Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: roscoe on 23/04/2009 00:00:57
-
I will pay $1000 to anyone who can provide the name of one person executed by the Catholic Church for alleging Earth revolves around the Sun. The 3rd and final revision of my Galileo research can be found here
http://www.firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
[Giordano Bruno (born Filippo Bruno) a.k.a. Bruno Nolano] was declared a heretic and handed over to secular authorities on January 8, 1600 and burned at the stake on February 17 1600 in Campo de' Fiori, a popular Roman square. As a demonstration of mercy, the clerical authorities placed a bag of gunpowder around his neck before they set the fire, to spare Bruno, bringing his suffering to an end quickly. The authorities also nailed his tongue to his jaw to stop him from speaking. Since 1889, there has been a monument to Bruno on the site of his execution.
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Bruno_Giordano.html
Although his heretical beliefs other than Heliocentrism were sufficient to have him barbecued,
(presumably this is the loophole in your $1000 offer: the heresy which warrented his execution was not solely Heliocentrism).
-
The point is that the Catholic Church did not need to execute anyone for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. All they had to do, as with Nicolaus Copernicus, was to threaten such 'heretics' with excommunication, in those days, a fait worse than death.
-
in those days, a fait worse than death.
Fate mate! Second FOG in two days! What's happening!
FOG
-
Circuses - a fête worse than death.
-
in those days, a fait worse than death.
Fate mate! Second FOG in two days! What's happening!
FOG
As I typed it, I looked at it and thought, 'that's not right', then put 'fete' & thought, 'nope, thats a fair'. Then I tried 'fait' (as in the French "fait accompli").
FATE...... Wy didnt it cume inta me haed, prhaps i kneed a cup o cofe or sumat.
Ta four putin me rite C4M...... no fanks to dentals on vis okashun, u done got it rong two. Oh! I cee, its a pun.... struth, i shure do knead sumfing ta get the old gray mater wurking twoday.
-
no fanks to dentals on vis okashun, u done got it rong two.
Huh? Where did I get it wrong?
Ooooh! Post changer! I'm telling teach that you changed your post post posting!
-
You had to be really determined to get yourself executed heretics were normally given the opportunity to recant.
-
I suspect that this thread is a drive-by trolling.
-
The point is that the Catholic Church did not need to execute anyone for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. All they had to do, as with Nicolaus Copernicus, was to threaten such 'heretics' with excommunication, in those days, a fait worse than death.
The point is that the Catholic Church did not need to execute anyone for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. All they had to do, as with Nicolaus Copernicus, was to threaten such 'heretics' with excommunication, in those days, a fait worse than death.
Catholic Church has never ex-communicated anyone for alledgeing Earth rev around Sun. Did you read original link to wordpress?
-
As a demonstration of mercy, the clerical authorities placed a bag of gunpowder around his neck before they set the fire
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Bruno_Giordano.html
He "went out with a bang" then.
while his Copernicanism [heliocentrism] was undoubtedly a factor in his excommunication and execution, his theological beliefs were also sufficiently unorthodox to earn him condemnation, and probably played a larger role in the matter than his cosmology.
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Bruno_Giordano.html
I'll settle for $100.
-
Did you read original link to wordpress?
I skimmed through it until I came to this "David Icke has a chapter somewhere on the Photonic Band" at which point it lost any prospect of gaining credibility.
-
So it's the old kill the messinger routine then. Icke talks of many thousands of things-- a few of which are correct. I suspect the PHYSICAL OBJECT of the Photonic Band to be one of them although it cannot, of course be proven.
Only one article of 'Copernicanism' concerns itself with helio-centrism.
This may be a 'drive-by troll', however it cannot be denied that most people believe the Cath Church executed or at least ex-communicated people who alleged Earth/ Sun and this is a false conception.
-
"So it's the old kill the messinger routine then."
Very old, for example once the messenger was a man called Brunoand the Catholic church didn't like his message.
"This may be a 'drive-by troll', "
Sadly it's not.
"however it cannot be denied that most people believe the Cath Church executed or at least ex-communicated people who alleged Earth/ Sun and this is a false conception. "
I deny it on the grounds of the evidence cited above (and BTW, you owe RD his $1000).
