Originally posted by josephwso what you are saying is you would rather believe what moses or whomever wrote the bible said on the belief it was inspired by god(so they say) rather than what Darwin said.
I'll gladly be counted with "the rest".
indeed you paint such a nice picture of believers who should all take your example
Originally posted by Conrau KAnd no other pope before him saw the point?
Because Pope John Paul II tended to make symbolic gestures. The pardon was unnecessary and Ratzinger has been slightly more ambivalent on the Galileo affair: last year, there were protests at Roman university La Sapienza against the Pope for his alleged justification of the trial of Galileo. The Pope did not deny those allegations, and perhaps rightly so...
I agree that it is symbolic, after all the damage is done. Galileo is dead and there's no way he can enjoy the fact that he was pardoned.
The problem is that no other pope had the cojones to just come out and publicly acknowledge that what they did to galileo was wrong before that.
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think no pope ever had any cojones worth using to anything.
The problem is that no other pope had the cojones to just come out and publicly acknowledge that what they did to galileo was wrong before that.
It's high time for a female pope. She would have the cojones to do something right.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou don't see the point in repentance? I would see the point being to show that the church is repentant for their sins and to show the world that they acknowledge that it was wrong.
I still don't see the point.
I think admitting that they were wrong might just have been what jesus would have done 😉
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI don't know if repentance is actually called for. According to this encycopeadic entry, Galileo was prosecuted not for heliocentrism but for persisting in heresy without proof of his theory. Nor was he imprisoned for this scientific theory but for breaking a contract. And even the term "imprisonment" might be a misnomer.
You don't see the point in repentance? I would see the point being to show that the church is repentant for their sins and to show the world that they acknowledge that it was wrong.
I think admitting that they were wrong might just have been what jesus would have done 😉
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Originally posted by Conrau KYou don't think prosecuting people for heresy is something that calls for repentance?
I don't know if repentance is actually called for. According to this encycopeadic entry, Galileo was prosecuted not for heliocentrism but for persisting in heresy without proof of his theory.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KHe was threatened with torture, forced to recant his scientific theories, forbidden to write any more books and put under arrest until his death. Even after his death, he was denied burial in consecrated ground. And your belief is that this was done because he "broke a contract"?
I don't know if repentance is actually called for. According to this encycopeadic entry, Galileo was prosecuted not for heliocentrism but for persisting in heresy without proof of his theory. Nor was he imprisoned for this scientific theory but for breaking a contract. And even the term "imprisonment" might be a misnomer.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
And you and Ratzinger don't feel any need for an acknowledgment of wrongdoing?? Right wing Catholics are really something else.
EDIT: It would be difficult to find a more biased bunch of BS than the New Advent article cited.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe article cites tenured academics on the subject. If you disagree with the content, you ought to provide equally qualified critics to support claims that he was tortured and refused consecrated burial (which the article denies explicitly.)
EDIT: It would be difficult to find a more biased bunch of BS than the New Advent article cited.
Originally posted by Conrau KI've been all through this with LH: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=38047&page=1
The article cites tenured academics on the subject. If you disagree with the content, you ought to provide equally qualified critics to support claims that he was tortured and refused consecrated burial (which the article denies explicitly.)
page 3 on.
I said he was "threatened with torture" not tortured. That claim is verified by the documents of the trial. The Church refused his burial in consecrated ground for 75 years, heartlessly denying his daughter's request.
The Catholic Church is one of the most vile institutions in the history of the planet Earth. Threatening to torture or inprison someone is nothing compared to the major atrocities that this church has commited over the centuries. Galileo was fortunate that he wasn't burned at the stake or molested by a priest as a child (perhaps he was).