[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Then Galileo’s rival scientists couldn’t disprove his theories and they pushed the Catholic Church into attacking him.
The persecution of Galileo was political and not theological although the Cardinals of the Inquisition masked it as theology (as was the usual tactic).
This isn’t completely accurate. The church wanted Galileo to say that his theory was instrumental in nature, not True (with a capital T); that is, they wanted him to just say that the theory was useful in getting certain usable results, but that the universe didn’t actually work that way. Galileo refused, and his troubles began in earnest.[/quote]
You are correct, however the attacks were originally based in the politics of the day.
The church had earlier reviewed his and Copenicus’ teachings and found no conflict.
The church gave him an out and he refused to take it. You have to admire a man that stands up for what he knows is right.
What disgusts me about threads such as this is the inability of people to distinguish between “The Church” and individual Catholics. The Times article clearly states that this publication was put out by the “Catholic bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland.” What does this mean? Most likely the bishops assigned some committee to draft a document, gave their imprimatur and had it published. Were they actively involved in the drafting? Probably not. In any event, despite the proclamation of the Anglocentric headline, this publication is the private opinion of a group of theologians speaking solely for themselves and who govern fewer than 1% of the world’s Catholics, not the opinion of the Catholic Church.
The same problem arises in the sex abuse case, that of confusing the local Catholic hierarchy with “The Church.” Is the American hierarchy filled with corrupt, incompetent heretics? Of course, but this has been the case for over a hundred years. The US has always been a problem area for the Church, but with only 6% of the world’s Catholics we unfortunately can’t expect the Pope to devote his complete and utter attention to the US. For many years before the secular press got ahold of the sex abuse cases, the conservative and traditionalist Catholic press had publicized abuse and impropriety by numerous priests and bishops, publicized the link between certain priests and NAMBLA, and urged for action. Did anyone listen? No. Yet all of a sudden the secular press publicizes this stuff and everyone blabs on about how bad the Church is, how it has no credibility, etc. Where was the peanut gallery before? Those of us who knew of this stuff realized it wasn’t the fault of “The Church,” but of individuals within it. The Johnny-come-lately’s need to get a clue. If you wouldn’t blame the federal government for the actions of a Commerce Dept. GS-11 or SESer in Oregon, why would you treat the Catholic Church any differently?
[quote]Kuz wrote:
I struggle to see how this thread is productive…
[/quote]
Lothario has had a history on this board for mocking, denouncing and misinterpreting everything Catholic. It’s just business as usual.
I agree that this is not news. One big difference between Catholics and many other Christian demoninations is that Catholics do not believe the bible is the only single source of truth of the word of God. The spoken word (i.e. stories and beliefs handed down generation by generation) as well as the bible are sources of Catholic faith and belief.
The bible should not be viewed as solely a historical document. Although it is very accurate in many areas. It includes stories, allegories, and symbolism to get God’s word to the people who are open to studying and understanding its meaning.
It’s ironic, I suppose, but it’s the fact that I was raised Catholic that has caused me to be very suspicious of the Fundamentalists and their literal view of the Bible. I have plenty of issues with the Catholic church, but I can sort out the good from the bad, and the church, at least in the last few years, has always valued education, science, and learning. I was never taught, for example, that the creation story in the Bible was literally true, and I’ve never met a Catholic who believes that it is literally true.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I find the Catholic church’s courage in accepting the truth (somewhat) is encouraging, and bridges the gap, so to speak, between those who possess faith, and those who are empty of it. Maybe this is genuine, maybe it is a survival tactic… maybe they felt their relevance slipping away in this modern age of communication and technology. I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t matter. Anything that brings us all closer together as a people has my vote.[/quote]
Again, you act like this is some kind of revealing news. Like the Catholic Church all of a sudden is doing this possibly as a desperate survival tactic. This has been the belief all along. All your seeing is a press release confirming the belief since the inception of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has never viewed the bible as an infallible document/single source of truth. So it may be a completely new bit of informatino for you, but not to any believers. It goes to show how little you know of the Catholic faith. And please spare us your conjecture on the the Church’s motivations as some kind of desperate marketing ploy.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Finally, this thread is not about Gay marriage. You brought this up (out of the blue) as a way to send a jab my way since you know my stand on the issue. It didn’t work! If you want to discuss Gay marriage start a thread about it and see who joins.
My very best to you. And may you have many happy hours of laughing in peoples faces, if that’s what you want in life.
Zeb
[/quote]
It’s mostly your face I want to laugh in, actually.
And you’re right, time will tell on this issue, but there has certainly been progress in the direction of allowing gay marriage, or at the very least, civil unions where people share the same rights as married couples.
Dan John would be a good source for the “official” Catholic doctrine on evolution vs. creationism. That’s not what he comes here for, obviously, but if we ask nice and promise not to bash I think he might fill us in. I would be interested in what the “official” word is.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
It’s ironic, I suppose, but it’s the fact that I was raised Catholic that has caused me to be very suspicious of the Fundamentalists and their literal view of the Bible. I have plenty of issues with the Catholic church, but I can sort out the good from the bad, and the church, at least in the last few years, has always valued education, science, and learning. I was never taught, for example, that the creation story in the Bible was literally true, and I’ve never met a Catholic who believes that it is literally true.[/quote]
I thought the article was pretty interesting. I guess since you’re Christian you knew that already…
Well then that is a fair point, actually. Sorry if I came off pissy in my e-mail, but I get a little touchy given the amount of bashing the Catholic Church has taken of late (and don’t get me wrong… the priest abuse scandal is not what I mean since that was just abhorrent). I guess something that allows people to have a better understanding of what the Church stands for is a good thing. I stand corrected.
Kuz[/quote]
No problem, I don’t think you sounded ‘pissy’. I just thought it was funny that a large portion of the church publicly declared that Genesis was not to be taken literally, since many creationists DO take it literally and then base their animosity towards the theory of evolution on that.
But my beef isn’t so much with Christianity, as it is with people who claim to be Christians. You seem to be one of the minority whose attitude and faith match up quite sincerely. Thanks for the reply.
Read Leviticus chapter 19-20. This should sum things up pretty good. Yes, this is the old testement but the new testement tells of the true sacrafice, Jesus, and all you have to do is beleive that he died for your sin and rose again in a new life. To give you a new life and eternal life…
What ever you believe…are you willing to press your luck in this life? Also, knowing you do get a do over? All you are choosing is eternal life or eternal pain…you choose…is it worth it. Also, if all of this is just a story to give us purpose. Why is chirstianty the only religion so strongly believed or opposed?
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
No problem, I don’t think you sounded ‘pissy’. I just thought it was funny that a large portion of the church publicly declared that Genesis was not to be taken literally, since many creationists DO take it literally and then base their animosity towards the theory of evolution on that.
But my beef isn’t so much with Christianity, as it is with people who claim to be Christians. You seem to be one of the minority whose attitude and faith match up quite sincerely. Thanks for the reply.[/quote]
Thank you for the compliment - very much appreciate it.
I would have the same problem, actually, with people who do not seem to do much to live up to their own beliefs (regardless of faith/creed/etc). Those without sin casting the first stone and all. I would only ask that people try and understand that while we may have high ideals that we strive for daily based on our philosophies, faiths, religions (whatever you want to call it really), we are flawed people and will come up short a lot. So if a Christian is not perfectly living up to the letter of the Bible, that’s really not a very fair grounds for attack. Whereas if that same person resoundly criticizes others while not being up to live up to standards themselves… well, that’s just someone who is asking for it.
Fair enough?
It’s a shame that (amongst other topics these days) it’s incredibly difficult to have a civil discourse on religion and faith.
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
just curious, but has the new Pope come out and said that it’s OK for preists to be married to women, or is that still a few months away?[/quote]
[quote]CU AeroStallion wrote:
just curious, but has the new Pope come out and said that it’s OK for preists to be married to women, or is that still a few months away?[/quote]
If you know anything at all about this Pope you know that, if anything he is more conservative than the previous one!