-
I'm not actually sure of what you are trying to prove here, roscoe. Heliocentrism is a fact, that's undeniable.
The Catholic Church did not excommunicate or execute anyone for heliocentric belief. The fact is, we cannot know whether they did or did not on this or any other matter. Some less well known people were exiled or just disappeared off the scene after falling foul of the church. Who knows what happened to them.
The church did deny heliocentrism and did imprison Galileo for his belief in it.
The Catholic church also tried to discredit Jean Francois Champollion in the early 19 century for his work on translating Egyptian hieroglyphs, fearful that translation would prove the Earth to be older than the 6000 years in biblical recconing and equally, if not more so, concerned that it would undermine the authority of the Vatican. It is alledged that the church conspired to destroy the Roseta Stone, and all copies of it, to hinder Champollion's progress and that of Thomas Young, his English rival. It is even suggested that the church were aware of this translation device and had destroyed copies of it many years previous, and now wanted to destroy this 'one that got away'.
Are you merely trying to defend the Catholic Church? You really have no need to do so, we are all aware that Catholic priests are as pure as the driven snow; well except for the odd few paedophiles and other such perverts. Of course such anti-faith habits did not occur in the church's history. Pope Alexander VI did not indulge in such un-Papal deeds, did he?
If you are trying to deny heliocentrism, which I rather doubt, you would be a fool. If you are trying to defend the Catholic Church, nobody hear has criticised it, in fact some here are followers of the Christian faith and are members of the Catholic community. We are all human, and thus subject to human failings. I would suggest you find an anti Catholicism forum and post there.
-
If you are trying to deny heliocentrism, which I rather doubt, you would be a fool. If you are trying to defend the Catholic Church, nobody hear has criticised it, in fact some here are followers of the Christian faith and are members of the Catholic community. We are all human, and thus subject to human failings. I would suggest you find an anti Catholicism forum and post there.
FOG [;D] [;D]
The really amazing thing to me is that with all of the obviously outrageous undertakings of the Catholic Church, it remained so powerful throughout its history. This is not a property of the Church. It is a property of the human population IMHO. [:)]
-
If you are trying to deny heliocentrism, which I rather doubt, you would be a fool. If you are trying to defend the Catholic Church, nobody hear has criticised it, in fact some here are followers of the Christian faith and are members of the Catholic community. We are all human, and thus subject to human failings. I would suggest you find an anti Catholicism forum and post there.
FOG [;D] [;D]
Pardon??? Oh yes, I here you. Nuts!!! FOGGED again.
-
Roscoe, may I echo Don1...what are you trying to prove. Your blog seems to focus on some rather low blows, largely unsubstantiated, at Galileo's science and his character. You make a few observations that don't really hold water. (For example, at that time there were no real distinctions between physicists and astronomers. so to classify him as either is faulty. His extensive observations with telescopes of his own design certainly qualify him to be considered as an astronomer of note, contrary to your view.) And of course there is the introduction of the Photon Band nonsense. (Yes, it is nonsense. I'm quite happy to discuss that with you further on a new thread if you wish to start one.)
So, what is it you are trying to say?
-
'Heliocentrism is a fact...' That is a new one to me as INQ denied the Sun is the center of the Universe and this has proven to be correct. No on knows where( if anywhere) is the center of the Universe in a physical sense. Until someone provides a specific name of someone executed or ex-communicated for saying Earth rev around the Sun, the Church remains innocent. The question is not about helio-centrsm. Galileo was NOT IMPRISONED AT ALL. He was held under a very loose type of house arrest only for a short period of time in 1633.
Perverts in the Church only arrived with the the schismatical v2 judeo-masonic anti-popes who are in possession of the buildings of Vatican City. Also I would bet that there have been a few phoney accusations tossed about as well. As far as Alex VI, I have been able to rehabilitate his character somewhat as there never were any 'orgies' in his Vatican. Most of the inflammatory accusations against him are a result of the immagination of the heretic Savanarola.
