Posted on 11/15/2019 10:22:05 AM PST by fishtank
My you are lazy...
Is the Encyclopedia Britannica good enough for you?
“Galileo was summoned to Rome in 1633. During his first appearance before the Inquisition, he was confronted with the 1616 edict recording that he was forbidden to discuss the Copernican theory. In his defense Galileo produced a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine, by then dead, stating that he was admonished only not to hold or defend the theory. The case was at somewhat of an impasse, and, in what can only be called a plea bargain, Galileo confessed to having overstated his case. He was pronounced to be vehemently suspect of heresy and was condemned to life imprisonment and was made to abjure formally.”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei/Galileos-Copernicanism
Lazy people make dogmatic assertions on matters without researching them, like you did.
**************
>>MichaelRDanger, you said, "Is the Encyclopedia Britannica good enough for you?"
No. The Encyclopedia Britannica has proven to be the "flavor of the day," in a manner of speaking. For example, in the 1910 edition, the Britannica contains these passages:
"Galileo seems, at an early period of his life, to have adopted the Copernican theory of the solar system, and was deterred from avowing his opinions—as is proved by his letter to Kepler of August 4, 1597—by the fear of ridicule rather than of persecution. The appearance, in September 1604, of a new star in the constellation Serpentarius afforded him indeed an opportunity, of which he eagerly availed himself, for making an onslaught upon the Aristotelian axiom of the incorruptibility of the heavens; but he continued to conform his public teachings in the main to Ptolemaic principles, until the discovery of a novel and potent implement of research in the shape of the telescope placed at his command startling and hitherto unsuspected evidence as to the constitution and mutual relations of the heavenly bodies. . . .
"Not satisfied with explaining adverse texts, [Galileo] met his opponents with unwise audacity on their own ground, and endeavoured to produce scriptural confirmation of a system which seemed to the ignorant many an incredible paradox, and to the scientific few a beautiful but daring innovation. The rising agitation on the subject, fomented for their own purposes by the rabid Aristotelians of the schools, was heightened rather than allayed by these manifestoes, and on the fourth Sunday of the following Advent found a voice in the pulpit of Santa Maria Novella. Padre Caccini's denunciation of the new astronomy was indeed disavowed and strongly condemned by his superiors; nevertheless, on the 5th of February 1615, another Dominican monk named Lorini laid Galileo's letter to Castelli before the Inquisition. "
["Encyclopedia Britannica: Volume 11." Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 11th Ed, 1910, p.407]
As you can see, even from Britannica's brief, Galileo's rivals were the church-endorsed Aristotelians (e.g., the scientific establishment.) That is borne out by serious historians:
"Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo's discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler's" [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, pp.369-370]
"The first serious attack against Copernicanism on religious grounds came also not from clerical quarters but from a layman -- none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the league. His treatise Against the Motion of the Earth contained a number of quotations from Holy Scripture to prove that the earth was in the centre of the world. It was circulated in manuscript in I 610 or '11, before Galileo's public committal, and did not mention Galileo's name. Galileo himself was as yet so little worried about a possible theological conflict, that he had let almost a year pass before he asked the opinion of his friend, Cardinal Conti, on the matter. The Cardinal answered that, concerning the "immutability" of the skies, Holy Scripture seemed to favour Galileo's view rather than Aristotle's." [Ibid. p.431]
The scientific community contained some of Galileo's chief accusers:
"[T]here existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass-which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught-but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse." [Ibid. p.427]
"The result of all this was that the Jesuits as a body turned against Galileo. Father Grienberger, who succeeded Clavius as head of the Roman College, was to remark later that "if Galileo had not incurred the displeasure of the Company, he could have gone on writing freely about the motion of the earth to the end of his days." The clash with the Aristotelians was inevitable. The clash with the Jesuits was not. This is not meant as an apology for the vindictiveness with which Grassi and Scheiner reacted when provoked, nor of the deplorable manner in which the Order displayed its esprit de corps. The point to be established is that the attitude of the Collegium Romanum and of the Jesuits in general changed from friendliness to hostility, not because of the Copernican views held by Galileo, but because of his personal attacks on leading authorities of the Order." [Ibid. p.470]
Galileo's threat to the scientific establishment Aristotelians, along with his dispute with the Jesuits, prompted the Inquisition, not the Bible.
