteme) of death to 'support' the church.

I'm not sure what dates you are talking about. Nor am I sure where you are talking about. Do you actually have access to religious adherence data, specifically data on religious adherence rates throughout the ages and why people supposedly chose to leave the church? Or is all of this another “just so” story?

himnextdoor wrote: »

At that time Christianity wasn't an empire; it didn't have a well-trained army to command. The church knew it would have to bide its time and build slowly and yes, they would have realised that science can give you an edge in war and yes they would have wanted great minds to consider the questions of science but as a common person, having scientific apparatus in your possession could be viewed as evidence of heresy. You could be accused by simple folk of being in league with the devil and if it suited the Catholic cause the charge would stick and you would die horribly.

Christianity was never an empire, nor did it have a well trained army to command. You seem to be getting confused between a religion - that is to say a set of beliefs (largely metaphysical) and accompanying principles and doctrines - and theocracy such as a geopolitical movement like Christendom.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Don't forget about the book-burning.

Yes, book burning has been employed by both secular and religious authorities throughout the ages. Do you have a point?

himnextdoor wrote: »

So, if you were one of the masses of poor-people, would you bother with things like science?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

himnextdoor wrote: »

There can be no doubt that Catholicism is the most succesful tool of repression ever to be devised by men. It's all about guilt and sin and punishment. That is what I call dark ages. Is it a coincidence that it covers a similar period of history?

You are going to have to stop talking about meta-conspiracies and start into the specifics. There is no “coincidence” unless you are looking to crowbar one in.

While your perverse reading of history might lay the cultural and economic deterioration of Europe neatly at the feet of the RCC (another “just so” story, I might add), the fact is that many things happened when the Western half of the the largest superpower that had ever existed finally collapsed after many years of decline.

But there is a myth underpinning your argument. It's another “just so” story of a better time for science and reason; of a Hellenistic golden age that was later embraced by the Romans and cut short by the Christians. This is nonsense, of course. David Lindberg says that, “It is agreed by most historians of ancient science that creative Greek science was on the wane, perhaps as early as 200 B.C., certainly by A.D. 200. Science had never been pursued by very many people; it now attracted even fewer.”. He also suggests that there is zero evidence to suggest Christianity actually discourage scientific investigation – either in terms of support or the numbers of people involved in it. But despite all this, it has already been established that the so called “dark ages” was not a millennium of regression. It was a time of great flourishing – of discovery and rediscovery. Look at the technological advances in machinery, agricultural practices, architecture etc.

You rather make my point; God doesn't care.

I would have thought my point was rather simple. In a world without God there is no possibility to abdicate a responsibility for the human race because there is no such thing as a responsibility for the human race. The closest you can get to such a grand narrative is a subjective notion that only exists in your head.

How you move from my above point to “God doesn't care” is something I don't understand. Let me be clear: I'm not saying there is no overarching things like truth or good and evil. Indeed, an orthodox understanding of Christianity would suggest there must be. What I'm saying is the same thing I've said multiple times now. You can't have something like a responsibility for the human race in a universe that is indifferent to such things, what you have is a responsibility of your own invention.

Happily it seems that you are through contradicting yourself and you have eventually settled on a position. It does leave you with the problem of the Incarnation, which is an act that is certainly suggestive of a God who does care.

Do atheists want to be treated fairly? With or without God - truth, justice etc. - are subjective concepts. The absense of a God does not invalidate such notions and it can be scientifically shown that the chances of survival are increased by having a moral compass. Natural selection. An accident of mutation no different, evolutionarily speaking, to the development of the eye.

I never said it invalidated such concepts. Please read what I said. The point is that they are subjective concepts and you categorically stated that humans have a responsibility to seek truth. This can not be the case given your most recent admission. Either there are imperatives to this world or the “abdication of responsibility” that you speak of is an abstract and subjective idea that has no fundamental truth to it. So which is it?

...Copernicus, a sworn enemy of the church.

There seems to be a notion amongst some people that people like Copernicus made their efforts despite the best efforts of the church. The assumption is that these men of science somehow emerged out of the darkness of generational ignorance with their various theories fully formed. The fact is that men like Copernicus – who was matriculated at a number of universities, all of which happened to be Christian – happened to be standing on the shoulders of those who came before. So everybody from John Philoponus to Willaim of Ocham.