-
Wade Rowland's book Galileo's Mistake should be more aptly titled Galileo's Mistakes. In strictly astronomical terms, Galileo had five things WRONG. 1-tides, 2-comets, 3- ellipses, 4-- the ancient Pythagorean ideas that the Sun is stationary and 5--in the center of the Universe. I find it of interest that Galileo concurred with Pythagoras with respect to astronomical and physical theories as well. I would suggest all read Pietro Redondi's Galileo Heretic.
-
Let's be clear about G Bruno-- he is executed 16 yrs b4 the first Galileo indictment. The astronomical controversy had not even erupted yet so 'Copernicanism'( which is more than just helio-centrism) was not even a factor nor is it a 'loophole' in my offer.
-
Don-- what is the source of the info on Champillon? your choice of words like alleged and rumored has got me going. It is important because I am aware of the conflict between the Biblical story and the and the idea that the Sun may be revolving around something else in a 26,000 yr orbit. The problem is that no Bona Fide INQ exists in the schismatical, heretical v2 sect. I highly doubt the Church would be squelching any legitimate search for truth b4 1958.
Has anyone here actually read Copernicus? or at least Bk I? It is noteworthy that this work was unpublished in the English language well into the 20th Cent. It would be interesting to know of a University in the world today that includes this work as part of its curricula, whether it be science or theology. The book is probably the foundation of modern science.
In addition-- Someone has altered the title of my orig post and messed up the point of the post: there is no question whether or not the Cath Church ever executed anyone for alleging Earth around the Sun and until someone comes up with a specific name, there is zero $ in the offer for anyone.
-
Roscoe, there are several errors in your posts that require correction, but I'd like to know you will actually respond to them. Were you planning on replying to my outstanding question anytime soon?
-
'Heliocentrism is a fact...'
Yes, I did not make myself clear, I admit. Perhaps I should have, but it seemed to me you were more concerned with the defense of the Catholic Church than heliocentrism. So to make my meaning clear, heliocentrism was a fact in its time. That isn't too clear either, but I think most will understand what I am saying. It was nearer the truth than the Catholic Church's idea.
The point is, as I and Ophiolite have asked, what are you trying to achieve? I reiterate, 'If you are trying to defend the Catholic Church, nobody hear has criticised it, in fact some here are followers of the Christian faith and are members of the Catholic community.' You are making an argument where there was no argument.
-
The point of this post IS to defend the Cath Church against allegations of impropriety in the Galileo case. No one can deny that most of the GDP is under the false impression that the Cath Church persecuted someone who alleged the Earth rev around the Sun. Additionally, lets move to the Earth is flat scenario. The Church has never taught the Earth was flat and most people think we did. This is another misconception. Columbus never had any fear of falling off the flat Earth.
Someone here has criticised the Church with allegations of paedophiles( a very recent v2 phenomenon) and against Alex VI. Another wrong idea is that Galileo was imprisoned. Please give source on Champollion info. And has no-one here even read Copernicus? This is not surprising and is a consequence of Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Wieshaupt etc.
-
Does it really matter exactly what it was that the church persecuted Galileo?
It's not as if they were being Christian about it.
-
I don't think many people think that Galileo was either tortured or imprisoned but there is no doubt that he was kept under house arrest and quite possibly 'shown the instruments' to help him make up his mind.
Bruno was quite set on his martyrdom and although given opportunity to recant refused, the Inquisition did not have people executed on a whim it was always a lengthy legal process.
-
The point of this post IS to defend the Cath Church against allegations of impropriety in the Galileo case.
That's just great. Spiffing. However, I didn't notice anyone around here making such allegations. Did you?
No one can deny that most of the GDP is under the false impression that the Cath Church persecuted someone who alleged the Earth rev around the Sun.
GDP? Gross Domestic Product? Probably not, so what is it?
False impression? Well that depends upon what you mean by persecution. Galileo was subject to many restrictions and much anxiety because of his heliocentric views. Given that such actions against him were unjustified by the facts, then one might reasonably call it persecution.
Additionally, lets move to the Earth is flat scenario. The Church has never taught the Earth was flat and most people think we did. This is another misconception. Columbus never had any fear of falling off the flat Earth.
