How did the church make a comeback
How did the church make a comeback from such big blunders like:
the earth is flat
we are at the center of the universe
everything revolves around us
They were clearly very wrong in the past about these statements.
These statements were also NOT taken figuratively by them but literally.
Smart people were executed by the church back in the day for believing otherwise.
Have the church ever admitted that they were wrong about such statements?
How do they still have devotees believing evrything else they say, when what they claim as fact today might again be proven as completely wrong tommorrow?
the earth is flat
we are at the center of the universe
everything revolves around us
They were clearly very wrong in the past about these statements.
These statements were also NOT taken figuratively by them but literally.
Smart people were executed by the church back in the day for believing otherwise.
Have the church ever admitted that they were wrong about such statements?
How do they still have devotees believing evrything else they say, when what they claim as fact today might again be proven as completely wrong tommorrow?
closed account (ETAkoG1T)
Well, you should remember that this wasn't something only the church thought but what the majority of people thought, only a few people thought otherwise. If someone claimed today that the earth was a cube the church wouldn't execute them but people would still think they are crazy.
Hello, zepher... I like it but I'm curious...
Is this a poetry? And your handmade poetry? :)
Is this a poetry? And your handmade poetry? :)
Last edited on
@Filiprei: Yes I agree that it was the belief of everyone - my point is that everyone did not claim to be the final/devine authority on all things as the church did and in my opinion still do pretend to be the devine authority on all things.
Suppose I was called in to a court of law to give expert testimony on a subject relating to nuclear radiation. If I end up contradicting myself in court then I would not anymore be used as an expert witness of the subject.
This is clearly not the case with the church, as they were proven to be wrong many times, yet the general population still seems to be following them regardless.
@Jackson Marie: This is not poetry - go checkout the bible - its got some there for you :)
Suppose I was called in to a court of law to give expert testimony on a subject relating to nuclear radiation. If I end up contradicting myself in court then I would not anymore be used as an expert witness of the subject.
This is clearly not the case with the church, as they were proven to be wrong many times, yet the general population still seems to be following them regardless.
@Jackson Marie: This is not poetry - go checkout the bible - its got some there for you :)
| How did the church make a comeback from such big blunders like: |
Define "the church". Define "comeback".
| the earth is flat |
Because it makes perfect sense to think of the earth as being flat if you don't travel extensively.
| we are at the center of the universe |
Because we ARE at the center of the universe, given a certain widely used definition of "universe".
| everything revolves around us |
Define "everything". Define "revolves". Define "around". Define "us".
| They were clearly very wrong in the past about these statements. |
Some people in the past thought the earth was flat. This has nothing to do with "the church".
| These statements were also NOT taken figuratively by them but literally. |
That seems pretty obvious...
| Smart people were executed by the church back in the day for believing otherwise. |
For believing otherwise? How could "the church" possibly know that?
| Have the church ever admitted that they were wrong about such statements? |
Define "the church". Define "they". Define "wrong".
| How do they still have devotees believing evrything else they say, when what they claim as fact today might again be proven as completely wrong tommorrow? |
The thing is, there's this other field that gets things horribly wrong in spite of the evidence. This field is called science. Scientists tried to explain away homo erectus because it didn't match their predictions. Scientists drew large amounts of blood from sick people to help heal them. Scientists told you that both polar ice caps would be fully melted 2 years ago.
But "the church" "said" the earth was flat. No scientist ever said that at any time in history, right?
| Yes I agree that it was the belief of everyone - my point is that everyone did not claim to be the final/devine authority on all things as the church did and in my opinion still do pretend to be the devine authority on all things. |
When did this ever happen?
| Suppose I was called in to a court of law to give expert testimony on a subject relating to nuclear radiation. If I end up contradicting myself in court then I would not anymore be used as an expert witness of the subject. |
What if you were called to give testimony about a system's security but were suddenly asked about radiation, having no knowledge about that subject?
| This is clearly not the case with the church, as they were proven to be wrong many times, yet the general population still seems to be following them regardless. |
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I keep quoting "the church" because you're using vague words to mask the major flaws in your argument.
closed account (ETAkoG1T)
It looks to me like you are talking about the catholic church... I don't agree with all of their beliefs and that the pope is more important than other humans doesn't look very christian to me. And that the catholic church changed church from saturday to sunday just shows that they didn't like anyone controlling them or saying that they are wrong.
@Telion: Church is referring to the Christian religion in general - basically the same definition as would be used in scientific documentries - like the Universe - when they refer to the church to illustrate the beliefs people had back then concerning the earth and other planets in our solar system.
Wrong simply implies what is it is - they were wrong about many things back then - like claiming the earth was flat and actually executed people for believing otherwise.
So now that we have defines"church" and "wrong" in this context my question still stands. "Have they ever admitted that they were wrong and even more wrong to execute people who believed differently (or more preceisly, people who had the right beliefs about how things work).
