Liberal Christianity

[PairTheBoard]

Has nobody around here heard of this?

Liberal Cristianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity)

From the webpage:
"They are skeptical concerning many or all of the biblical miracles, preferring naturalistic explanations or viewing miracle accounts as legend or myth. They often deny or reinterpret in mythical terms such doctrines of orthodox Christianity as the virgin birth, atoning death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. Liberalism has been most influential in mainline Protestant denominations and is rejected in Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity."

That's mainline Protestant denominations. One of which I know from experience called "Disciples of Christ" or the "Christian Church". Liberal Christianity is widespread in the World Council of Churches.

The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.

PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue.

Christianity is very clear that one has to accept Christ as the messiah, and that he died as an atonment for sins so that any who believe will be given ' eternal life'.

If liberal Christianity denies atonement why are they following him? Because he was a good teacher?

This sounds like a lame attempt to a negotiate a religion to appease all sides without taking a stance, and it sounds stupid.

I can understand being skeptical about certain things but every religion has major tenants of faith that one must believe to call themselves a follow of a religion, eg.

An orthodox jew cannot believe Jesus was the messiah.

A muslim cannot believe Muhammad wasn't a prophet.

A Christian can't believe Jesus wasn't the messiah.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a pale shadow at best. More fruits of the protestant reformation. Redefine doctrines, start a different denomination. Redefine that denomination's doctrines, start another breakoff sect. Repeat ad nauseum. Christ and true doctrines are a whole cloth than can't be taken apart and resewn to fit the preferences of a group of people who won't accept all the demands of the gospel; that cloth can only be torn.

(Note that I am not maintaining that members of such sects cannot be saved.)

[RJT]

Hi Pair,

Don't know much about it. But, regarding the Catholic theologians listed - I've read some Kung, Schillebeeckx, and de Chardin. I think the reference you sight takes a few liberties including them.

RJT

p.s. hope you read my apology regarding my reply to your post and your reply to that.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Pair,

Don't know much about it. But, regarding the Catholic theologians listed - I've read some Kung, Schillebeeckx, and de Chardin. I think the reference you sight takes a few liberties including them.

RJT

p.s. hope you read my apology regarding my reply to your post and your reply to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply in that thread RJT and appreciated its sentiments. You actually got me to wondering if I had misrepresented things so I looked around a little more. I myself said that the Jesus Seminar was considered more a radical fringe. I was mistaken if I gave the impression that "Modernist Theology" equates with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. After looking around a little I realized that "Liberal Christianity" was the term I really should have been using. According to the link above, Liberal Christianity is a Very loose fitting garment that includes ideas of the Jesus Seminar, as well as at least the methods of Modernist Theologians such as Kung, as well as diverse mixtures of types of theologies. I think it is safe to say there are "many" Liberal Christian theologians and their theologies can be quite diverse.

It was only after I'd read "On Being a Christian" by Kung that I came to realize how much broader Christian thinking can be than what is portrayed by the Evangelicals. I think Liberal Christianity in general broadens those possibilities even further and its appeal in many mainline protestant denominations tells me its dismisal by conservatives is not the slam dunk they make it out to be.

I thought this was an interesting link to work Hans Kung did in council with the World Religions on a Global Ethic.

World Religions - Global Ethic (http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/kung.htm)

I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. I guess my main point is that there is a Bigger Picture here.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a lame attempt to a negotiate a religion to appease all sides without taking a stance, and it sounds stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Soren Kierkegaard is waiting in the parking lot of heaven to kick your ass.

[RJT]

“I'm certainly not an expert on any of this.” I could have written this same sentence myself.


Oh, if I could remember 5% of stuff I have read…

At the risk of hijacking your thread, may I ramble a bit? (Btw, I am just sharing thoughts, in no way trying to give any advice.)

But before I do, I’d like to tell you something. Some of my favorite people I have met in life are people with whom I have I started off on the wrong foot. I have a feeling you will be added to that list.

A few things I do firmly believe:

-“There's something happening here. What it is, ain't exactly clear.” That I learned from Stephen Stills.
-“Don’t follow leaders.” That I learned from Bob Dylan.

I am being somewhat facetious, quoting popular song writers, but you get the idea.

Don’t follow leaders, though is one that took me a while to learn. (There is One exception to this rule, of course.)