Do you specialise in tilting at windmills? I don't think many, if any, members here will subscribe to that old nonsense. The roundness of the planet had been known for centuries. A flat earth might have been a belief amongst some of the uneducated, but it was not a view of the RC church.
And has no-one here even read Copernicus? This is not surprising and is a consequence of Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Wieshaupt etc.
Yes, but not until recently. The fifty year delay had nothing to do with Luther, Calvin, Bacon, or anything other than a matter of priorities.
-
GDP= generally dumb public. With a couple exceptions, the remarks here about the Cath Church have indeed been mild compared to other sites. The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine. Science has shown the Sun to be in motion and since it is only one star in one Galaxy, there is hardly any proof that the Sun is the center of the Universe even if it IS in motion.
It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this. EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that De Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this alleged western civilisation.
Bored-- I assume you mean WHY the Church 'persecuted' Galileo. The reason it matters is that it is heretical to say that Scripture and the Tradition of the Church( the collection of Dogmatic Articles of Faith that are equal to the Bible in Roman philosophy) cannot be reconciled to science and history.
-
I'm not sure if the Catholic Church executed anyone for holding an interplanetary theory contrary to its teachings, but it may well have executed those who were late returning library books.
I recall being thankful in escaping with a flogging for that crime. Perhaps my sentence was commuted from death to the lash on account of my youth. I was seven years old at the time.
Times have changed, and habits to. But not all habits. Stem cell research is the new Copernicanism.
Btw, I have a high regard for the modern church, though agnostic myself these days. Devotees sometimes describes themselves thus:
"I'm a practising Catholic. Catholic meaning universal, practising meaning we haven't got it quite right yet."
-
The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
Then, if I may use an appropriate metaphor, you are singing to the choir. There are few if any GDPs here. (Although as I point out below I don't believe you properly understand the Galileo case.)
How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine.
No it isn't. The complex series of epicycles that astronomers had evolved to explain planetary motion could be discarded by considering that all the planets moved around the sun rather than the other planets and the sun moving around the Earth. Heliocentrism was an expression of that alternative.
As an adjunct of that it was suggested that the sun was the centre of the Universe, but this was not the central point (pun intended) of heliocentrism. The RC church was not objecting to the sun being placed at the centre of the Universe, but at the Earth being removed from that role. Those are two different things - a key point you seem oblivious to.
It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.
So what?
EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this
I don't see what this anecdotal interjection about a single individual has to do with anything. The consensus view amongst the educated for two millenia or more,starting I think with Aristotle, is that the Earth is round. The RC church has agreed with this consenus throughout that period, as far as I am aware. I stand ready to be corrected on this, but not by anecdotes about Freemasons.
Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation.
Now you have completely lost me. Which book? Ah, wait. "De Rev" is not some obscure theological degree held by Andrew Dickson White, but your disrespectful and obscure abbreviation of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a copy of which I have beside me as I type.
1. Are you seriously claiming it is not on the reading list for History of Science courses at Ivy League universities?
2. Whether it is , or isn't what does that have to do with anything?
-
GDP= generally dumb public. With a couple exceptions,
Presumably you and the Pope eh!!! The rest of the world's population are dumb! I do not care much for the 'holier than thou' attitude.
As I have said there was no argument with, nor criticism of, the Catholic Church here until you posted this question and made sweeping remarks.
I am an atheist, I have no argument with the religious, all people are (or at least should be) free to believe whatever they want to believe. That is a matter for politicians and the religious, not for scientists. Science does not condemn religion, only the religious condemn each others religions'.
As I have said before, I suggest you take your argument to a religious forum. Why not join a Jewish forum and pose the question "Why did the Jews have Jesus crucified?" or a Buddhist forum and suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
-
Buddhist forum and suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Flol%2F18.gif&hash=00f5afe61fb2d5b8397083ccd8e0d46e)
-
Whilst I admire the idea of putting historic innacuracies and false popular assumtions correct, I fear the catholic church has far greater PR problems than Galileo.
-
... suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
While we are on the topic of relics ...
In the middle ages about a dozen churches simultaneously claimed to have part of Jesus's foreskin.
