Galileo and the universe

[libby]

I was listening to the OT readings at Mass last night, and I was struck by the creation story.
It certainly reads in a way that made the Church's position understandable. The sun is spoken of in Gen 1:14-18 as a light in the dome of the sky, governing the time of day and seasons here on earth. The earth clearly appears to be the center of the universe according to Holy Writ.
Many have condemned the Church for their treatment of Galileo, but I wonder if any fundamentalist would, if they had the power, stop the teaching of evolution in schools and such because they think it is contrary to the Scripture account of creation. Is the fundamentalist concern about evolution based on an inability to reconcile it with Scripture?
Are there any Bible Christians out there who can ponder the position the leaders of the Church found themselves in, and understand that they must've been in a difficult spot. Imagine their concern that people would walk away from God if they thought Galileo's thoery of the universe true, and Scripture false.
And please, if anyone is thinking of using infallibility to condemn the church, go read about what it is and what it isn't, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[This_person]

I was listening to the OT readings at Mass last night, and I was struck by the creation story.
It certainly reads in a way that made the Church's position understandable. The sun is spoken of in Gen 1:14-18 as a light in the dome of the sky, governing the time of day and seasons here on earth. The earth clearly appears to be the center of the universe according to Holy Writ.

Can you show me the verse that describest the earth as the center of the universe? If not, I think what you're describing is misinterpretation, not actually being wrong.

I wonder if any fundamentalist would, if they had the power, stop the teaching of evolution in schools and such because they think it is contrary to the Scripture account of creation. Is the fundamentalist concern about evolution based on an inability to reconcile it with Scripture?

As has been repeatedly pointed out, evolution and creation of life have nothing to do with one another. Can you show me the point at which the two theories cannot be reconciled? Can you show me the verse that says God created man exactly as he is today? (I can show you several passages where God changed his creation - life span, speaking ability, etc.) If not, perhaps you are not yet well versed, and merely spouting cynical BS based on bad teachings of both science and religion.

Are there any Bible Christians out there who can ponder the position the leaders of the Church found themselves in, and understand that they must've been in a difficult spot. Imagine their concern that people would walk away from God if they thought Galileo's thoery of the universe true, and Scripture false.

Almost as if they were vain (we consider that a sin). Yet, there is still no conflict, just different interpretations. Again, show me the verse that conflicts.

And please, if anyone is thinking of using infallibility to condemn the church, go read about what it is and what it isn't, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Nope, it appears the topic at hand is purely sarcastic, inaccurate spouting of both sides of the argument.

Thanks, though.

 

[libby]

Can you show me the verse that describest the earth as the center of the universe? If not, I think what you're describing is misinterpretation, not actually being wrong.As has been repeatedly pointed out, evolution and creation of life have nothing to do with one another. Can you show me the point at which the two theories cannot be reconciled? Can you show me the verse that says God created man exactly as he is today? (I can show you several passages where God changed his creation - life span, speaking ability, etc.) If not, perhaps you are not yet well versed, and merely spouting cynical BS based on bad teachings of both science and religion.Almost as if they were vain (we consider that a sin). Yet, there is still no conflict, just different interpretations. Again, show me the verse that conflicts.Nope, it appears the topic at hand is purely sarcastic, inaccurate spouting of both sides of the argument.

Thanks, though.

I did cite the verse.
I actually did not state my personal opinion here. The Catholic Church, to which I belong, has never said that the creation story cannot be reconciled with the theory of evolution, should it ever become definitive science; perhaps something was learned from the Galileo experience??
My purpose is to discuss with other Christians. I have not attacked creationists or evolutionists, and I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

[This_person]

I did cite the verse.

The verse you cited was:

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.​

I didn't see the part that described this as the Earth being the center of the universe, or even this solar system.

I actually did not state my personal opinion here. The Catholic Church, to which I belong, has never said that the creation story cannot be reconciled with the theory of evolution, should it ever become definitive science; perhaps something was learned from the Galileo experience??

Perhaps. Perhaps Christians who believe themselves to be in a rank for the attention of God (Catholics) realized that they are not infallible in their interpretation.

My purpose is to discuss with other Christians. I have not attacked creationists or evolutionists.

I guess I thought you were putting words in people's mouths when you said, "The earth clearly appears to be the center of the universe according to Holy Writ." This quote is clearly (from the verse you cited) untrue, thus kind of an attack on thinking people (who make up creationist and evolutionists). And again when you asked us to consider: "Imagine their (the Catholic church's) concern that people would walk away from God if they thought Galileo's thoery of the universe true, and Scripture false." This again implies a thought process that doesn't hold true - that the Bible states something it clearly does not state, and that a thinking person who reads and understands for themselves cannot see that. This line: "And please, if anyone is thinking of using infallibility to condemn the church, go read about what it is and what it isn't, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand." also sounded a wee bit condescending.