My foundation is through the Catholic Church. It is where I started and it has come to work for me. I came back to the church probably 10 years after college and after all those phases most of us go through. After reading various philosophy looking for answers and coming up short, I read a bit of theology. While, of course, theology too comes up short, I found that religion comes as close to what I (we?) am looking for. (One of my favorite quotes is by Thomas Merton: “ Faith takes over when reason can say no more.” - might not be exact quote)

I have been fairly involved in my religion/church for maybe the last 15 years. It has been interesting if nothing else. Someday I hope to be able to take that “leap of faith” that I know is already part of my intellect, but has yet to touch my heart, like you mentioned. (Probably I am just to dang lazy.)

What I think I am getting to here is that, for me, the basics are already there in (my) organized religion. Certainly the more we read the more we can assimilate into our faith and practice. (I in no way mean to sound like you are taking a wrong approach.). For me there is already enough of the basics. I don’t feel the wheel needs reinventing. (Nor do I think you are suggesting that.)

A big part of our Church is the Holy Spirit. He is kind of like the antithesis of Mick Jagger’s Devil in his song “Sympathy for the Devil”. (Or the subject of Carly Simon’s “Your So Vain” for that matter.) He is always in the right places. He keeps us on track. Sure we go off on tangents. But, I chose to believe that He won’t let us get too far out of kilter. Sure He let you guys (I assume you are protestant or non-denominational.) wonder off for a few hundred years. But, He won’t let you get too far off the beaten path. (Joking of course. Maybe not.) My point here is that I think much of the stuff the Church thinks is perhaps nonsense. Although I loathe cafeteria-Catholics as a rule (picking and choosing what to believe), I do think we all have a certain responsibility to decipher much of it on our own. Eventually most stuff gets corrected in the shuffle. (Remember the H. S.)

Talking with people, praying for guidance. Presence, I think is as much a part of it as anything. Somehow I feel just being part of it, I am helping to redefine the Church.

Well, don’t know if you found my thoughts of any interest, but felt like sharing some of them with you. I think I did keep somewhat on point to your original post. And I don’t mean to sound like I disagree with the reference you sited.

I have enough on my plate already ( for now at least) is all I am basically trying to say.

[PairTheBoard]

RJT,

I find your thoughts very interesting. I was very impressed with what I learned about the Catholic Church after reading some of Kung's work. I think the Church showed immense courage, strength, and integrity in what it did at Vatican Council II. I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair. The Catholic Church must shepherd a wide wide spectrum of members, from some just out of primitivism to those with modern scientific viewpoints. It does well to accomodate them all while constantly remaining focused on The Faith. At least that's how I see it.

I think the Catholic Church emphasizes the call Jesus makes for us to Decide on a Life's Vocation of Love. This to me is the "salt of the earth". This is what matters. If this abides in Christianity it will live and grow because people will SEE it just as they SAW the resurrected Christ.

I respect and admire the mission you are on.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Another link on Liberal Christianity. I don't know who's webpage this is or who he's affiliated with. But it looks like the kind of thinking held by a lot of Liberal Christians.

More Liberal Christianity (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/index.htm)

From the website,
On the Resurrection:
"First of all let me say that I do think that the Resurrection was real. By that I mean that it was not an event that was simply invented or faked by Jesus' followers. I do think that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate," that he "suffered death and was buried," and "on the third day he rose again," as the Nicene Creed states. However, I do not think that the Resurrection involved Jesus' body coming back to life. By that I mean that the Resurrection was not simply resuscitation -- as if Jesus somehow simply recovered from the crucifixion. Even further, I find it highly unlikely that the Resurrection involved Jesus taking up his old body in any sense. To me the Resurrection was a completely transformative event, one in which Jesus took on a wholly different existence from the one he had on earth."




PairTheBoard

[wadea]

I hate to pick nits, but since I enjoy reading your posts and I know I will continue to read them, I must pick this one. In this post and in past posts, I've noticed that you use the word tenant when you mean tenet. For example, in this post, "tenets of faith" instead of "tenants of faith".

Sorry, I know this post is prickish, but I only mention it because I'm anal retentive about this type of thing, it wasn't a typo, and I look forward to your future posts.

-w.a.

[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of "common knowledge" floating around which many times amounts to little more than propaganda. imo, it is a good idea to investigate for yourself. The Catholic Church's relationship to Science may not be what you think it is.