If true it's a good job JC got circumcised, otherwise he'd be tripping over the thing. [:)]
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutjesus/a/holyforeskin.htm
http://www.indopedia.org/Holy_Prepuce.html
-
The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
Then, if I may use an appropriate metaphor, you are singing to the choir. There are few if any GDPs here. (Although as I point out below I don't believe you properly understand the Galileo case.)
How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine.
No it isn't. The complex series of epicycles that astronomers had evolved to explain planetary motion could be discarded by considering that all the planets moved around the sun rather than the other planets and the sun moving around the Earth. Heliocentrism was an expression of that alternative.
As an adjunct of that it was suggested that the sun was the centre of the Universe, but this was not the central point (pun intended) of heliocentrism. The RC church was not objecting to the sun being placed at the centre of the Universe, but at the Earth being removed from that role. Those are two different things - a key point you seem oblivious to.
It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.
So what?
EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this
I don't see what this anecdotal interjection about a single individual has to do with anything. The consensus view amongst the educated for two millenia or more,starting I think with Aristotle, is that the Earth is round. The RC church has agreed with this consenus throughout that period, as far as I am aware. I stand ready to be corrected on this, but not by anecdotes about Freemasons.
Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation.
Now you have completely lost me. Which book? Ah, wait. "De Rev" is not some obscure theological degree held by Andrew Dickson White, but your disrespectful and obscure abbreviation of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a copy of which I have beside me as I type.
1. Are you seriously claiming it is not on the reading list for History of Science courses at Ivy League universities?
2. Whether it is , or isn't what does that have to do with anything?
The Sun and the Earth cannot both be the center of the Universe. Heliocentrism is a THEORY that says the Sun is at the center--this is not correct. During the time of Galileo, no one had a proper conception of the Solar system--this is what is in the process of developing.
-
rosco - Forget your crusade. No one here is going to take you seriously. The idea that Pre-Vactican II was PURE Catholicism and what we have now is not doesn't make any different to anyone here. The Catholic Church is and has been corrupt - at least since the time of Irenaeus, who felt it necessary to write a book against heresy because of the corruption he believe to exist - in 169 AD! Yet the monastic movement that followed implicitly accepted a gnostic ideal (what Irenaeus argued against) in a personal relationship with God - many popes have been members of reclusive orders.
If the corruption of the everyday priesthood did not occur until after V2, why did the pope decide that a priest could not be married or have sex only in 1139? It was because of the lewd and licentious behavior of the priest of that day almost 800 years ago and a 1000 year history of abuse of this. There were 7 popes openly married, 11 who were sons of Latin Clergy, and 6 popes who openly acknowledged illegitimate children after 1139! As one priest writing on celibacy and morality within the Church says:
"The requirement of celibacy is not dogma; it is an ecclesiastical law that was adopted in the
Middle Ages because Rome was worried that clerics' children would inherit church property
and create dynasties. (Now the church is selling property to pay for the abuse scandal.) A
history of monastics and desert ascetics provided a celibate spirituality. But the requirement
could be changed by a stroke of the papal pen."
Then there was a Papal Bull that required any Catholic who had the opportunity to kill Queen Elizabeth I when she assumed the throne of England. That isn't the church I want to belong to. "Kill her if you can."
My former Carmelite spiritual director, the predecessor of the one I now have, would call you a non-believer because the Pope is infallible and you are denying this, saying that John XXIII And Paul VI and the results of Vatican II are all heretical.
According to doctrine - the infallibility of papal authority - it is you who are a heretic.
Take you crusade elsewhere - you will find no audience here - we seem to be rational, unlike the declarations you have made against Vatican 2.
True Catholicism is the acceptance of a universal faith. A faith for all men - not just fanatics such as yourself.
And by the way, I am not catholic. I am a man of peace. Radical extremism of any sort, including the extremism that caused the slaughter of all of the "heretical" gnostic Christians 1700 years ago, is NOT productive of peace.
Take your hatred, Aristotelian Universe, and bitterns elsewhere. We do not want it nor will we tolerate it here.
-
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
-
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
Before you do that will you finish answering my questions and addressing my points. Thank you.
