What's the address?Originally Posted by Frailer
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
What's the address?
Member
Romans 3:23-24
But if you head down this road, you may quickly find yourself mired in the question of justification, the nature of which was a sticking point that is one of the causes of the divergence of Protestantism.
But avoiding that, the bottom line is that the grace of God is required. And since there can be no question that God is more gracious than I, the question is answered for me.
Member
You guys really have no clue of what you are talking about... but I guess trying to instill some sense into fanatics is a lost battle.
FWIW, I live in Paraguay, where the Pope landed after Ecuador and Bolivia, and I was following every step of this trip. It was a huge popular fest. All other denominations (jews, buddhist, anglican, lutheran, orthodox, etc.),welcomed him and had kind words for him. Only some loony evangelicans (not all) spread hate and stupidity around, one idiot even tried to bump his papamovil with a self made sign with "666" on it.
Agree with him or not, this Pope is full of common sense and humanity, and his views really do not deviate from the catholic church established doctrines.
The hammer and sickle cross was simply an idiotic gesture from Evo Morales, who cannot even be considered catholic nor christian.
Last edited by TiroFijo; 07-14-15 at 18:14.
Senior Member
I think the major issue is three things- one is that Pope Francis is heavily influenced by his SA experience and this comes out in his often off the cuff comments while the press grabs the most leftist interpretation of what he does say.
Saying that a 4th century writer was anti-capitalist is inherently incorrect since capitalism really didn't show up until 1000 years later. While the left pushes the anti-capitalistic view of his comments, I think pushing the fact that corrupt capitalism is the actual affliction that plagues SA is as valid as point. That is relevant to us since we are heading more and more towards a corrupt form of 'capitalism' that has to do more with the power of the capitol in DC than capital in the bank.
I'd love Donald Trump hand the Pope a crucifix attached to a dollar sign and see what happens. That would be about as tacky as what Morales did.
The issues he has with capitalism aren't really about money. They really are about being self-centered to the point of be detrimental to society and ultimately to the individual. That ties together most of his themes, but for some reason that isn't the message that is getting out.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Member
And I agree with you 100% on capitalism, and comments of some of the press... I was reading reports from this trip and some of the reporters might as well be martians, such was the naivety/stupidity/ignorance/bias that was blurring their views.
Sadly, the same can be said about some of the world's "best" press when covering many other topics.
Lastly, can't we all get along and celebrate/tolerate our differences?
Senior Member
Well, let's keep in mind that actually, Galileo was pretty much completely wrong. Here is the abridged version of events.
1. Galileo believed that the earth moved around the sun. However that was not Galileo's theory, that was Copernicus, and Copernicus and the Catholic Church got along just fine.
2. Galileo also believed that the sun was the center of the universe, and he was wrong.
3. Galileo believed that the planets moved in perfect circles around the sun, and he was wrong.
4. Galileo asked for permission to teach his mostly wrong theories and the Catholic Church said to him, "Sure, why not, go for it."
5. But then Galileo, brilliant but an egomaniac, demanded that he be given permission to teach his theories as established scientific fact, because he was so absolutely cocksure that he was completely right, to which the Church simply asked him if he actually could in any way prove them. When he respond "Well no, not really.", the Church then said that he should in that case then teach his ideas only as unproven theories until such time as he could in fact actually prove them scientifically. And does not science today rather demand that as well?
6. This bent his nose out of joint, and so he made the bad play of insulting and attempting to humiliate the Catholic bishops because they would not allow him to teach his unproven theories as established scientific fact.
7. Well I'm very sure that it will come as a surprise to exactly no one that also many Bishops have huge sensitive egos, and so a few of them decided to drum up the charge of heresy to get back at him for insulting them.
8. The end result being that Galileo was sent to live in a villa in Tuscany. (Someone please tell me what Bishops I need to personally insult and offend so that they "condemn" me to go live in a villa in Tuscany.)
And here is pretty much the same thing that the Pope has been saying. As we see, it's nothing new.
Site Sponsor
Well a couple things.
First, he was more correct than the Church which generally believed the Earth was the center of the universe. He figured out the Earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth. Nobody had any idea about the Andromeda galaxy at the time.
Second, he wasn't sent to a villa in Tuscany any more than people are sent upstate to a facility when they go to Folsom. He was under house arrest.
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered
... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616
The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he didn't advocate for its physical truth.
For the next decade, Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. Galileo's resulting book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
In February 1633 and was brought before inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani to be charged. Throughout his trial Galileo steadfastly maintained that since 1616 he had faithfully kept his promise not to hold any of the condemned opinions, and initially he denied even defending them. However, he was eventually persuaded to admit that, contrary to his true intention, a reader of his Dialogue could well have obtained the impression that it was intended to be a defence of Copernicanism. In view of Galileo's rather implausible denial that he had ever held Copernican ideas after 1616 or ever intended to defend them in the Dialogue, his final interrogation, in July 1633, concluded with his being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.