It looks like if Galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine.

On Galileo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.TXT)


The Catholic Church gets along with Science pretty well today.

On Evolution (http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm)

Maybe there is more going on than you are aware of.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of "common knowledge" floating around which many times amounts to little more than propaganda. imo, it is a good idea to investigate for yourself. The Catholic Church's relationship to Science may not be what you think it is.

It looks like if Galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine.

On Galileo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.TXT)


The Catholic Church gets along with Science pretty well today.

On Evolution (http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm)

Maybe there is more going on than you are aware of.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough, there probably is a lot of this common knowledge floating around in my head and im quite sure that there is alot more going on than i am aware of. ill even grant u that the relationship between science and the church is whatever u say it is.

but......."it looks like if galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine" so he brought it on himself then. anyways, since when is anyones political deftness a determining factor in whether something is true or not.

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"anyways, since when is anyones political deftness a determining factor in whether something is true or not. "

I would point again to the Galileo Link.

From the Galileo Link:
"Since the Galileo case is one of the historical
bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church--the
other two being the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition--it is important that Catholics understand
exactly what happened between the Church and that very
great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout
almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.

The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no
brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and
concluded that "the Church had the best of it." The
most striking point about the whole affair is that
until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of
theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for
the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of
Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the
persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when
the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial
mechanics. But here we need some historical background."

And again from the Link:
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the
throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he
started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good
will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to
alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and
aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church
authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to
accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not
been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or
they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

The problem was that Galileo did not have Proof of his theory. The Church was willing to leave it open to further Scientific investigation but Galileo insisted the Church change the traditional interpretation of the scripture in question Right Now to suit him and before a rigorous proof had been produced.

You might also consider the fact that Galileo was just as belligerently trying to ram some of his other theories down the Church's throat that were just downright False and which the best scientific minds of the day knew were false.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]

And again from the Link:
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the
throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he
started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good
will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to
alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and
aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church
authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to
accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not
been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or
they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

The problem was that Galileo did not have Proof of his theory. The Church was willing to leave it open to further Scientific investigation but Galileo insisted the Church change the traditional interpretation of the scripture in question Right Now to suit him and before a rigorous proof had been produced.


[/ QUOTE ]

galileo's belief was known. the church rejected your more reasonable 3rd position.
he did not have proof, you are correct. he did however, have plenty of evidence which supported it, which is why he came to his conclusion.
the church chose the least reasonable position and according to your link did so more out of spite for galileo than for any reason which might support their conclusion.

[RJT]

Pair,

Thank you for your link to the Pope John Paul II article and evolution. Like so much going on in Catholicism, I missed that. I was delighted (but not surprised) in reading it.

Because the headline and the preface to the article are so misleading, I have taken the liberty to link another article which gives a better read (especially from the Catholic standpoint). The basic idea that John Paul did say evolution is not necessarily incompatible with our religion is correct, though.

www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html)




Good work.

RJT

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"galileo's belief was known. the church rejected your more reasonable 3rd position.
he did not have proof, you are correct. he did however, have plenty of evidence which supported it, which is why he came to his conclusion.
the church chose the least reasonable position and according to your link did so more out of spite for galileo than for any reason which might support their conclusion. "

You say, "galileo's belief was known". Which part? The proof by Tides? The Circular Orbits? If heliocentricism was "known" why couldn't the stellar parallaxes be seen? That was still lacking at the time. And Heliocentricism was never condemned by the Church as Heresy. What the Galileo verdict amounted to was an order by the Church for Galileo Personally to STFU. It then Did take the reasonable third approach to the continued scientific investigation of Heliocentrism by scientists who stuck to the business of science. There were even Jesuits studying the theory with their own telescopes.


A Scientific Objection to Heliocentrism during Galileo's time, From the Link:
"If the earth did orbit the sun ... then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection"

Should the Church have forced Galileo to STFU? No. They were unjust and as you say probably spiteful in that decision. That is what John Paul II reversed. But the Church's intollerance for the Man Galileo is not the same as an intollerance of his science.

From the link:
"Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.
Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either
ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council."



The Catholic Church vs Science
From the Link:
"The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for
in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and
others have argued that it was the metaphysical
framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern
science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid
phrase, science was "still-born" in every major
culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian
West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God
and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and
Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is
concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing
catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth
Lateran Council taught that the universe had a
beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized
both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist,
but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology.
Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the
closer we come to the ontological mysteries of
Christian faith."

