Hercules and Jesus

[Giordano]

that is ironic, I actually left them off for the opposite reason: they appeared to intentionally underplay the severity of the sentence.

Considering that Galileo (through arrogance or ignorance) betrayed and mocked his most powerful Patron, Urban the VIII, some might say that given the political situation of the time he got off easy.

Yep- he was asking for it by insulting the Church! Threaten to torture him if he doesn't recant (oddly, recant of his scientific theories, not of insulting the Pope). The fact that THE ACTUAL CHARGES by the Pope focused only on his Heliocentric theories was irrelevant and a distraction. Just like the bible, one must interpret the actual words to derive the truth. Sure.. (I had to do that, sorry).

And if the threat was really motivated by a personal insult, rather than his actual scientific theories, that makes it forgivable? I realize you are seeking to focus your argument on what was acceptable AT THE TIME, but AT THE TIME torturing, burning, and killing people having non-conformist religious views was considered generally acceptable too. We are looking at it from how we see it now- we know that the Church found it acceptable AT THE TIME.

Once again, have you had time to check the title of this thread- if you want to continue a more detailed discussion of Galileo then start another thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Y

Once again, have you had time to check the title of this thread- if you want to continue a more detailed discussion of Galileo then start another thread.

what in the sam hell...?

You mentioned Galileo.

what a silly response.

 

[TimONeill2]

He said it to the Academy of Science, which indicated that he thought it fell within the field of competence of that body.

You can't work out how the topic would be relevant to the Academy of Science while he, a theologian, addressed the relevant questions of theology?

Now, the question of whether science should be subservient to the contents of allegedly divinely-inspired books, or whether it should bow to observation and experiment, is as much a scientific as a theological issue.

No, it's an epistemological issue, which he approached via theology.

The question whether people should be placed in confinement and silenced because of disagreement with the tenets of a state religion, is more a juridical than a theological question.

And that's a conversation you're having with yourself. Probably because the one you're having with me is not going so well for you.

 

[TimONeill2]

1. But you agree that the Church suppressed Galileo and I documented (also see my above penultimate post) that he was officially condemned because his science differed from accepted Church teachings. You have tried to state that the Church did so in large part because the Galileo was going against "accepted science." Well the actual Papal condemnation focuses on Galileo's violation of Church teaching, not on his lack of orthodoxy with pre-existing "science."

Wrong. Dead wrong. The ruling against him clearly states that his position was "absurd in philosophy (that's "scientifically wrong" in our language) AND formally heretical". The second follows from the first because if his science was wrong, which in 1616 was the overwhelming consensus of scientists, the traditional interpretations of relevant parts of the Bible were to be upheld. I've explained all this in detail to you once - didn't you understand?

And are you really trying to state that it was the role of the Church to judge and support what it considered accepted science by threatening anyone challenging it with a charge of heresy, imprisonment, and torture?

In 1616? Yes, that indeed could be the role of the Church. So long as the person upholding the fringe belief was using it to intrude in theology by choosing to interpret scripture. As I keep trying to explain to you, that was what kicked the whole business off. Ask yourself why Galileo got in hot water and not Copernicus. Why Galileo and not Kepler, who was a Protestant heliocentrist working at a Catholic court. You clearly don't understand the historical context.

I also don't know why you seem to feel that we must limit this discussion to scientific martyrs.

Because I was challenged over my tackling of the myths about the Church and science. Feel free to go have some over conversation somewhere else if this one isn't quite going to plan.

What if Bruno was burned at the stake because he was a mystic opposing official Church teachings, not because of any of his science? Does that make it better or acceptable?

It makes it irrelevant to the topic of the Church's attitude to science and therefore irrelevant to anything I'm saying. As I said, feel free to go have a conversation with someone about Bruno and free speech if you like. I'm here to address the topic that was raised in reaction to my blog.

3. As to the highlighted statement: I asked about evil as YOU would judge it.

And I've already noted the difficulty in making judgements about remote history where the people involved simply didn't share our assumptions and world view. Judging Henry VIII for boiling traitors alive in hot oil because he offends my modern ideas about capital punishment and torture achieves ... what exactly? How about the ancient Assyrians for flaying prisoners of war for not upholding the Geneva Convention? It's like judging them for not driving cars or using Excel spreadsheets - it just makes no sense.

Judging the Church of the seventeenth century for acting like pretty much everyone else in the seventeenth century is pointless, and actually gets in the way of understanding what happened and why. And judging the modern Church for the actions of the seventeenth century Church is like tying yourself to the gates of Buckingham Palace because kings in the thirteenth century had people disembowelled. It's bonkers.

 

[Craig B]

The question whether people should be placed in confinement and silenced because of disagreement with the tenets of a state religion, is more a juridical than a theological question.

that's a conversation you're having with yourself. Probably because the one you're having with me is not going so well for you.

My statement was not a conversation with myself. It is an observation that refutes your repeated declarations that the question at issue is an entirely theological one.