-
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
Don't Bother - you are talking to the wrong person. And it isn't hatred - it is being disgusted with ignorance and a lack of perspective on a subject I know VERY well - I once went through a period of clarification for becoming a priest - albeit an Anglican priest. I did this with a Jesuit Theologian who was head of the theology department at Trinity University in New Orleans while he was doing his 30 year retreat after ordination.
-
I get the feeling I am about to be banned.
-
This is a scientific website. You won't get banned if you can come up with real evidence to back up your ideas. (Paying RD his $1000 would help)
I'd also like and explanation (though I don't see how it can be scientific so it would be better to post it in "chatting") of how it was acceptable to subject Galileo to house arrest and other persecution for pointing out things that were true.
That's not a club I'd want to join.
-
I am only expressing my personal opinion as a member of the forum, not as my role as moderator.
As BC pointed out, if you can come up with the science - not just your belief - this will remain in Astronomy & Physics.
-
Roscoe, may I echo Don1...what are you trying to prove. Your blog seems to focus on some rather low blows, largely unsubstantiated, at Galileo's science and his character. You make a few observations that don't really hold water. (For example, at that time there were no real distinctions between physicists and astronomers. so to classify him as either is faulty. His extensive observations with telescopes of his own design certainly qualify him to be considered as an astronomer of note, contrary to your view.) And of course there is the introduction of the Photon Band nonsense. (Yes, it is nonsense. I'm quite happy to discuss that with you further on a new thread if you wish to start one.)
So, what is it you are trying to say?
Even Prof Pastor and Wade Rowland( Galileo's Mistake). who only see the astronomical side of the Galileo case, will admit that physics is his primary occupation. And as far as Galileo as an astronomer, Mr Rowlands book should more appropriatly be titled Galileo's Mistakes. Galileo is wrong about 1--tides, 2-comets, 3- ellipses, 4-- Sun being stationary, 5-- Sun being the center of the Universe. Yes he gets credit for Sunspots and Jupiters moons.
-
When RD comes up with a name of someone executed for alleging Earth/Sun he will be paid-- Bruno does not qualify as Copernicanism is not even in play for another 16yrs-- when Galileo provokes the conflict. I will get to the rest about St Ireneus and the v2 'church' later as right now there are a couple of Nuns in the other room that are waiting for me to rape them.
-
When RD comes up with a name of someone executed for alleging Earth/Sun he will be paid-- Bruno does not qualify as Copernicanism is not even in play for another 16yrs-- when Galileo provokes the conflict. I will get to the rest about St Ireneus and the v2 'church' later as right now there are a couple of Nuns in the other room that are waiting for me to rape them.
I will pay $1000 to anyone who can provide the name of one person executed by the Catholic Church for alleging Earth revolves around the Sun.
Seems VERY contradictory - you changed the rules after making the offer.
This does not make you look very trustworthy.
-
It is not true that G Bruno is executed for saying Earth rev around Sun. He denied the authority of both the Old and New Testaments and was therefore an obstinate heretic. He probably did believe Earth around Sun but the Church never had a prob with that. As stated prev, the Pruthenic tables of Copernicus that incorperate the idea of Earth/ Sun are used in the computation of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582.
And as far as changing rules, it is the admin of this site that changed the title of my post to something very misleading. There is no question re; whether the Church ever executed someone for saying Earth/Sun. Until a specific name is provided, that is the state of this alleged controversy.
-
It is only controversial because you say it is. To the church Bruno's disregard for ALL of Aristotle's works, including the centricity of the earth, were the reasons for his execution.
-
There certainly are a bunch of reasons why Bruno was a heretic. Denying the Earth is the center of the universe is certainly one of them. Again-- the position of INQ was and is that the Earth is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense that is not necessarily repective of it's physical location. The Earth being the center of the Universe is a DIFFERENT issue than whether the Earth rev around the Sun-- although they are related.
-
Why didn't you say this in the first place? It puts a completely different light on you question.
-
My apologies if it was not clear enough. The point on Bruno is that he was executed for other reasons than saying Earth/ Sun.
This may help== Card Bellarmine "If Copernicanism were verified( which only 1 part has ever been), it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seem contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is false which has been proven".
-
Roscoe you are apparently trying to defend an organisation which attempted to suppress scientific debate in a forum designed to promote it: that's an exercise in futility.