Should the Church have declared the Scientific Theory of the 19th Century that the Universe had no beginning as Scientific Fact? The Catholic Church may move slowly before declaring a Scientific Theory to be Fact. But at least it does move and it adapts its understanding of scripture so as to remain reasonable and rational in the face of scientific development. If you want to Condemn somebody on this basis look to the Calvinists and Evangelicals, not to the Catholics.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks RJT. Your link is much the better one. I think the one I gave was from an Evangelical point of view with the idea of condemning the Pope for not being like the Evangelicals.

It's a tough deal for the Catholics. On one side they get condemned by people who think they are as closed minded as the Evangelicals and on the other side, condemned by the Evangelicals because they're not.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
chrisnice --
You say, "galileo's belief was known". Which part? The proof by Tides? The Circular Orbits? If heliocentricism was "known" why couldn't the stellar parallaxes be seen? That was still lacking at the time. And Heliocentricism was never condemned by the Church as Heresy. What the Galileo verdict amounted to was an order by the Church for Galileo Personally to STFU. It then Did take the reasonable third approach to the continued scientific investigation of Heliocentrism by scientists who stuck to the business of science. There were even Jesuits studying the theory with their own telescopes.


A Scientific Objection to Heliocentrism during Galileo's time, From the Link:
"If the earth did orbit the sun ... then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection"

Should the Church have forced Galileo to STFU? No. They were unjust and as you say probably spiteful in that decision. That is what John Paul II reversed. But the Church's intollerance for the Man Galileo is not the same as an intollerance of his science.

From the link:
"Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.
Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either
ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council."



The Catholic Church vs Science
From the Link:
"The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for
in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and
others have argued that it was the metaphysical
framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern
science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid
phrase, science was "still-born" in every major
culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian
West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God
and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and
Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is
concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing
catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth
Lateran Council taught that the universe had a
beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized
both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist,
but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology.
Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the
closer we come to the ontological mysteries of
Christian faith."

Should the Church have declared the Scientific Theory of the 19th Century that the Universe had no beginning as Scientific Fact? The Catholic Church may move slowly before declaring a Scientific Theory to be Fact. But at least it does move and it adapts its understanding of scripture so as to remain reasonable and rational in the face of scientific development. If you want to Condemn somebody on this basis look to the Calvinists and Evangelicals, not to the Catholics.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

i should have wrote that galileos poition was made clear. i did not mean to imply that heliocentrism was known. the link said that the church was forced to either accept galileos position or condemn it. it said that galileo rejected the 3rd more reasonable position. i meant to say that galileos position was clear and that it was in fact the church who decided to reject the 3rd more reasonable position. you say the church did take that position and ill take your word for it. i was just going by the link which stated that the church was forced to condemn it when galileo refused the 3rd position.....anyways we all come to the same conclusion that it was wrong. i think it was just the whole tone of the link that didnt sit well with me......gee looking back i guess we really were wrong but that guy sure was a jerk and kinda got what he deserved, plus in context u know we realy werent technicly wrong, on balance the church did have the stronger case given scientific knowledge at the time...

i do realize that the catholic church isnt nearly as hostile as other christian faiths to science, evolution and such and i had others in mind when i wrote that we can look forward to an apology in a couple hundred years regarding the churchs hostility to others. i apologize for ascribing the outright hostility that some evangelical faiths have towards science to the catholic church.

historicly, however, i think the link is way to kind in its apraisal of the realtionship between science and the church. when the church was the only game in town science in "the christian west" was in its darkest days. sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc.

[David Sklansky]

"sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc."

If this is true it is ridiculous for anyone to defend "Christianity". Maybe the "Offshoot of Christianity" is reasonable. But don't imply that this new modern religion is basically the same as the one that existed for 1700 years or so.

[warlockjd]

A bit off topic, but I find it ironic that politically Jesus had 'liberal' attitudes while his followers are generally conservatives.

[PairTheBoard]

The state of science at the time.

"Copernicus had delayed the publication of his book for
years because he feared, not the censure of the Church,
but the mockery of academics. It was the hide-bound
Aristotelians in the schools who offered the fiercest
resistance to the new science."

What the Church really could not tollerate.

