The Church, Galileo and a Flat Earth
#3
(11-13-2017, 10:10 AM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: Galileo

"shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’
-http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

"it has been known for a long time that a major part of the churches intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas"
-Giorgio de santillana 1902-1974 philosapher/historian of scince MIT the crime of galalio p 14 U chicago press 1955

I have just read -http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography   Once again the Galileo case is twisted and turned to suit the Modernist version of 'faith and science.' Here are a few of its theses:

Thesis 1. The Copernican system was well regarded by church officials

The Copernican system was not regarded well by the Church officials. The Copernican way of calculating the movements of celestial bodies belonged to the science of astronomy, and the Church officials had no problem with this system of calculation. The above suggests that Church officials had no problem with heliocentrism per se. They had, it was contrary to what the Bible says and how ALL of the Fathers interpreted it.
     The reason why the Church itself had no problem with Copernicus's book was because:

In its preface, entitled ‘To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,’ otherwise known as the ‘Ad lectorem’ introduction, it included the following:
 
‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only that they provide a correct basis for calculation… Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’

In other words Copernicus's heliocentrism was NOT presented as a truth, as the true order of the universe, because only the Bible can tell us that, but just a way of making certain calculations.

Thesis 2. Galileo was well regarded by the church

Yes he was, as an astronomer, not a theologian.

Thesis 3. Envy, not religion, was the trigger

Not 'envy', it was a philosophical denial by Aristotelian philosophers at first. Galileo responded by taking the subject into religion by saying the Bible COULD BE interpteted heliocentrically. In fact SHOULD be.

Thesis 5. Galileo refused to share discoveries

'Share his discoveries?' Arthur Koestler’s Sleepwalkers tells us that in 1609 Thomas Harriot made systematic telescopic observations of the moon at the same time or maybe before Galileo. Koestler also claims that Emperor Rudolph of Prague viewed the moon through a telescope before he even heard of Galileo. Be this as it may, history gives all such lunar discoveries to Galileo first, and only his 1610 book, The Starry Messenger merits a mention for these observations.
     Galileo’s telescope then showed him the phases of Venus that proved Venus turns around the sun, a fact; it must be said, accepted many years earlier by Tycho de Brahe and others even without verification. His most important sighting was of course the four starry-moons of the planet Jupiter.  Galileo named the four moons the ‘Cosimo’s stars.’

     Four years later, in 1614, a book on astronomy called Mundus Iovialis (The Jovian World) was published, giving a more accurate account of Jupiter’s four large moons. It was written by the German astronomer Simon Marius (1573-1624) - who got his telescope in 1608, one year earlier than Galileo – and this book claimed he had discovered the moons a little earlier than Galileo.
     Marius ignored the tradition of naming such discoveries after their patrons and called them Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, names that are used today rather than Galileo’s. Marius was accused by Galileo of plagiarism and his reputation suffered permanent damage, in spite of proof brought to light at the beginning of the 20th century that Marius’s research had been entirely his own.

Thesis 8. No need for proof ------- Fischer summarizes, ‘He did not have really convincing proofs such as the parallax shift or Foucault’s pendulum.

This infers that 'parallax shift or Foucault’s pendulum' were proofs for heliocentrism. This is tripe, they are not. This paper thus infers Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. Ever hear of Albert Einstein? He knew well that the Church was never proven wrong and its decree falsified.

Thesis 11. Galileo was a victim of personal circumstance
Thesis 12. Galileo was a victim of political circumstance

Galileo promoted heliocentrism after it was decreed to be formal heresy. I note not once in this essay did the term HERESY appear.

Thesis 14. Galileo did not reject his faith
Thesis 15. Galileo stood for science and faith

Faith that suited him, not the faith defined by the Church. Nor did he reject his heresy of heliocentrism from his heart. He kept promoting it until his trial when he lied, saying he never held it as a truth. For 300 years he has been credited with holding the 'truth' of heliocentrism. How can he be credited with it if he never believed in it?You cannot have your cake and eat it. Galileo wanted all to believe his version of the Bible, not the Church's geocentric version.

The problem is that Galileo's heresy was adopted by Catholic churchmen, the heretical reading of Scripture.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: The Church, Galileo and a Flat Earth - by cassini - 11-18-2017, 02:53 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)