Liberal Christianity

[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

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

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

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.