"Father Niccolo Lorini, read a copy of
Galileo's Letter to Castelli and was disturbed to find
that Galileo had taken it upon himself to interpret
Scripture according to his private lights."

Who's position was clear?

" He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

You said:
"when the church was the only game in town science in "the christian west" was in its darkest days."

Compared to what?

You go on to say:
"sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc. "

You know, it's time for you to supply some supporting evidence for your spin. I'm afraid your "everyone knows" assertions on Galileo have left your credibility damaged.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
A bit off topic, but I find it ironic that politically Jesus had 'liberal' attitudes while his followers are generally conservatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Of course you're now talking about Politically "liberal" which is different from "Liberal Christianity". There are politically conservative and liberal people in Liberal Christianity as well as Conservative Christianity.

There are plenty of Politically Liberal Christians and plenty of Christians who derive their political liberalism from their Christian beliefs. In fact they had the political high ground in this country for years, prior to Falwell's organization of the "Moral Majority"

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc."

If this is true it is ridiculous for anyone to defend "Christianity". Maybe the "Offshoot of Christianity" is reasonable. But don't imply that this new modern religion is basically the same as the one that existed for 1700 years or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this link on the Galileo affair David?
Galileo (http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.TXT)

Sometimes what everyone knows is not as clear cut as what everyone knows.

DS --
"If this is true it is ridiculous for anyone to defend "Christianity".

I suggest you clearly explain what "this" is and supply balanced evidence on both sides before drawing conclusions. As it is you sound like somebody responding to a posted rumor with, "if this is true then ...".

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]

And again from the Link:
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the
throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he
started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good
will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to
alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and
aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church
authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to
accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not
been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or
they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

The problem was that Galileo did not have Proof of his theory. The Church was willing to leave it open to further Scientific investigation but Galileo insisted the Church change the traditional interpretation of the scripture in question Right Now to suit him and before a rigorous proof had been produced.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

im new to 2+2 here so in case its not clear the quote is from pairtheboard quoting one of his links.

i never meant to imply that everyone knew galileo was right or that everyone knew his position or whatever. im sorry but i write prety slopy. but reading your link there it looks like he had a specific position that he "was intent on ramming down the throat of christendom." im not completly sure of all that his position did entail but for the purposes of this discussion ill stipulate that it was whatever the hell u say it was or whatever the church at the time said it was. his exact position is pretty irrelevant, but it must not have been too crazy because u stated it probably would have been accepted by the church if galileo werent such a prickly fellow.

science "in the christian west" was in its darkest days when the catholic church was running things as compared to any other period of "in the christian west"....except maybe today in kansas and georgia.

[ QUOTE ]

You go on to say:
"sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc. "

You know, it's time for you to supply some supporting evidence for your spin. I'm afraid your "everyone knows" assertions on Galileo have left your credibility damaged.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt think that the catholic church trying and killing thousands of witches in europe was any obscure historical fact or any fringe theory. ill try to provide some credible references for you. im sure the church even apologized and has an explanation u can read.

i also didnt realize that there was much controversial with the fact that the catholic church didnt allow autopsies or disections of human bodies untill after the black plague killed a good chunk of europe. in many ways civilizations(like the greeks) thousands of years prior had better knowledge of the human body and various systems within than did europe in the catholic churchs heyday. of course this is not surprising since they strictly forbid it.

the whole galileo affair (and the churches ridiculus arrogance)was at least in most ways harmless.

[David Sklansky]

Pair the Board will try to refute you, EVEN THOUGH HE AGREES WITH YOU. He's got some kind of prejudice against people who assert their position too arrogantly. (Sort of like what he ascribes to the Catholic Church regarding Galileo.) The formal name for his condition is Andy Foxitis.

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"u stated it probably would have been accepted by the church if galileo werent such a prickly fellow."

What got him in trouble was when he started interpreting scripture. The Church would not allow it, but that was a religious conflict rather than a scientific one. The Pope finally had enough to say Enough when he wrote a piece making the Pope out to be a simpleton personally. That was just too prickly.

chrisnice --
"science "in the christian west" was in its darkest days when the catholic church was running things as compared to any other period of "in the christian west"....except maybe today in kansas and georgia."

Science was just getting off the ground when the Catholic Church was running things. What really held it back were the scientific Aristotilians in Academia. Did you notice that it was the Calvinists who persecuted Keplar and it was the Catholic Church who sought to protect him?