The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on 22 June. It was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Or as you call it, just a nice day at a sunny villa. We should bring back the inquisition, it sounds like great summer fun.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Senior Member
But that is rather parsing it in a way that does not tell the whole truth of the story. It was not simply that "the Church generally believed the earth the center of the universe" and that's that, but that Galileo could not in fact, by his own admission, prove that all his fellow astronomers at the time, and going back quite a ways in history, were completely wrong. The Church was not simply saying that "we are right and you are wrong", but instead "all these other astronomers say that you are wrong, and you admit that you cannot prove your theories, so we are going to stick with the prevailing theories until at such time there is solid scientific evidence to believe something else."
It simply was not 'the Church against science', but the Church actually adhering to what was in fact the scientific consensus at the time since no one, not even Galileo, who even admitted this, could offer proof that the scientific consensus was actually wrong.
Sorry, but there is no tenable logical comparison between Galileo's house confinement in a Tuscan Villa and being incarcerated in Folsom prison.Second, he wasn't sent to a villa in Tuscany any more than people are sent upstate to a facility when they go to Folsom. He was under house arrest.
As for the rest,
http://www.ukapologetics.net/galileo.htm
Outstanding 1970s philosophy of science writer Paul Feyerabend refused to be taken in by the usual myths about Galileo, writing this:
"The trial of Galileo was one of many trials. It had no special features except perhaps that Galileo was treated rather mildly, despite his lies and attempts at deception. But a small clique of intellectuals aided by scandal-hungry writers succeeded in blowing it up to enormous dimensions so that what was basically an altercation between an expert and an institution defending a wider view of things now looks almost like a battle between heaven and hell." (p. 127, 'Against Method,' fourth edition. This is the paperback version of just under 300 pages, with an Introduction from Ian Hacking, and published by Verso of London and New York).
As we are going to see, the popular story about a powerful and superstitious Church fighting against the brilliant science of Galileo is very largely a myth of rationalist modernism.
Now the 'Church' which I refer to in this article is the 17th century Roman Catholic Church and some may wonder why I would want to defend them, but I think that all Christian Apologetics must always strive to uphold the truth. The Galileo myth is used by modernist atheists and scoffers to attack the record of Christianity and I really think that we should all honestly consider the real evidence and not popular modernist spin.
Another myth is that Galileo conclusively proved that the earth orbits the sun – but it was not yet possible to deduce that much in Galileo's day, as several scholars are starting to admit. In fact, Galileo's research was concerned with sun spots, the phases of Venus and the lumpiness, or irregularity, of the surface of the moon. Thus we see how the myths of modernism snowball along!
But the science of Galileo's day was Aristotelian in approach and he knew that some of his conclusions would not fit in with their approach. He published his conclusions in 1613 in Letters on Sunspots. The Church largely accepted his science but the universities which were steeped in Aristotle opposed him. Many writers have claimed that Galieo feared being branded as a heretic and therefore being handed over to the Inquisition - J.W. Draper is typical of such writers, but the truth is that it was the scornful rejection of his fellow astronomers which he greatly feared. Indeed, he dedicated his book to Pope Paul III. His book circulated for over 70 years with no opposition from the Church, but with almost continual opposition from his fellow scientists!!
Far from being excommunicated and ostracized by the Church at this stage in his life, he became popular with several cardinals and was befriended by the man who later became Pope Urban VIII.
But much later (in 1632) Galileo wrote another book which he called, Dialogue Concerning the Chief World Systems and in this book he went much further and did alienate the Church. In this book he sought to reinterpret several biblical passages but this went against the Council of Trent guidelines which were established by about 1565. The Roman Catholic Church of the day did not feel it was the business of a scientist (and one rejected by many of his fellow scientists at that), to publish works on biblical interpretation, this being considered as interference in the matters of the Church. To make things even worse he mocked some ideas of the pope (Urban VIII, who had been his friend) in this book. Before a year had elapsed from its publication, Galieo's book was banned."
Last edited by Belloc; 07-15-15 at 07:24.
Senior Member
I do not see what the issue is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara
No Communist here, but it's about time the Pope has showed an active interest in something other than the elite."When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Why do the loudest do the least?
Senior Member
I started a very similar thread last month when the clown started down the climate change road.
For those who support him and try to explain the unexplainable, remember that many other Popes have somehow managed to interact with the media in such a manner that their message was not lost in translation.
While I don't believe that he is the Anti-Chirst, I do think that he should be shouting the virtues of capitalism from the top of St. Peter's Basillica if he was truly inspired by God. The fact that he has such a poor understanding of how socialism oppresses and capitalism lifts populations out of poverty means that he is just another clown in a funny costume.
Last edited by Sensei; 07-15-15 at 10:19.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks