Will God Survive Science

Quote: Dalex64

Neither does it have to be one of the things Jesus preached about. We all know the Catholic Church promotes beliefs that we're never preached by Jesus or even appeared in the Bible.

We also know that the Catholic Church does not preach or promote any beliefs that go directly against what its founder, Jesus Christ taught.

Quote:

Simple statement of fact: on multiple occasions your church or members of the church acting in a way sanctioned and taught by the church, has denied science which was against their beliefs are the time. So don't give me the lame argument that there are lightning rods now so I must not be right.

Just about each time you point out how much your church had advanced science, and put on the blinders for the times that they didn't.

It is you here who are putting on the blinders. I know all about the Galileo case and the more you examine the facts the more you see that it was not about heliocentrism or theology as much as it was the pride of Pope and a great scientist. it was sinful but not part of some agenda to deny or stifle science. Look at all the great founders of different areas of science and many of them are priests. I think to make this case that I am ignoring multiple occasions when the Catholic Church sanctioned and taught against science or denied it you have to provide at least one or two of these such cases.

Quote: FrGamble

It is you here who are putting on the blinders. I know all about the Galileo case and the more you examine the facts the more you see that it was not about heliocentrism or theology as much as it was the pride of Pope and a great scientist. it was sinful but not part of some agenda to deny or stifle science. Look at all the great founders of different areas of science and many of them are priests. I think to make this case that I am ignoring multiple occasions when the Catholic Church sanctioned and taught against science or denied it you have to provide at least one or two of these such cases.

Master of spin. in other words, BS. You are in total denial.

Was Gallileo not convicted of heresy for promoting the belief that the earth revolves around the sun?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy

Quote:

On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1630galileo.asp

Are you going to try to tell me that those words don't mean exactly what they appear to mean?

You are also spinning another strawman about "deny or stifle science" in a larger scale. This is pretty basic - one case - not all of science on trial - Gallileo's beliefs contradicted the Church's, and he was punished for it, and the church was proven wrong. The fact that they promoted science where it did NOT contradict their beliefs is irrelevant. The important thing here is what they did when it DID contradict their beliefs.

Quote: FrGamble

We also know that the Catholic Church does not preach or promote any beliefs that go directly against what its founder, Jesus Christ taught.

About that. Bart Ehrman is the worlds
foremost NT forensic historian. He
started out as a rabid evangelical in
college, ended up doing his graduate
work at Princeton.

Right away in Bible college he started
finding mistakes in the NT, history
mistakes. He was stunned, he was taught
the NT was infallible, no mistakes. This
led to lifetime and 20 books on what a
sham the NT is. He lost his faith along
the way and is an atheist or an agnostic
now, depending on the day.

Point is, it isn't clear what Jesus taught,
beyond he was living in the final days
and the world as they knew it would end
in their lifetime. I would avoid Ehrman's
books if I was a priest, they will make you
very nervous and twitchy.

Quote: Dalex64

Was Gallileo not convicted of heresy for promoting the belief that the earth revolves around the sun?

Yes. Was Copernicus, a cleric who first came up with the idea? No. Were many Jesuit priests who also held to heliocentrism convicted too? No. The answer to this paradox is where you find the real controversy of Galileo. The Pope who had him convicted was originally a friend and supporter of Galileo. When he felt slighted and made fun of by the brilliant scientist the conviction came.

Quote:

You are also spinning another strawman about "deny or stifle science" in a larger scale. This is pretty basic - one case - not all of science on trial - Gallileo's beliefs contradicted the Church's, and he was punished for it, and the church was proven wrong.

Many Churchmen and faithful scientists were proven correct about heliocentrism. It is a strawman to use the treatment of Galileo as indicative of all the growing scientific evidence and support for heliocentrism.

Quote:

The fact that they promoted science where it did NOT contradict their beliefs is irrelevant. The important thing here is what they did when it DID contradict their beliefs.

The teaching of the Church is that science and religion can never contradict each other and I think that continues to be proven true. If something is true then it cannot contradict another truth.

Of course we read Ehrman, he is an important exegete. Maybe his biggest mistake would be thinking the NT or the Bible as a whole is inerrant, meaning no mistakes. Maybe if he was Catholic he would still be a strong believer.

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe his biggest mistake would be thinking the NT or the Bible as a whole is inerrant, meaning no mistakes.

It wasn't his mistake, he was taught
that by his Church. If you read Ehrman
you know what a fraud the NT is.
I suspect you don't read him at all,
a couple years ago when I brought
it up you had never heard of him.
You wanted to know the name of
a famous NT historian who claimed
parts of the NT were written 150
years after Jesus died.

"Bart Ehrman claims almost half of the NT's 27 books are forgeries,
done 200-400 years after Jesus died. 6 of Paul's letters,
Peter 1 and Peter 2, Titus. I can't remember the others. Forgery
was apparently quite a cottage industry in ancient times.
If you could write, and less than 3% could, you could put down
your ideas and claim it was written by somebody close to
Jesus. If you were clever about getting it into circulation,
it would be accepted as yet another 'lost' book."

You didn't know who Ehrman was.

I know who Ehrman is and have since seminary. I know parts of the NT were written 150 years after Jesus died, very, very, small amounts of it.

Quote: FrGamble

I know who Ehrman is and have since seminary. I know parts of the NT were written 150 years after Jesus died, very, very, small amounts of it.

Then why did you write this in 2016:

June 7th, 2016 at 9:43:32 PM pm
FrGamble
Please give me the name of any respected Biblical scholar who says any of the NT was written after 150AD.

You obviously had no idea who Ehrman
was. Now you've always known? Just
more of your bob and weave that you've
become famous for, rewriting your own
past when convenient..

What did I say after you gave me the name of Bart Ehrman? Of course I knew who he was.

Quote: FrGamble

Yes. Was Copernicus, a cleric who first came up with the idea? No. Were many Jesuit priests who also held to heliocentrism convicted too? No. The answer to this paradox is where you find the real controversy of Galileo. The Pope who had him convicted was originally a friend and supporter of Galileo. When he felt slighted and made fun of by the brilliant scientist the conviction came.

Many Churchmen and faithful scientists were proven correct about heliocentrism. It is a strawman to use the treatment of Galileo as indicative of all the growing scientific evidence and support for heliocentrism.

It is not. remember a strawman is giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

My assertion: the church has opposed scientific views that contradict with their beliefs.
My evidence: “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”
QED (Thus it is demonstrated)

However what you are doing IS a strawman. you are suggesting that I am saying ALL scientific advances contrary to church teachings are fought by the church, and then refute that. that is NOT my argument.

Quote:

The teaching of the Church is that science and religion can never contradict each other and I think that continues to be proven true. If something is true then it cannot contradict another truth.

how do you reconcile that statement with “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”

obviously the church statement that the earth was the center of everything was not true, so yeah, one truth here is not contradicting another truth. however the church's untruthful belief was contradicted by a truthful belief, and also, the church believed in an untruth and confined a man for the rest of his life.