Hercules and Jesus

[Giordano]

sure! You sarcastic reply "sure" was not a nuanced view of the Galileo controversy.

Is there now a rule of "sure" as there is a rule of "so?"

In my own immediately prior post (#75) I expressly explained why the Church charges against Galileo included their view of him committing heresy specifically as a result of his Copernican views. Were you requiring all the specifics/nuances in each of my posts every time I post in this regard?

My "sure" was in the middle of an otherwise detailed continued response to ideas expressed in this thread. Perhaps then I am only allowed to use it as a single word dismissive post that doesn't express any other facts?

If you actually disagree with the statements I expressed in my posts as to the Galileo versus Church battle, then again, please supply details so we can discuss them. Thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is there now a rule of "sure" as there is a rule of "so?"

In my own immediately prior post (#75) I expressly explained why the Church charges against Galileo included their view of him committing heresy specifically as a result of his Copernican views. Were you requiring all the specifics/nuances in each of my posts every time I post in this regard?

My "sure" was in the middle of an otherwise detailed continued response to ideas expressed in this thread. Perhaps then I am only allowed to use it as a single word dismissive post that doesn't express any other facts?

Sure it was.

Your entire post was not a nuanced view of the Galileo controversy.

 

[Giordano]

My apologies! I was wrong! My detailed (nuanced?) explanation of how the Church charges against Galileo included specific objections to his science versus the bible's theology were in my paragraph immediately above the one in which I stated the "sure" to which you objected. It was not in a different post at all, my details were in the very same post (#75). I used "sure" to save space given I had just discussed the details.

Perhaps you preferred me to discuss all aspects of the Church charges against Galileo in my own post? But I was responding specifically to the prior claim that the Church had no problem with Copernican/Galileo's scientific theory, not trying to present an entire discussion of all the legal and religious aspects of the case. In fact, that would seem very off topic for this particular thread.

Again, perhaps if you have detailed disagreements with what I did present you can present these and we can discuss them? If you wish to discuss all aspects of the Church's case against Galileo that might justify a separate thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again no details as to where you disagree with my views? If you want a more detailed view of my points, they are in post #75 as I just noted. My post just above the post you took issue with as incompletely nuanced.

Bro? Post 75 contains this line:

"The Church never was angry with Galileo for his scientific theories; only because he stated them in too nastyor public a manner!" Sure...

That we have been talking about.

C'mon man.

 

[Noztradamus]

Good pick up MikeG. Missed out on the 'a'. Spelling was never my strong point.

If you hadn't posted that, I would have continued to think that you were making a clever use of "cox" and commended your diction.

 

[logger]

Again I ask: Which "NT story of Jesus"? They're all different. gLuke and gMatt both contain parts of gMark, some parts are only in Luke and Matt., some are only in Matt and some are only in Luke.

Each man wrote from his perspective. Naturally each book would have a different telling.

 

[Giordano]

Bro? Post 75 contains this line:



That we have been talking about.

C'mon man.

See my reply above. Thanks. And it should have read nasty or public, not nastyor public. Sorry for the typo. And I must admit when you used the term "Bro" I thought that you were spying referring to another typo of mine, but I gather now that you are using the "Hey, bro" "LOL" "Hey dude" form of English. Sorry- I am still stuck on the "Cool" era.

 

[logger]

No one is saying that a person sat down with the story of Hercules and just did a global search and replace with the name Jesus. The point is that the NT story of Jesus incorporated many of the classical aspects of pre-existing heroic myths. You may believe that it "is based on a true story." But there are clearly many key elements in it indistinguishable from stories we all accept as fiction.

One is from a human hero, the other is a suffering servant. The latter is precisely against human thinking and ways.

 

[Giordano]

One is from a human hero, the other is a suffering servant. The latter is precisely against human thinking and ways.

Got it. That clarifies the difference alright. Given that 16.5 has emphasized that the thread is about plagiarism and not the truthfulness of each narrative, I gather that you are stating that Jesus is not presented as a hero in the NT. I didn't know this.

Welcome to the thread by the way, but I appear to have more pressing discussions in which to participate right now, so it may take some time for me to reply to your comments. Sorry.