BTW how about this for a reason to have someone barbecued, bad weather …
In Denmark, the burning of witches increased following the reformation of 1536. Especially Christian IV of Denmark encouraged this practice, which eventually resulted in hundreds of people burned because of convictions of witchcraft. This special interest of the king also resulted in the North Berwick witch trials, which saw over seventy people accused of witchcraft in Scotland on account of bad weather when James I of England, who shared the Danish king's interest in witch trials, in 1590 sailed to Denmark to meet his betrothed Anne of Denmark.
Current scholarly estimates of the number of people executed for witchcraft vary between about 40,000 and 100,000. The total number of witch trials in Europe which are known for certain to have ended in executions is around 12,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Early_Modern_Europe
-
My Lord! A Cardinal of the 16th century used a scientific reference. Bellarmine lived in the mid 1500's, 150 years BEFORE Isaac Newton. This is abhorrent to any person who thinks and does not blindly follow the lead of Neo-Scholasticism. (This is the theology espousing the believe that the Catholic Church should return to the days of Thomas Aquinas in its theology and church laws.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-scholasticism
This is akin to saying that society should again be ruled solely by kings and queens, disputes should be settled by might and the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread should be death!
I refuse to take further part in this farce.
-
For the benefit of the prev poster, it should be noted that the Jesuits( such as Bellarmine)reputation as the worlds finest scientists has been established for centuries. Sorry if you hadn't heard. Card Bellarmine dies in 1621 and Newton in 1727-- 100 yrs difference would be more accurate whatever you are trying to say. The world of Louis XVI was certainly not the Babylonian World of the Present Age. I of course have no problems with St Thomas and I would advise both of the prev posters that there thinking seems to be formed by an org hostile to the Cath Church-- Wikipedia
Wasn't there someone a while back who pondered that there was no hostility to the Catholic Church here? With a science site, it goes with the territory.
-
I can't resist - It isn't Wikipedia that is hostile, no one is hostile. It is just that you logic defies reason and relies on solely on belief. Neither Aquinas nor Bellarmine (who dies about 20 years before Galileo dies) had all the data or tools we have to understand our surroundings.
Aristotle believe the earth was flat. So the picture below is fake.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe111%2Fgeezer69%2FEarth.jpg&hash=577106487da142804bb41c7032880b70)
José G. Funes, S.J., Director of The Vatican Observatory, doesn't think so. Who gave you more information than this Jesuit, a renowned scientist?
Wikipedia wasn't around when i was born in 1944. It never shaped my thinking. Study of science in college and religious and spiritual studies that continue to this day forme and still form my thinking. And I am amazed and astonished every time I run across someone who believes 'thought' is a fixed, static think. That has never been the cast, never will be.
The church of Aquinas bears very little resemblance to the early church if Irenaeus. It changed though time. Change is not a bad thing. but to freeze change at a given time is arbitrary.
And this subject is NOT science, it is theology. I will move it to chat.
-
That St's Thomas or Robert didn't have the data that we have today is exactly the point. TPI that the Church knew to reject Copernicanism b4 there was any scientific proof. I highly doubt that Aristotle thought the Earth flat: he did think the Sun to rev around Earth-- no one gets everything right. As far as this discussion turning to theology, there is about as much chance of seperating science from religion as politics from religion-- none.
-
..... the Church knew to reject Copernicanism b4 there was any scientific proof.
The Vatican rejected Copernicanism, because it threatened to undermine the church's authority.
Similarly, you reject all evidence which does not fit in with your ideal. It is pointless to continue this discussion.
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
The only hostility here seems to be coming from your direction. Hostility toward fact and substantiated evidence.
People like you do more damage to the Catholic Church and Christianity than any science. Simply rejecting anything which you do not like, fails to support the your interpretation of the church's ideology, or calls into question the Vatican's stance & authority and biblical accounts does fool anyone anymore. People are too well educated to cringe and cowl down at the 'fire and brimstone' approach. Wake up to the modern world.
I will add no more to this thread.
-
Don wrote
Presumably you and the Pope eh!!! The rest of the world's population are dumb! I do not care much for the 'holier than thou' attitude.