The discourtesy in your last sentence is clearly intended as a misdirection to prevent the discourse entering territory which you will not consent to approach: criticism of the Church, namely its abuse of power to punish dissidence, and silence discussion of its doctrines.

 

[John Nowak]

To get back to the OP...

I'm not too impressed when similar patterns show up in stories about fictional heroes, or historical individuals whose careers have been heavily redacted to sound like fictional heroes.

Ever read Apu Ollantay? It's an Incan stage play that reads uncannily like Shakespeare, in my opinion. It's even got a comic relief character for the groundlings.

 

[TimONeill2]

My statement was not a conversation with myself. It is an observation that refutes your repeated declarations that the question at issue is an entirely theological one.

I've made no such "declarations". So that's more nonsense from you. Either your reading comprehension is appalling or you're trying to misrepresent things because the discussion isn't going your way. Either way, it's childish stuff.

The discourtesy in your last sentence is clearly intended as a misdirection to prevent the discourse entering territory which you will not consent to approach: criticism of the Church, namely its abuse of power to punish dissidence, and silence discussion of its doctrines.

I'm simply not interested in that subject. I'm here to discuss certain myths about the relationship between science and the Church. If you want to have some other conversation I'm sure you can find people who find that subject as fascinating as you. Frankly, I got that stuff out of my system in my early 20s.

 

[Craig B]

I've made no such "declarations". So that's more nonsense from you. Either your reading comprehension is appalling or you're trying to misrepresent things because the discussion isn't going your way. Either way, it's childish stuff.



I'm simply not interested in that subject. I'm here to discuss certain myths about the relationship between science and the Church. If you want to have some other conversation I'm sure you can find people who find that subject as fascinating as you. Frankly, I got that stuff out of my system in my early 20s.

Well if you won't even discuss the propriety of the behaviour of the Church because you got that stuff out of your system, good and well. It is very clear that you have indeed purged yourself of all interest in it. Have a nice day.

 

[Giordano]

what in the sam hell...?

You mentioned Galileo.

what a silly response.

Didn't you take me to task for straying from your view that this thread is only about the question of if the bible plagiarized Greek mythology when I dared to discuss questions of the veracity of the two accounts? Didn't I then to honor your view return to a discussion of plagiarism?

TimONeill2 brought up Bruno and his treatment by the Church. Primarily based on my view of the obligations due to my forum name, I brought up the specific connection of Bruno to the Church's treatment of Galileo in reply. But in my replies to his and your posts, I have more than once noted that we should return to the theme of the OP (indeed the theme you previously emphasized) and leave these diversions for another thread. I am not indicating that we should not discuss them- only that we should form a new thread to do so. Would you like me to begin this thread? Warning in advance- I will soon be out of town for a few weeks so expect a gap in my postings.

 

[TimONeill2]

Well if you won't even discuss the propriety of the behaviour of the Church because you got that stuff out of your system, good and well. It is very clear that you have indeed purged yourself of all interest in it. Have a nice day.

I won't judge the propriety of the behaviour of the Church centuries ago for the reasons I've explained - judging people from the seventeenth century for not behaving according to twenty-first century ideals is like judging them for their inability to use Excel or drive cars - it simply makes no sense. I'm more than happy to judge the modern Church for what it does today, but that's not the same thing. But judging the modern Church for what it did 400 years ago is, as I've noted, like chaining yourself to the gates of Buckingham Palace in protest over the actions of Henry VIII. "Eccentric" would be a polite word for that kind of strangeness.

 

[Giordano]

Well if you won't even discuss the propriety of the behaviour of the Church because you got that stuff out of your system, good and well. It is very clear that you have indeed purged yourself of all interest in it. Have a nice day.

Agreed. If Tim O'Neill "is not interested" in these questions fine by me.

 

[Giordano]

Wrong. Dead wrong. The ruling against him clearly states that his position was "absurd in philosophy (that's "scientifically wrong" in our language) AND formally heretical". The second follows from the first because if his science was wrong, which in 1616 was the overwhelming consensus of scientists, the traditional interpretations of relevant parts of the Bible were to be upheld. I've explained all this in detail to you once - didn't you understand?



In 1616? Yes, that indeed could be the role of the Church. So long as the person upholding the fringe belief was using it to intrude in theology by choosing to interpret scripture. As I keep trying to explain to you, that was what kicked the whole business off. Ask yourself why Galileo got in hot water and not Copernicus. Why Galileo and not Kepler, who was a Protestant heliocentrist working at a Catholic court. You clearly don't understand the historical context.



Because I was challenged over my tackling of the myths about the Church and science. Feel free to go have some over conversation somewhere else if this one isn't quite going to plan.



It makes it irrelevant to the topic of the Church's attitude to science and therefore irrelevant to anything I'm saying. As I said, feel free to go have a conversation with someone about Bruno and free speech if you like. I'm here to address the topic that was raised in reaction to my blog.




