Clivedurdle

I am sorry, but surely it is a bit arbitrary to cut off anything about xianity after the middle ages - does that not also lose protestantism?

And arguments about hj and mj are definitely post enlightenment views,as actually is biblical criticism itself!!

LogicandReason

Perhaps this is the result of complete church domination in the West from the time of Constantine until the Reformation. Who could have questioned hj/mj before the Enlightenment? Galileo could not even challenge Geocentricism.

Jeffrey Gibson

Er .. what?? Of course he could (and did) challenge geocentrisim. He was even validated by the chief Vatican astronomer. It was the way Galileo went about publicizing his views that got him in trouble.

See Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William R. Shea and The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (or via: amazon.co.uk) (California Studies in the History of Science, Vol 1) Maurice A. Finocchiaro, ed.

Jeffrey

avi

What rubbish.
When Milton visited Galileo under House Arrest, he, (Galileo) was already blind, the effect most probably of studying sun spots with his telescope. Milton himself defied the Vatican, by visiting with Galileo. So, what, you are suggesting that Milton too, in the eyes of the Vatican, simply had a problem with the manner in which he "publicized his views" about the accuracy of the biblical fairy tales..... Milton was a devout believer in the authenticity of the Bible, unlike either the Vatican or Galileo. No, Jeffrey, I don't accept your tenet. Galileo's views were, to quote the Council of Trent, "an anathema", and we are fortunate that Galileo's life was spared, for there were many who wanted his head, NOT because of his continuing to lecture to University students, (i.e. "the way he publicized his views"---i.e. presenting the RESULTS OF HIS SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY) but because of the SUBSTANCE of those lectures, refuting the nonsense in the bible. Your apologetic excuse for the bestiality of the Catholics is simply unacceptable.
yes, those are CAPITAL letters, I am shouting in anger.
AT YOU.
:angry:

Jeffrey Gibson

And your sources for, and documentation of, all your claims above are what?

Jeffrey

Huon

It is frequently understood that Galileo was unanimously considered as some sort of heretic by "the Catholic Church". The relations of Galileo with various authorities of the Catholic Church were not always simple.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It should be read with suspicion, but it contains some interesting elements. Note that it was written around 1900, and that the Galileo case was "a cold case" at that time ...
Possibly, Galileo was more or less compelled to present himself at Rome ... where he was "courteously" tried.
Note that Paul V approved the decision of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616.

The Catho Encyclo goes on :
Modern contorsions. But who was Foscarini ? a friend of Galileo.
Who was Bellarmino ? a Jesuit, "the most influential member of the Sacred College".

At that time, there were a lot of talibans in the Catholic Church, but also a minority of more intelligent people.

If Galileo had not had some protectors in the Church, he would have been killed, that's all.

GakuseiDon

I've often wondered about this. Bede has an article on Christianity and the Rise of Science where he briefly discusses Galileo:
http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm#galileo

Be that as it may, he published, in 1630, with papal permission, a book called A Dialogue Concerning Two Principal Systems of the World which was more what we would term 'popular science' than an academic text. The Pope, Urban VIII, believed he was being parodied in it as a fool - an insult that no self respecting Renaissance prince could bear. Galileo already had plenty of enemies in academia who resented his fame, influence and condescending style and when abandoned by the Pope he ran out of friends. He was summoned to Rome and arrested by the Inquisition. Clearly, it was impossible to bring a man to trial for making the Pope look foolish so a trumped up charge was manufactured using a spurious undertaking that Galileo was supposed to have given not to teach Copernicus's theory. In addition, the Protestant reformers had accused Catholicism of straying too far from the Bible. The relaxed reading that had prevailed among academics in the Middle Ages was therefore unfortunately no longer in fashion in Rome.

The outcome of the trial was never in doubt and, because he refused to use Kepler's system, Galileo even lost the scientific argument. His recantation was intended to cut him down to size and he was kept in a very comfortable house arrest until he died a few years later. He never came to any physical harm at the hands of the Inquisition and neither did he mutter his famous words 'But it does move' as he was condemned. In all he got off quite lightly because if he had attacked a secular ruler of the time as he did the Pope, intentionally or not, the cutting down to size would have been roughly one foot and involved an axe.

The interesting thing is that others at the time in the Protestant world (for example Kepler) were also promoted a heliocentric view of the universe, without any apparent restrictions. So it does seem related to Galileo's relationship with the Vatican. OTOH, I read that Galileo's books were banned for another 100 years, which suggests that the dispute was related to the theory, and beyond just the personalities involved.

Roger Pearse

There has to be some limit somewhere, and it seems like a reasonable limit to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

The natural subject matter of this forum is Christian origins or early Christianity. The time line for BCH was extended through the middle ages as a favor to Bede, who preferred the standards in BCH over GRD. But, yes, this forum is not much concerned with Protestantism.

Toto

There are 18 posts in this thread, 3 of which at most have to do with the OP - and the OP was misguided. I will entertain the possibility of a split.