Your Opinion On Christianity?

[Ashley Huddleston]

I am a HUGE Jesus freak. I live for the Lord, and I know I'll die for him too. He is my savior, and as I've suffered from Bipolar Disorder my whole life, I'll willingly admit if it weren't for him I probably wouldn't be here right now.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and I want your honest opinion, please. I love debates, and I believe it's a good way to make friends. So let's see if we can make some new friends through this. :]

[Hutch Hogan]

They can be blamed for punishing others of a differing world view. 

They can also be blamed for taking the confidence level that they did. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

They can be blamed for punishing others of a differing world view.

 

Yes, but you can't call them unscientific. You can only call them dictatorial, which is agreed. Thus the accusation that the church at the time was an anti scientific establishment is uncalled for. Thus the entire narrative of religion being anti-scientific is undermined, as this is the principle example.

They can also be blamed for taking the confidence level that they did.

No, they can't. All the evidence they had told them that they were right. You can't blame them for believing that when they didn't know better. You can argue that their belief shouldn't have lead them to punish Galileo so, but that's a criticism of the Churches power, not of its stance.

[Hutch Hogan]

Yes, but you can't call them unscientific. You can only call them dictatorial.

They are the same thing in that if authority cannot be questioned through the use of observation the ruling regime is both oppressive and unscientific. 

 

No, they can't. All the evidence they had told them that they were right.

Their evidence was the appeal to an authority of scripture, and the appeal of authority to Aristotle. 

There was no math that could be done to show the distance to the stars, so parallax is not a valid evidence. 

You can't blame them for believing that when they didn't know better.

I can blame them for silencing Galileo because he questioned the literalistic interpretation of Scripture. 

You can argue that their belief shouldn't have lead them to punish Galileo so, but that's a criticism of the Churches power, not of its stance.

I can also criticize them on saying that the position contrary to their belief was philosophically absurd because it did not align to Scripture or Aristotle's teachings. 

 

So yes, I can be quite critical of them. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

They are the same thing in that if authority cannot be questioned through the use of observation the ruling regime is both oppressive and unscientific.

The authority could be questioned. Galileo did not have the nessecary evidence. All the evidence the Church had supported their view.

 

I can blame them for silencing Galileo because he questioned the literalistic interpretation of Scripture.

 

As I have already proven, they were quite willing to change their interpretation of scripture.

 

I can also criticize them on saying that the position contrary to their belief was philosophically absurd because it did not align to Scripture or Aristotle's teachings.

 

It did not align with the available evidence.

[Hutch Hogan]

The authority could be questioned. Galileo did not have the nessecary evidence. All the evidence the Church had supported their view.

 The didn't have evidence.  They had authorities. 

 

As I have already proven, they were quite willing to change their interpretation of scripture. 

 How weak.  You have not proven anything aside from the opinion of a single cardinal.  My primary source has identified that heliocentrism was a formal heresy. 

 

It did not align with the available evidence.

You mean "It did not align with the available authorities." 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The didn't have evidence.  They had authorities.

 

No, they did have evidence. They had the lack of observable parallax, for example.

 

How weak.  You have not proven anything aside from the opinion of a single cardinal.  My primary source has identified that heliocentrism was a formal heresy.

 

Only a formal heresy. Not an out and out one. And I can make the inference that the opinion was more broad because the letter was heard at the hearing, and the cardinal was not thrown in the inquisition, nor was the reciever of the letter.

 

You mean "It did not align with the available authorities."

No, the available evidence. See, stellar parallax, and the fact that Galileo's evidence didn't provide any new evidence to support the heliocentric model.

[Hutch Hogan]

No, they did have evidence. They had the lack of observable parallax, for example.

That's not evidence.  The math necessary to determine the distance to stars was not possible at the time and as such was an appeal to the authority of Aristotle. 

 

Only a formal heresy. Not an out and out one.

This is ignorance on your part of heresy within the Catholic Church.  I've already outlined the difference in formal and material heresy. 

And I can make the inference that the opinion was more broad because the letter was heard at the hearing, and the cardinal was not thrown in the inquisition, nor was the reciever of the letter.

 That goes beyond your source, is refuted by my source, denies that the Inquistion did not have the authority to try the Pope (which can only be done by another Pope), and ignores the fact that Urban did not teach heliocentrism, but said that Galileo would not be punished if he presented both (which Galileo argued that he did in the trial), but this promise was shown to be false after Urban green lighted the Inquisitors to threaten Galileo with torture on the 4th day of the trial. 

 

No, the available evidence. See, stellar parallax, and the fact that Galileo's evidence didn't provide any new evidence to support the heliocentric model. 

 He disproved the heavenly bodies were perfect, shown that there were objects beyond the visible reach of the naked eye, showed the effects of relative motion, and disproved that everything orbited the earth (Jovian moons and comets). 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That's not evidence.  The math necessary to determine the distance to stars was not possible at the time and as such was an appeal to the authority of Aristotle.

 

It is evidence. They expected that if the earth moved, the stars position would change. Not an unreasonable assumption. Given the available evidence, they inferred that the stars were a roughly uniform distance away.