 

[Noztradamus]

One is from a human hero, the other is a suffering servant. The latter is precisely against human thinking and ways.

Also one was the son of a god, the other just a deluded artisan

 

[TimONeill2]

In February 1615 the Cathalics Church charged Galileo with heresy for agreeing with the Copercian proposal that the Earth moved, expressly because this theory contradicted specific versus in the bible.

This is the bit that those who want to use the Galileo Affair as a stick to beat the modern Church usually only manage to get half right. The full story is that they did so because it was rejected by the scientists of the day AND it contradicted the established interpretation of those verses. That “AND” is the key to understanding what happened.

This is because they assumed that science (what they called “natural philosophy” or just “philosophy”) and revelation could not be in conflict with each other, since both ultimately came from God. So when there seemed to be a contradiction between the two they thought it was either because (a) someone had got their science wrong or (b) their interpretation of scripture was faulty. As Bellarmine wrote specifically about heliocentrism in 1615, if the science in this case could be demonstrated, the Church would have to reinterpret those verses. Given that Catholicism didn’t always interpret the Bible literally, it as entirely possible to interpret those verses according to one of the three other levels of Biblical exegesis. But, as Bellarmine also noted, they weren’t going to do this if the science wasn’t proven. And in 1615 (and 1616 and 1632 and for many decades afterwards) it was definitely not proven. Far from it – it was considered a flawed idea that was held by no more than a tiny handful of people as a result. So they concluded they should go with option (a) above. We know they were wrong, but that’s with the cheap wisdom of hindsight.

So it’s too simplistic to say “they condemned him because of the Bible” and miss the fact that they did so because the science said they should stick to their interpretation of those Biblical verses. But that doesn’t fit with the “Church was anti-science” cliché that people keep trying to jam this history into. Which is why, as someone who dislikes seeing history being distorted to fit an ideological agenda regardless of who is doing it, I try to explain the real story.

This was after Copernicus himself, but clearly demonstrates the displeasure the Church had and came to have with Copercian theory, whatever they actually publically charged Copercius with.

They didn’t charge Copernicus with anything, which should be telling you something. Far from it. Copernicus was sponsored and encouraged by the Bishop of Culm, Tiedemann Giese. He was vigorously urged to publish his book by Cardinal Scheonburg:

Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject. Moreover, I have instructed Theodoric of Reden to have everything copied in your quarters at my expense and dispatched to me.

And once his theories became known even before his book’s publication they sparked the interest of Pope Clement VII, who hosted a private lecture on them in the Vatican gardens by one of Copernicus’ students in 1533 and was delighted by them, rewarding the student with a precious Greek manuscript in gratitude. Do these sounds like the reactions of an institution that received these ideas with “displeasure”?

[In any case their charges of heresy against Bruno were not because Bruno was himself opposing some of Copernicus's theories.

More pertinently, their charges of heresy against Bruno had nothing to do with heliocentrism at all.

I find the apologetics that appear from time to time in an attempt to minimize the horror of the Church's historic actions against scientist and other, religious non-conformists amusing.

I find the way that people blithely lump “scientists” in with religious non-conformists and expect to get away with that distortion annoying. Galileo is pretty much the sole example of a scientist being suppressed by the Church and, as I’ve just explained, that was because at that stage the science of the time was against him. Which makes him a very odd example of the Church being anti-science. Bruno is not an example either. So who are these scientists the Church oppressed?

 

[Giordano]

Also one was the son of a god, the other just a deluded artisan

Clever.

 

[Giordano]

This is the bit that those who want to use the Galileo Affair as a stick to beat the modern Church usually only manage to get half right. The full story is that they did so because it was rejected by the scientists of the day AND it contradicted the established interpretation of those verses. That “AND” is the key to understanding what happened.