As far as Kansas and Georgia go I've never been there. But did you see this post by Toffler about South Carolina? Kind of sad and kind of scarry.

South Carolina (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2925386&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

I don't think he's talking about Liberal Christians in that area.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
Pair the Board will try to refute you, EVEN THOUGH HE AGREES WITH YOU. He's got some kind of prejudice against people who assert their position too arrogantly. (Sort of like what he ascribes to the Catholic Church regarding Galileo.) The formal name for his condition is Andy Foxitis.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry pair....not at all trying to be arrogant or dismissive at all. ive never tried to spin anything or make any crazy assertions. i just had to giggle a little after reading one of yur posts..."i was impressed with pope john II's statement after studying the galileo affair." now im not trying to insult the popes statement or anything like that. i just think its funny that the pope who just recently died gave that statement and that, depending on the specific day he issued it there could have actually been men in space. i just found it somewhat amusing that anyone would truly be impressed by it. i mean do you think this actualy cleared anything up for anybody. i know nasa didnt care.

[ QUOTE ]

As far as Kansas and Georgia go I've never been there. But did you see this post by Toffler about South Carolina? Kind of sad and kind of scarry.

South Carolina (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2925386&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

I don't think he's talking about Liberal Christians in that area.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

that is very sad and scary. worst part is the CEO and other docs who would want to see him go i they knew his true beliefs. imagine if these morons ever actualy gain any widespread power. what if we all lived in a community like his. how many hours of med school would be devoted to the power of prayer, proper blessings and selection of consecration oils.

certainly that aint liberal christianity. i think we can agree we all would be better off in a liberal christian community as opposed to tofflers. but i dont think that makes liberal christianity any more reasonable. after all, tofflers community is an intellectual playground when compared to taliban afghanistan.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pair the Board will try to refute you, EVEN THOUGH HE AGREES WITH YOU. He's got some kind of prejudice against people who assert their position too arrogantly. (Sort of like what he ascribes to the Catholic Church regarding Galileo.) The formal name for his condition is Andy Foxitis.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry pair....not at all trying to be arrogant or dismissive at all. ive never tried to spin anything or make any crazy assertions. i just had to giggle a little after reading one of yur posts..."i was impressed with pope john II's statement after studying the galileo affair." now im not trying to insult the popes statement or anything like that. i just think its funny that the pope who just recently died gave that statement and that, depending on the specific day he issued it there could have actually been men in space. i just found it somewhat amusing that anyone would truly be impressed by it. i mean do you think this actualy cleared anything up for anybody. i know nasa didnt care.

[/ QUOTE ]

chrisnice,

I don't accept Sklansky's characterization of me. What I tend to object to - and I've told this to David - is what I percieve to be "in the box" type thinking when there is a lot going on outside the box. Such thinking can be arrogant or dismissive but not necessarily. It is the unbalanced, narrow, and unfair nature of such thinking I object to. I am not even arguing against the ideas from in the box so much as saying look, there's more to the picture. For your ideas to be robust they need to reflect the other side of the story. How many times have you heard one person's description of a conflict she was in with somebody else and wonder how on earth the other person could have been such a villian? Until you talk to the other person and get her side of the story.

Yes, I was impressed with John Paul II's side of the story and I was especially impressed with his statements about how the Catholic Church is not in conflict with science. A refreshing stance considering that of American Fundamentalists these days.

The topic of this thread does not imply a need to defend the Catholic Church for its past mistakes, although if I'm to get into a discussion of its mistakes I would like to hear its side of the story. The topic of this thread is to present something that seems to be out of the box thinking for a lot people. That is that there is a thing called Liberal Christianity. It is not a radical fringe but a vital part of many Mainline Protestant denominations, and elements of it can even be found in possibly the most Mainline of all Christian bodies, the Roman Catholic Church.

I guess I will say what I want to say regardless of what Sklansky thinks about it, and I hope you will too.

Sincere regards,

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]

I don't accept Sklansky's characterization of me. What I tend to object to - and I've told this to David - is what I percieve to be "in the box" type thinking when there is a lot going on outside the box. Such thinking can be arrogant or dismissive but not necessarily. It is the unbalanced, narrow, and unfair nature of such thinking I object to. I am not even arguing against the ideas from in the box so much as saying look, there's more to the picture. For your ideas to be robust they need to reflect the other side of the story. How many times have you heard one person's description of a conflict she was in with somebody else and wonder how on earth the other person could have been such a villian? Until you talk to the other person and get her side of the story.

Yes, I was impressed with John Paul II's side of the story and I was especially impressed with his statements about how the Catholic Church is not in conflict with science. A refreshing stance considering that of American Fundamentalists these days.

The topic of this thread does not imply a need to defend the Catholic Church for its past mistakes, although if I'm to get into a discussion of its mistakes I would like to hear its side of the story. The topic of this thread is to present something that seems to be out of the box thinking for a lot people. That is that there is a thing called Liberal Christianity. It is not a radical fringe but a vital part of many Mainline Protestant denominations, and elements of it can even be found in possibly the most Mainline of all Christian bodies, the Roman Catholic Church.

I guess I will say what I want to say regardless of what Sklansky thinks about it, and I hope you will too.

Sincere regards,

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

well i dont know why u think im coming at this from inside the box or with too narrow a perspective or whatever. i think that science(finding knowable truths) as well as spirituality, religon or whatever should both play a role in many peoples lives and society at large. i merely have a problem when either one tries to impede on the others turf. regretfully it is allmost exclusivly religon which oversteps its bounds. i was merely commenting on the specific galileo incident which i think is illustrative of my general problem with science and religon mixing.

paul phillips wrote about intelligent desigen in his blog the other day and a couple sentances on the science vs religon debate i thought were interesting...."The details change but the battle is always the same. One group wants to find the truth and one group wants to protect their idea of the truth, and these approaches will forever be irreconcilable." liberal christianity i think falls in between somewhere.

getting both sides of the story and having a balanced view of everything is all fine and dandy but sometimes its merely an attempt to justify 2 irreconcilable beliefs.

[PairTheBoard]

Paul Phillips can have his opinion and you can have yours. My opinion is that John Paul II made a good case for the Catholic Church not having irreconcilable differences with Science. And I think Liberal Christianity in general is quite comfortable with science.

It looks to me like your mind was already made up before you entered this discussion. You insist on the idea that Christainity is a Monolith which is in irreconcillable conflict with science, has historically impeded science, and continues in that pursuit. I've given you evidence which I think shows a bigger picture. What you do with that evidence is up to you.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think Liberal Christianity in general is quite comfortable with science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. What they aren't comfortable with is many of the core doctrines of Christianity or even the specific denomination they belong to. As a Catholic I am always amused at the liberals in our church who don't accept so many of the beliefs that define catholocism. The funny thing is they are trying to re-invent the wheel. It's all been done before in various protestant denominations. If they want more liberal with "high-church" liturgy they should run along to the episcopal church. If they want less such worship practices, then they should try the presbyterian church. But of course the reason they don't, and stay in the catholic church instead trying to change it, is that if they leave they will no longer be the "progressive" media darlings they like to be, but just another protestant denomination. In fact, conservative catholics and the more conservative members of evangelical protestant churches often have more in common on matters of morals in particular and also core christian beliefs, than with liberal members of their own churches.

[David Sklansky]

"But of course the reason they don't, and stay in the catholic church instead trying to change it, is that if they leave they will no longer be the "progressive" media darlings they like to be,"

I always did kinda figure this about Pair The Board. Lest why would he always be trying to catch me in a mistake? He want to be on the cover of the National Enquirer one way or the other.

[PairTheBoard]

BluffTHIS --
"But of course the reason they don't, and stay in the catholic church instead trying to change it, is that if they leave they will no longer be the "progressive" media darlings they like to be,"

I think there are plenty of ordinary Liberal Christians in the Catholic Church who never get close to the media. Naturally there are some who do. I suspect the reason they stay in the Catholic Church and seek to change it rather than go someplace else is that they believe in the Church and in its capacity to change. The Church gave evidence of this capacity to change in the Second Vatican Council.


DS --
"I always did kinda figure this about Pair The Board. Lest why would he always be trying to catch me in a mistake? He want to be on the cover of the National Enquirer one way or the other. "

Figured what out about me David? That I'm a Liberal Christian Catholic seeking media attention? That I want to be on the cover of National Enquirer? That I'm pursuing this goal by trying to catch the great David Sklansky in a mistake on the 2+2 message boards? Like THAT would make the Headline News? Riiiight.

PairTheBoard