Perhaps I am not the one who got out of the wrong side of the bed.

 

[libby]

I'm going to paraphrase because I don't have my Bible in front of me. But, I think it says that God created the earth, etc. and that he created a dome in the sky with the light that would govern the times, etc.
From this I found it reasonable that the Church, at that time, thought of the earth as the center.
Many people mis-understand the charism of infallibility, and fall back on it for every mistake or sin a church official has committed, and I did not want this thread to be about that doctrine. Just Christians coming to an understanding of one another's faiths, and that challenges that come with faith.
I'll say it here so all can read. Martin Luther was right (about some things). About indulgences and the abuses and many things that were going on during that time in church history. I am not a blind follower of Catholicism.
If you put yourself in that time in history, reading the creation story, would you not assume that the earth was the center?
I'm asking questions of others. I am not trying to make statements for them.

 

[mAlice]

Libby, aren't you catholic? Or do I have you confused with someone else?

 

[This_person]

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. - Ecclesiastes 1:5

And, continuing on:
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
Huh, so the Bible says the world is a sphere here. "Round and round it goes, ever returning on its course", as if the world spins around and winds are back to where they started. Long before science agreed. Wait, maybe that's how it was explaining how the sun rises and sets!


Certainly, it could be interpretted that way. Certainly, it's not the way the early Catholic church interpretted it.

It is used figuritively now, but during their arguments the Church argued the Literal translation of this passage. Because it states the Sun moves

Well, the sun does move. Both relative to the earth from our perspective, and in reality it's moving through the universe. It's the literalist that would see it as anything else.

Another literal argument, the World (Earth) doesnt move, it says so in the Bible.

From a literal perspective, perhaps. However, what can be described as more firm, more permanent, more unmoving than the earth? A turn of phrase, not a literal statement, I'm sure. While the early Catholic church may have had a different interpretation, it seems obvious to me.

 

[This_person]

Follow the google link, those two verses were part of the main argument brought on by the Church against Galileo.

It may seem obvious to you now, but that is due to 400 years of change brought on by Galileo. If you were around back then, you too would have believed the Sun set and rose, and the Earth didnt move.

I tend to think more for myself than that, and I don't see it as saying that the earth was the center of the universe. I do know, understand, and accept the fact that the early Catholic church believed this, and punished those that disagreed. I suspect I would have been either punished, or tried to be influential in broadening people's minds (or both).

 

[This_person]

So the fact that, 400 years ago, it was a common belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe, would have had no influence?

ok

Well, the sun is round, the moon is round, the moon doesn't just come out at night, the scripture doesn't actually say the earth is the center..... yeah, I think I would have questioned it.

Would common belief have had an influence? Sure. Common belief now is that humans, apes, horses, and bats have a common ancestor. I don't believe that myself, but that's the common belief. It has an influence, just not a convincing one for me.

 

[libby]

So the fact that, 400 years ago, it was a common belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe, would have had no influence?

ok

Even as a Catholic I had never really understood why the Church would be so vehemently opposed to what Galileo had discovered and was teaching.
I addressed my original question to Bible Christians because I think, for the most part, they take the Scriptures literally.
My point is, now I understand what the Church was concerned about, and the benefit of hindsight makes it very easy to say that the Church leaders made errors. However, if we take into account the impact Galileo's discoveries might have had on common people's faith, I can see why they thought they had to silence him.

 

[mAlice]

Even as a Catholic I......

Thought so. You're bible is different, so it can be difficult to discuss it with others.

 

[This_person]

Even as a Catholic I had never really understood why the Church would be so vehemently opposed to what Galileo had discovered and was teaching.
I addressed my original question to Bible Christians because I think, for the most part, they take the Scriptures literally.
My point is, now I understand what the Church was concerned about, and the benefit of hindsight makes it very easy to say that the Church leaders made errors. However, if we take into account the impact Galileo's discoveries might have had on common people's faith, I can see why they thought they had to silence him.

It is kind of a Catholic thing to have a hierarchy of people - those that can talk with God and understand Him, and those that can't. Other religions have that, too, but Catholics are pretty zealous about it in their church beliefs. So, they would have lost their status if they'd admitted that they, too, needed to learn and understand what was written instead of allowing each person to understand themselves (or through group study, etc.). This was a point where the Church got in the way of the religion, much to the detriment of all who followed.