This is because they assumed that science (what they called “natural philosophy” or just “philosophy”) and revelation could not be in conflict with each other, since both ultimately came from God. So when there seemed to be a contradiction between the two they thought it was either because (a) someone had got their science wrong or (b) their interpretation of scripture was faulty. As Bellarmine wrote specifically about heliocentrism in 1615, if the science in this case could be demonstrated, the Church would have to reinterpret those verses. Given that Catholicism didn’t always interpret the Bible literally, it as entirely possible to interpret those verses according to one of the three other levels of Biblical exegesis. But, as Bellarmine also noted, they weren’t going to do this if the science wasn’t proven. And in 1615 (and 1616 and 1632 and for many decades afterwards) it was definitely not proven. Far from it – it was considered a flawed idea that was held by no more than a tiny handful of people as a result. So they concluded they should go with option (a) above. We know they were wrong, but that’s with the cheap wisdom of hindsight.

So it’s too simplistic to say “they condemned him because of the Bible” and miss the fact that they did so because the science said they should stick to their interpretation of those Biblical verses. But that doesn’t fit with the “Church was anti-science” cliché that people keep trying to jam this history into. Which is why, as someone who dislikes seeing history being distorted to fit an ideological agenda regardless of who is doing it, I try to explain the real story.



They didn’t charge Copernicus with anything, which should be telling you something. Far from it. Copernicus was sponsored and encouraged by the Bishop of Culm, Tiedemann Giese. He was vigorously urged to publish his book by Cardinal Scheonburg:

Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject. Moreover, I have instructed Theodoric of Reden to have everything copied in your quarters at my expense and dispatched to me.

And once his theories became known even before his book’s publication they sparked the interest of Pope Clement VII, who hosted a private lecture on them in the Vatican gardens by one of Copernicus’ students in 1533 and was delighted by them, rewarding the student with a precious Greek manuscript in gratitude. Do these sounds like the reactions of an institution that received these ideas with “displeasure”?



More pertinently, their charges of heresy against Bruno had nothing to do with heliocentrism at all.



I find the way that people blithely lump “scientists” in with religious non-conformists and expect to get away with that distortion annoying. Galileo is pretty much the sole example of a scientist being suppressed by the Church and, as I’ve just explained, that was because at that stage the science of the time was against him. Which makes him a very odd example of the Church being anti-science. Bruno is not an example either. So who are these scientists the Church oppressed?

Oh why bother? I am pleased and satisfied with the views and facts that I already presented.

And I only attack the modern Church for their modern evils.

Further, I may not agree with non-conformist theologians, but I agree with their right to think for themselves the same way I agree with the right of scientists to think for themselves. Burning them at the stake appears a slightly excessive reaction to either form of religious/non-religious nonconformity from my point of view. And some of my Jewish ancestors, excommunicated, tortured, or killed during the Inquisition and after, probably agree with me, even if they were not scientists.

To extend the topic a bit to newer areas of discussion- do you view any of the historic actions of the Catholic church as significantly morally flawed? If so, which ones are these?

 

[TimONeill2]

Oh why bother? I am pleased and satisfied with the views and facts that I already presented.

You made a very specific historical claim about scientists being oppressed with religious non-conformists. Are you seriously saying you're not going to back that up because you can't be bothered?

And I only attack the modern Church for their modern evils.

I have no problem with people doing that. I have a genuine problem who attack the modern church for historical evils, especially if those evils are half-understood, distorted or simply imaginary.

 

[Elagabalus]

Tim, I don't know if you'll be staying long here in our dark corner of the internet but I would just like to say how much I enjoyed reading your replies to all and sundry for first 500 pages or so of the Historical Jesus thread over on RatSkep. How you managed to keep that intensity up for that long, I'll never know but it was appreciated-to some of us.

 

[Giordano]

You made a very specific historical claim about scientists being oppressed with religious non-conformists. Are you seriously saying you're not going to back that up because you can't be bothered?



I have no problem with people doing that. I have a genuine problem who attack the modern church for historical evils, especially if those evils are half-understood, distorted or simply imaginary.

1. I already did provide specific evidence for my claims. You disagreed in a manner that appears to ignore, or seeks to absolve the historic church for almost all of its evil deeds. And you failed to address my point that arguing that the Church did dreadful things to people because of minor theological differences rather than major scientific/philosophical ones does not seem to work as an excuse for me.