 

This is ignorance on your part of heresy within the Catholic Church.  I've already outlined the difference in formal and material heresy.

 

The fact that it is second order is proof that it is not as important.

 

That goes beyond your source

This is why it's called inference. It is standard practice in history.

 

is refuted by my source

No, it's not. My source, and the fact that the people whom the letter was sent by and recieved by, proves that the church had an open mind to the possibility of change.

 

He disproved the heavenly bodies were perfect, shown that there were objects beyond the visible reach of the naked eye, showed the effects of relative motion, and disproved that everything orbited the earth (Jovian moons and comets).

But he did not prove the heliocentirc model. If he had, given my evidence, it is probable that the church would have listened to him. I would further support this argument by the fact that the church had no objection to the ideas you have pointed out. The one idea they didn't like was the one he had no proof for.

[Hutch Hogan]

It is evidence. They expected that if the earth moved, the stars position would change. Not an unreasonable assumption. Given the available evidence, they inferred that the stars were a roughly uniform distance away.

Though this was immediately brought into question after Galileo proved that there celestial bodies beyond the reach of the eye. This shows that the stars were not, in fact, uniform distance, is so as of their barbaric understanding of astronomy.

The fact that it is second order is proof that it is not as important.

A formal heretic is a person who is teaching HERESY, but was not aware that their teaching was HERESY. 

A material heretic is a person who is teaching HERESY, but was aware that their teaching was HERESY. 

In both cases they are teaching heresy. 

This is why it's called inference. It is standard practice in history.

It is also called speculation and is not proof.  Do not give it the modality that it was anything but speculation.  You cannot refute what the Catholic Church wrote in ink, based on your speculation on a letter, written by an individual who does have the authority to speak on behalf of the Magisterium. 

No, it's not. My source, and the fact that the people whom the letter was sent by and recieved by, proves that the church had an open mind to the possibility of change.

No.  It shows the opinion of an individual.  One cardinal does not represent the Magisterium. The Inquisition tribunal represents the established teaching of the Church as they are to punish heretics and must be aware of what is and is not heresy. 

But he did not prove the heliocentirc model. If he had, given my evidence, it is probable that the church would have listened to him. I would further support this argument by the fact that the church had no objection to the ideas you have pointed out. The one idea they didn't like was the one he had no proof for.

A. You do not have evidence.  You have an opinion of one person.  

B. I have provided the fact that Galileo was charged with suspecta de haersi.

C. I have provided the fact that Heliocentrism was listed as formal heresy. 

These are not the conditions representing an institution that is willing to verify claims that they deem contrary to Scripture, outside of the trial house. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Though this was immediately brought into question after Galileo proved that there celestial bodies beyond the reach of the eye. This shows that the stars were not, in fact, uniform distance, is so as of their barbaric understanding of astronomy.

The fact that there were celestial bodies beyond the reach of the eye does not in itself prove that the ones that are within the reach of the eye are varying distances away.

It is also called speculation and is not proof.  Do not give it the modality that it was anything but speculation. 

Speculation is not based on evidence. Inference is based on evidence. This is inference.

You cannot refute what the Catholic Church wrote in ink, based on your speculation on a letter

 

The Catholic Church were open to the idea of the geocentric solar system. At the time, it was a technical heresy, based upon the evidence they had. However, had other evidence arisen, it would have been changed, thereby proving that it was not a closed system.

No.  It shows the opinion of an individual.  One cardinal does not represent the Magisterium.

No, but the fact that this cardinal was allowed to live and that his letter was brought forward as evidence and that it did not harm the cardinal's career proves that there was acceptance, if not necessarily enthusiasm, towards his notions.

A. You do not have evidence.  You have an opinion of one person.

 

And the evidence of his life around that, which supports an inference that his opinion was accepted.

B. I have provided the fact that Galileo was charged with suspecta de haersi.

 

Read "suspicion of heresy" not outright heresy. If it was more severe, the church would have given it a more severe charge. You are correct that it was a heresy, but not of a most serious kind, and one which they were willing to change, if presented with evidence.

C. I have provided the fact that Heliocentrism was listed as formal heresy. 

And I have proven that the Catholic church were prepared to listen to alternative evidence, thereby undermining the notion that the Catholic church was somehow necessarily suppressive of science, and demonstrating that heresies were not in fact as doctrinally founded as you and others believe.

Yes, you are correct. I was wrong in that heliocentricism was considered a heresy. But, and this is the important point, that fact proves very little. The chruch were prepared to listen to outside opinions, they were open to evidence and ideas, and were not quashing science. The Galileo incident is simply an example of egos clashing and the Chruch's dictatorial nature during that period. It is not proof that the Church was somehow anti science. That is a myth.

[Hutch Hogan]

Yes, you are correct. I was wrong in that heliocentricism was considered a heresy.

Thank you. 

[Thomas Coldrick]

I am an atheist, but have nothing against anyone's personal beliefs. I do however get slightly irritated when people say that proven facts are wrong *cough* evolution *cough*. I also am not too keen on organised religion, especially the Catholic Church - I have no issue in people believing, I just disagree with the church and what it does.