 

[libby]

It is kind of a Catholic thing to have a hierarchy of people - those that can talk with God and understand Him, and those that can't. Other religions have that, too, but Catholics are pretty zealous about it in their church beliefs. So, they would have lost their status if they'd admitted that they, too, needed to learn and understand what was written instead of allowing each person to understand themselves (or through group study, etc.). This was a point where the Church got in the way of the religion, much to the detriment of all who followed.

That is one school of thought...

 

[This_person]

That is one school of thought...

I think it's the catholic church's school of thought.

When he established His Church, Jesus placed the Apostles in charge of caring for the faithful, of teaching them the faith and caring for their souls. And He placed Peter at the head of the Apostles. Through Apostolic Succession, that same hierarchy willed by Jesus, exists today in the Church with the Pope (the successor of St Peter) at her head, leading the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles) who themselves lead the faithful in their local Churches.

 

[Makavide]

A misunderstanding?

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church did not condemn Galileo for claiming the sun was the center, he was placed under house arrest for saying the Bible was wrong.

 

[libby]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church did not condemn Galileo for claiming the sun was the center, he was placed under house arrest for saying the Bible was wrong.

Perhaps I need to refresh my memory. As I said in the OP, the Galileo incident came to mind during the readings, although I suppose I should've double checked the details. In any case, it put that event in history into a new light for me.

 

[libby]

I think it's the catholic church's school of thought.

When he established His Church, Jesus placed the Apostles in charge of caring for the faithful, of teaching them the faith and caring for their souls. And He placed Peter at the head of the Apostles. Through Apostolic Succession, that same hierarchy willed by Jesus, exists today in the Church with the Pope (the successor of St Peter) at her head, leading the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles) who themselves lead the faithful in their local Churches.

Well, your quote is the truth of the institution of the church, but we are free to have our own opinions and direct our own spirituality in most ways. I could name a dozen lay people who taught the heirarchy a thing or two, and the heirarchy listened.

 

[This_person]

Well, your quote is the truth of the institution of the church, but we are free to have our own opinions and direct our own spirituality in most ways. I could name a dozen lay people who taught the heirarchy a thing or two, and the heirarchy listened.

I specifically said the Church, because I thought that was what you were speaking to - how the Church attacked people for disagreeing with them. Now, you're saying the Church listens to people.

I'm not sure the point you're driving at.

I agreed with your initial assessment that the Church went after people for not agreeing, because it would have diminished the Church's influence on their congregations, because suddenly these people who are chosen because of their greater ability to speak with God were wrong - and if they're wrong about this, how could they possibly be better
to speak with God than everyone else?

Thus, the Church leaders put themselves above the Word, and - to keep their own "power" - attacked dissenters instead of objectively weighing what was being said with what the Word says. Thus, the Church put itself above the religion, which has been a common thing for the Catholic church to do.

 

[libby]

I specifically said the Church, because I thought that was what you were speaking to - how the Church attacked people for disagreeing with them. Now, you're saying the Church listens to people.

I'm not sure the point you're driving at.

I agreed with your initial assessment that the Church went after people for not agreeing, because it would have diminished the Church's influence on their congregations, because suddenly these people who are chosen because of their greater ability to speak with God were wrong - and if they're wrong about this, how could they possibly be better
to speak with God than everyone else?

Thus, the Church leaders put themselves above the Word, and - to keep their own "power" - attacked dissenters instead of objectively weighing what was being said with what the Word says. Thus, the Church put itself above the religion, which has been a common thing for the Catholic church to do.

Well, we've gotten off on a tangent, but my original point was that I understood, after hearing the readings, why the church leaders behaved as they did.
The church does have the authority to tell those-who-call-themselves-Catholic what to do. However, the church does not force anyone to follow the teachings.
How do you conclude that the heirarchy "put themselves above" the Word, when the Word was what they were defending?
I think Luther and Galileo are two separate sets of circumstances, both worthy of discussion, and both times finding some people in church in error.

 

[This_person]

Well, we've gotten off on a tangent, but my original point was that I understood, after hearing the readings, why the church leaders behaved as they did.
The church does have the authority to tell those-who-call-themselves-Catholic what to do. However, the church does not force anyone to follow the teachings.
How do you conclude that the heirarchy "put themselves above" the Word, when the Word was what they were defending?
I think Luther and Galileo are two separate sets of circumstances, both worthy of discussion, and both times finding some people in church in error.

I think I understand why they did it, too. They valued their position, their trappings, their status, above what was actually being disseminated to the people. When somebody came and said, "hey, I think we've misunderstood, and here's why", they didn't respond with an open mind towards the scripture. They responded with fear of losing what they had, regardless of scripture and fact.