And I've already noted the difficulty in making judgements about remote history where the people involved simply didn't share our assumptions and world view. Judging Henry VIII for boiling traitors alive in hot oil because he offends my modern ideas about capital punishment and torture achieves ... what exactly? How about the ancient Assyrians for flaying prisoners of war for not upholding the Geneva Convention? It's like judging them for not driving cars or using Excel spreadsheets - it just makes no sense.

Judging the Church of the seventeenth century for acting like pretty much everyone else in the seventeenth century is pointless, and actually gets in the way of understanding what happened and why. And judging the modern Church for the actions of the seventeenth century Church is like tying yourself to the gates of Buckingham Palace because kings in the thirteenth century had people disembowelled. It's bonkers.

Okay. As I noted before but still got drawn into the debate- I am done here. I do understand, and it remains clear to me that you will not debate or address questions that are actually embarrassing to the Catholic Church, and that you try to steer such questions to the standard set of Christian apologists topics. There is no point as I see it in continuing this- we will continue to talk past one another.

 

[Giordano]

To get back to the OP...

I'm not too impressed when similar patterns show up in stories about fictional heroes, or historical individuals whose careers have been heavily redacted to sound like fictional heroes.

Ever read Apu Ollantay? It's an Incan stage play that reads uncannily like Shakespeare, in my opinion. It's even got a comic relief character for the groundlings.

I agree, in that am not proposing that someone who drafted a section of the NT sat down with a copy of the Hercules legends on parchment and began to copy it. As I see it, it was "plagiarism" of the common societal mythological themes and heroic tales that link the two. The commonalities come from common themes of how heros are "supposed to" be created and their legendary life stories, often communicated verbally from childhood. This is what calls into question for me the historical veracity of those tales in which so much of the story matches that of the common legends. Either these were created whole cloth or heavily modified to match what was expected of such a story.

 

[The Big Dog]

Didn't you take me to task for straying from your view that this thread is only about the question of if the bible plagiarized Greek mythology when I dared to discuss questions of the veracity of the two accounts? Didn't I then to honor your view return to a discussion of plagiarism?

.

no

 

[TimONeill2]

Okay. As I noted before but still got drawn into the debate- I am done here.

Clearly.

I do understand, and it remains clear to me that you will not debate or address questions that are actually embarrassing to the Catholic Church, and that you try to steer such questions to the standard set of Christian apologists topics.

That is laughable garbage. If the actual complexities of history don't conform to the childish and cartoonish caricature of it that exists in your mind, I'm afraid that's not my problem. And if apologists happen to draw on the work of the expert historians of science who say exactly what I do, that doesn't actually make the historians wrong. Or me into an apologist.

There is no point as I see it in continuing this- we will continue to talk past one another.

We're not "talking past each other". I'm showing you that you're wrong about history and you're being forced to run away because you've failed here. So you're covering your tracks with the fatuous nonsense above. So yes, go away.

 

[Mcreal]

The ruling against him clearly states that his position was "absurd in philosophy" (that's "scientifically wrong" in our language) and "formally heretical". The second follows from the first because if his science was wrong, which in 1616 was the overwhelming consensus of scientists, the traditional interpretations of relevant parts of the Bible were to be upheld. I've explained all this in detail to you once - didn't you understand?

"absurd in philosophy" would primarily be a theological view, as the charge of "heretical" confirms. Reference to then 'consenus of scientists' is spurious and dubious.

 

[Humots]

"absurd in philosophy" would primarily be a theological view, as the charge of "heretical" confirms. Reference to then 'consenus of scientists' is spurious and dubious.

I agree.

There could only be a "consensus" of "natural philosophers" of some kind, and such people saw little distinction between philosophy and theology.

Science as a discipline, and scientists as such, did not exist in 1616 except as the rare exception. Such as Galileo, who was one of the very first to apply something approaching the scientific method.

Kepler was another early scientist. When his first theories didn't fit the data, he discarded them in favor of what did fit.

Even Newton had his theological side. But he kept it separate from his other work.

 

[Craig B]

... laughable garbage ... childish and cartoonish caricature ... fatuous nonsense above. So yes, go away.

Dear me, TON2!

 

[Giordano]

I'm not trying to offend you either, but you have completely and utterly missed the point again, and further, again not trying to offend you, but asserting that I cannot point out the differences in the two stories when the claim is that the Jesus story was plagerized might be about the most ridiculous god damn thing I have ever read.

This is why I felt you wanted to return to the plagiarism discussion. Which is what you had originally focused on and the theme to which I then returned.

I am happy to also acknowledge that the OP in fact matches this (your) interpretation of the topic of this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is why I felt you wanted to return to the plagiarism discussion. Which is what you had originally focused on and the theme to which I then returned.

I am happy to also acknowledge that the OP in fact matches this (your) interpretation of the topic of this thread.

lol wut