Mr. Kalamata
Nice try...
Considering virtually all educated men were educated by the church and the kings and queens were likewise educated and ruled with the blessing of the church one cannot deflect responsibility for the persecution of Galileo from the church to others.
It is a fact that Galileo was tried by the church Inquisition and found guilty of heresy. You should likewise note I have never suggested the bible itself was the source of the “witch-hunt” against science but rather mortal men who arrogantly presume knowledge of the creators intentions. The church was behind the persecution of Galileo, not god, just as the church is behind the condemnation of evolution, and not god.
The greatness of god “far” exceeds the mortal men and women who comprise the church. It is blasphemy to worship men and women who pretend to speak for god.
Get off your hobby horse.
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, "Considering virtually all educated men were educated by the church and the kings and queens were likewise educated and ruled with the blessing of the church one cannot deflect responsibility for the persecution of Galileo from the church to others."
Let's rephrase your statement so it will be more "modern":
"Considering virtually all educated men were educated by the government and the judges and lawyers were likewise educated and ruled with the blessing of the government one cannot deflect responsibility for the persecution of modern day "scientific" heretics from the government to others."
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, "It is a fact that Galileo was tried by the church Inquisition and found guilty of heresy."
It is a fact that the Dover Pennsylvania School Board was tried by a modern government inquisition and found guilty of heresy against the doctrine of the scientific establishment.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, "You should likewise note I have never suggested the bible itself was the source of the “witch-hunt” against science but rather mortal men who arrogantly presume knowledge of the creators intentions. The church was behind the persecution of Galileo, not god, just as the church is behind the condemnation of evolution, and not god."
The "church" of that day was not the Church of the Lord, but just another form of tyrannical government which pretended to be the church. Yet, modern accusers of our brethren use a corruption of the Galileo incident, and out of context, to trash all of Christianity. If I had not called you on it, all the casual reader would see was this misleading statement by you:
"Galileo was tried by the church." [#56]
All Christians should always be perfectly clear that Galileo's chief antagonists and accusers were those in the scientific establishment who adopted the views of a pagan named Aristotle: not the scientific doctrine found in the Bible. Likewise, the chief accusers of modern day "heretics" are those in the scientific establishment who adopt the pagan/atheist doctrine of Charlie Darwin.
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, "The greatness of god “far” exceeds the mortal men and women who comprise the church. It is blasphemy to worship men and women who pretend to speak for god."
What does that have to do with this discussion?
Mr. Kalamata
The lesson of the passion of Christ was to distrust the pharisees i.e. the leaders of the church who were more concerned with their earthly power and influence than the souls of their followers. It was the pharisees who turned Christ over to the roman’s for execution.
1600 years later the same sort of men as the pharisees accused and condemned Galileo as a heretic for daring to question doctrine advanced by the church. Today we have those same kind of men attacking legitimate science.
My point is you would be better served not allowing other people to tell you what to think particularly modern day pharisees. You are a “church christian” while I am a “bible christian” You follow the church while I follow my personal understanding of the bible untainted by the dictates of wealthy ministers.
You win the internet today...
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, “The lesson of the passion of Christ was to distrust the pharisees i.e. the leaders of the church who were more concerned with their earthly power and influence than the souls of their followers. It was the pharisees who turned Christ over to the roman’s for execution.”
The Pharisees persecuted the church.
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, “1600 years later the same sort of men as the pharisees accused and condemned Galileo as a heretic for daring to question doctrine advanced by the church. Today we have those same kind of men attacking legitimate science.”
Again, the scientific establishment of Galileo’s day instigated his persecution because he opposed the doctrine of the pagan Aristotle. The scientific establishment of today instigates persecution of those who do not kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin. That suppressive behaviour makes the scientific establishment a type of Pharisee.
*********************
>>MichaelRDanger, you wrote, “My point is you would be better served not allowing other people to tell you what to think particularly modern day pharisees. You are a “church christian” while I am a “bible christian” You follow the church while I follow my personal understanding of the bible untainted by the dictates of wealthy ministers.”
You are assuming facts about me that are not in evidence. That makes you are a false witness, which is anti-Christian.
Mr. Kalamata
I think you make a compelling argument for your case. Thanks for presenting it.
>>I think you make a compelling argument for your case. Thanks for presenting it.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.