I am still happy with the evidence I presented in terms of convincing most others. I don't expect to convince you. Some posters seem to enjoy these extended, but reiterative arguments. I don't and I post here for pleasure, not. B boredom.

2. We appear to agree that attacking the modern Church for historical evils can easily become silly. But one cannot simply ignore history as indicative of important lessons to be learned, and either implemented if not yet done so by the modern church, or remembered in the cases the modern church has changed their policies in response. I regret that the old saying about ignoring history leads to repeating it is often true.

3. Were you planning to list the historical evils that you do believe were committed by the Catholic Curch, as I quirred, or do no specific ones come to mind? This would might prove a novel enough topic to keep the thread interesting.

 

[Craig B]

Who should be allowed to interpret scripture? And it was Galileo’s dabbling in the interpretation of scripture, first in his Letter to the Grand Duchess and then in his Letter to Castelli, that kicked the whole affair off. But this is a level of critical contextual detail which New Atheist polemicists, in their eagerness to “criticise”, usually don’t bother to acquaint themselves.

So "the interpretation of Scripture" is to be left to the Church, and not to be "dabbled in" by lay people?

“Correct”? By whose standards? You keep getting tangled up in invalid value judgements and the presentist fallacy.

As I have shown, John Paul II admitted error in his predecessors' treatment of Galileo. In this affair you are intent not merely to exculpate the Church, but to defend the Church against the Pope!

As regards my eagerness to criticise; let me remind you that I have cited the outlandish 1990 observations by Ratzinger, which I think deserve a good deal of criticism;and I have noted the much more apologetic vicisti Galilei (if I may recycle an older expression) statement by John Paul II, which I approve as timely and justified. You have as yet said nothing about the first of these, and seem to think the second was too harsh on the seventeenth century Church rulers. You are in my opinion too eager to criticise it.

 

[TimONeill2]

Tim, I don't know if you'll be staying long here in our dark corner of the internet but I would just like to say how much I enjoyed reading your replies to all and sundry for first 500 pages or so of the Historical Jesus thread over on RatSkep. How you managed to keep that intensity up for that long, I'll never know but it was appreciated-to some of us.

Yes, I often wondered why I bothered at the time and eventually realised that I was talking in circles with the same people over and over again so I gave up. When two of the usual suspects finally agreed that a historical Jesus made the most sense and then backflipped and went back to Mythicism without being able to articulate why they had done so, I realised that these people were not working from a place of reason. For all their protestations, they were being swayed by their emotions.

But the experience of those years (!!) of to and fro did expose me to pretty much every Mythicist counter-argument out there, from the intricate-but-implausible (eg people like 'spin') to the utterly whacko (too many drive-by Acharya fans to mention)

 

[TimONeill2]

1. I already did provide specific evidence for my claims.

Not for the claim that they suppressed scientists as well as religious non-conformists.

You disagreed in a manner that appears to ignore, or seeks to absolve the historic church for almost all of its evil deeds.

No, I did not. I disagreed in a manner that requires people who make specific claims about history to back them up. You said that the Church suppressed scientists as well as religious non-conformists. I've challenged you twice now to back up the "scientists" part of that claim.

And you failed to address my point that arguing that the Church did dreadful things to people because of minor theological differences rather than major scientific/philosophical ones does not seem to work as an excuse for me.

Probably because I have no idea what that means. Where have I made this "excuse", because I don't recognise that odd statement in anything I have ever said.

3. Were you planning to list the historical evils that you do believe were committed by the Catholic Curch, as I quirred, or do no specific ones come to mind? This would might prove a novel enough topic to keep the thread interesting.

I don't know why I would need to do this. Or how exactly we define these "evils". "Evil" according to us? According to them? According to their opponents?

 

[Craig B]

Or how exactly we define these "evils". "Evil" according to us? According to them? According to their opponents?

That is moral relativism carried to an astonishing extreme. I note that you permit Robert Conquest to judge Stalin, on the grounds that he was a contemporary of Stalin; but your statement here rescinds Conquest's license to do that, historical contemporary that he was.

Stalin was "evil" according to whom? Stalin himself? His opponents? "Us"? (ie observers like Conquest) How do we define it?