The Catholic Church will only let a pope stay if he tows the line!!! Pope John Paul 1, Albino Luciano died at the hands of his cardinals because he did not tow the line.
I am stunned that given the countless wrongs the Catholic church have been responsiblefor in the past, that someone should try and quibble over one small point in order to try and defend the religious hypocrisy that is the Catholic Church. I notice at one point the poster is trying to say its an important point because it goes against certain scriptures, and as BoredChemist rightly points it out, in essence it doesn't matter why the Catholic Church persecuted and murdered, the very fact that they did it goes against their teachings and makes them indefensible.
I find it laughable that anyone who tries to defend the Catholic Church would then bemoan that a forum, or person, or website is hostile!!!
-
As far as this discussion turning to theology, there is about as much chance of seperating science from religion as politics from religion-- none.
I disagree. Science is pragmatic, while religion is dogmatic - it seems that only the religious find it difficult to separate the two.
-
I disagree. Science is pragmatic, while religion is dogmatic - it seems that only the religious find it difficult to separate the two
Religion is just a human excuse to be extremely crappy towards each other. The same applies for other blind beliefs. Science is seen as being opposed to religion,to be impartial and without bias, but when you look at things like eugenics you can see how( bad) science was used and abused to support such beliefs. If you view, as I do, that religion is a set of beliefs and doctrines that are universally supported by a number of people, then you can see that science isn't all that different. It's when religion is seen as a belief in the intangible supernatural, and that belief isn't validated by evidence,that science and religion differ entirely.
Either way bother can be used to support or demolish other beliefs, systems and, sadly, other people
-
Religion is just a human excuse to be extremely crappy towards each other. The same applies for other blind beliefs.
Science is seen as being opposed to religion,to be impartial and without bias, but when you look at things like eugenics you can see how( bad) science was used and abused to support such beliefs. If you view, as I do, that religion is a set of beliefs and doctrines that are universally supported by a number of people, then you can see that science isn't all that different. It's when religion is seen as a belief in the intangible supernatural, and that belief isn't validated by evidence,that science and religion differ entirely.
Either way bother can be used to support or demolish other beliefs, systems and, sadly, other people
I agree 100%.
Thank you for writing this so sharp and clear!
-
Religion is just a human excuse to be extremely crappy towards each other. The same applies for other blind beliefs.
Science is seen as being opposed to religion,to be impartial and without bias, but when you look at things like eugenics you can see how( bad) science was used and abused to support such beliefs. If you view, as I do, that religion is a set of beliefs and doctrines that are universally supported by a number of people, then you can see that science isn't all that different. It's when religion is seen as a belief in the intangible supernatural, and that belief isn't validated by evidence,that science and religion differ entirely.
Either way bother can be used to support or demolish other beliefs, systems and, sadly, other people
I agree 100%.
Thank you for writing this so sharp and clear!
You are welcome, and thanks! Its just nice to know someone is on my wavelength [:D]
-
I would still like to know the answer to the question "José G. Funes, S.J., Director of The Vatican Observatory, doesn't think so. Who gave you more information than this Jesuit, a renowned scientist?"
If the Jesuits are the authority, why doesn't this ones opinions count?
(I know what you are going to say so there is no need to answer that, rosco. You will say that since 1962 there has been a conspiracy in the Catholic Church against the TRUE FAITH.)
How boring - we didn't set off the first atomic bomb, either, I guess.
-
I sense a "Not A True Scotsman" Fallacy coming up.
-
JB-- could you clarify what you are asking re: Funes. And Aristotle did not believe the Earth to be flat. This is a phony trick more worthy of a Shyster Lawyer than a scientist.
-
Aristotle was wrong when he thought the Sun to rev around Earth.
-
Is that what people on this site believe?--- that Aristotle thought the Earth flat. One would think there to be a little higher level of education here. And I continue to object to the name of my post being changed--implying that there is a question as to whether the Cath Church executed anyone for alleging Earth/Sun. No one will ever provide a name because there isn't one. Additionally, no one has ever even been ex-communicated for alleging such. Please provide name if one wants to show me incorrect.