Replies

1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view. 2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. 3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s. 4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period. 5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work? 6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification. 7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?

7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?