i love catholics. If i wasn’t an agnostic but a christian i would probably be a catholic. They are a great church and have their problems like any other religion. As far as the kiddie abuse thing it is not the fault nor the character of the church. But they should have been stronger against it earlier and until they got all kinds of bad press from the scandals they really didnt do anything about it. But on the positive they do think , unlike a lot of protestants IMHO , like an earlier poster said they aren’t afraid of science. If you are afraid of science then your faith is pretty shaky. And they are the best drinkers of any christians that i have ever met
They are repressed but behind closed doors the kinkiest, well you know, catholic
[quote]pomofo wrote:
What disgusts me about threads such as this is the inability of people to distinguish between “The Church” and individual Catholics. The Times article clearly states that this publication was put out by the “Catholic bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland.” What does this mean? Most likely the bishops assigned some committee to draft a document, gave their imprimatur and had it published. Were they actively involved in the drafting? Probably not. In any event, despite the proclamation of the Anglocentric headline, this publication is the private opinion of a group of theologians speaking solely for themselves and who govern fewer than 1% of the world’s Catholics, not the opinion of the Catholic Church.
The same problem arises in the sex abuse case, that of confusing the local Catholic hierarchy with “The Church.” Is the American hierarchy filled with corrupt, incompetent heretics? Of course, but this has been the case for over a hundred years. The US has always been a problem area for the Church, but with only 6% of the world’s Catholics we unfortunately can’t expect the Pope to devote his complete and utter attention to the US. For many years before the secular press got ahold of the sex abuse cases, the conservative and traditionalist Catholic press had publicized abuse and impropriety by numerous priests and bishops, publicized the link between certain priests and NAMBLA, and urged for action. Did anyone listen? No. Yet all of a sudden the secular press publicizes this stuff and everyone blabs on about how bad the Church is, how it has no credibility, etc. Where was the peanut gallery before? Those of us who knew of this stuff realized it wasn’t the fault of “The Church,” but of individuals within it. The Johnny-come-lately’s need to get a clue. If you wouldn’t blame the federal government for the actions of a Commerce Dept. GS-11 or SESer in Oregon, why would you treat the Catholic Church any differently?[/quote]
yes the classic don’t confuse the people with the goverment, or the government with the people.
I’m not religious, but leading Catholics have a pretty good history in terms of valuing rational thought, scientific discoveries, and philosophy. Sure, there is some bad stuff in there too, but you look at the modern-day American religious right fundie war on science, and thank your stars for a principled stance like this.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
I’m not religious, but leading Catholics have a pretty good history in terms of valuing rational thought, scientific discoveries, and philosophy. Sure, there is some bad stuff in there too, but you look at the modern-day American religious right fundie war on science, and thank your stars for a principled stance like this.[/quote]
To a point, yes. But look at the Catholic stance on birth control, which I think is totally out of touch with reality. The results of the efforts of Catholic missions in Africa could be 100 times better if they just taught the population about birth control. Limited food supply + uncontrolled birthrate = starvation. It’s a simple equation.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Floortom wrote:
I’m not religious, but leading Catholics have a pretty good history in terms of valuing rational thought, scientific discoveries, and philosophy. Sure, there is some bad stuff in there too, but you look at the modern-day American religious right fundie war on science, and thank your stars for a principled stance like this.
To a point, yes. But look at the Catholic stance on birth control, which I think is totally out of touch with reality. The results of the efforts of Catholic missions in Africa could be 100 times better if they just taught the population about birth control. Limited food supply + uncontrolled birthrate = starvation. It’s a simple equation.[/quote]
This is just being loyal to the concept that sex is just for procreation.
If you explore the reasons why they feel this you could conclude one of 2 things.
The writers of the Bible took this stance to prevent unwanted pregnancy, spread of disease, etc. as it was the best way of eliminating those things before reliable condoms were invented (and still is, protected sex may be more fun, but abstinence is more reliable.) If this was the case the Church should get with the program and allow the use of condoms.
The other possibility is that God does frown on sex for things other than procreation. I find this a bit more unlikely.
I wish the Church would allow the use of condoms, but I think much of the criticism leveled at the Church is also inaccurate and unfair.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Floortom wrote:
I’m not religious, but leading Catholics have a pretty good history in terms of valuing rational thought, scientific discoveries, and philosophy. Sure, there is some bad stuff in there too, but you look at the modern-day American religious right fundie war on science, and thank your stars for a principled stance like this.
To a point, yes. But look at the Catholic stance on birth control, which I think is totally out of touch with reality. The results of the efforts of Catholic missions in Africa could be 100 times better if they just taught the population about birth control. Limited food supply + uncontrolled birthrate = starvation. It’s a simple equation.[/quote]