All the time - speak to some religious nutts - they generally have a one tracked mind to only accept the beliefs propmoted by their sect - they refuse to use logic in certain situations where it is applicable.
By the definition of their faith alone one can deduce this as well. They believe their beliefs are inspired by the devine entity (god) which they believe in and so do not believe that their beliefs can thus be wrong.
The releatiy is that these set of beliefs they honor were man made but they do not see it that way - they claim that it is "the will of god" even though it is has been to them by some human.
I would not try to pretend to be knowledgable about subjects I have no knowledge of, unlike them, and even have people executed for different beliefs as they did in the past.
Exactly - so why did they claim to be so knowledgeable that they went to the point of executing others who clearly had more knowledge than them. What right did they have to shove their false doctrine down everyone elses throat.
In science, we do not bully others into accepting a particular theory. In fact, if that theory is proven wrong then the scienfic community concurs and moves on from that point.
Sciene does not claim to get its info from a devine source as the church does, so we cannot point the same finger at them. If a scientific theory is proven wrong then we can say that the particular scientist who came up with that theory was wrong. With statements made by the church that are proven wrong we should be deducing that the inspired message was wrong and should also therefor deduce that the devine source where this message came from was also wrong, ie is god then wrong and if so how the hell could he be a dvine entity?
Wrong simply implies what is it is - they were wrong about many things back then - like claiming the earth was flat and actually executed people for believing otherwise.
| Define "the church". Define "they". Define "wrong". |
So now that we have defines"church" and "wrong" in this context my question still stands. "Have they ever admitted that they were wrong and even more wrong to execute people who believed differently (or more preceisly, people who had the right beliefs about how things work).
| When did this ever happen? |
All the time - speak to some religious nutts - they generally have a one tracked mind to only accept the beliefs propmoted by their sect - they refuse to use logic in certain situations where it is applicable.
By the definition of their faith alone one can deduce this as well. They believe their beliefs are inspired by the devine entity (god) which they believe in and so do not believe that their beliefs can thus be wrong.
The releatiy is that these set of beliefs they honor were man made but they do not see it that way - they claim that it is "the will of god" even though it is has been to them by some human.
| What if you were called to give testimony about a system's security but were suddenly asked about radiation, having no knowledge about that subject? |
I would not try to pretend to be knowledgable about subjects I have no knowledge of, unlike them, and even have people executed for different beliefs as they did in the past.
| For believing otherwise? How could "the church" possibly know that? |
Exactly - so why did they claim to be so knowledgeable that they went to the point of executing others who clearly had more knowledge than them. What right did they have to shove their false doctrine down everyone elses throat.
In science, we do not bully others into accepting a particular theory. In fact, if that theory is proven wrong then the scienfic community concurs and moves on from that point.
Sciene does not claim to get its info from a devine source as the church does, so we cannot point the same finger at them. If a scientific theory is proven wrong then we can say that the particular scientist who came up with that theory was wrong. With statements made by the church that are proven wrong we should be deducing that the inspired message was wrong and should also therefor deduce that the devine source where this message came from was also wrong, ie is god then wrong and if so how the hell could he be a dvine entity?
closed account (ETAkoG1T)
Well, even though the catholic church isn't very good at admitting that they do something wrong, they don't say that it was any good what they did. Its like if an american president does something wrong he has problem admitting it was his fault and if a new president doesn't fix the problem can you blame him? Keep in mind though that the church in medieval time was in power and didn't want anyone threatening them, so before the person laid seeds they would try to get the person to stop. From what I have learned they usually didn't kill the person that claimed other than what the church said unless he didn't burn his books/stop spreading the theory.
| I would not try to pretend to be knowledgable about subjects I have no knowledge of, unlike them, and even have people executed for different beliefs as they did in the past. |
You're pretending to be knowledgeable about this one.
Btw, it's "divine."
Regardless of some organised structure, "the church" is not a unit. "the church" is in fact the Christian people. I can assure you that those are generally no more stupid or evil than yourself.
It is very popular to attack religion. I can't stop you from disliking it, but at the very least, try to be "the better man", rather than start hateful threads.
It is very popular to attack religion. I can't stop you from disliking it, but at the very least, try to be "the better man", rather than start hateful threads.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| It is very popular to attack religion. I can't stop you from disliking it, but at the very least, try to be "the better man", rather than start hateful threads. |
It may be popular to attack religion but often it is just one religion attacking another. Thank God I'm an Aetheist!
Is the The Westboro Baptist Church an example of being "the better man"? There are extremists in all walks of life, the problems come when they get organised.
Religious debate on c++ lounge? Didn't expect to wake up to that one.
True, but there is a non trivial amount of Atheists with a superiority complex that are constantly attacking religion (read: Christianity). I for one am an agnostic atheist, and I've made my fair share of stabs at Christianity. I don't think it's been to the point of true malice though.
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| but often it is just one religion attacking another. |
True, but there is a non trivial amount of Atheists with a superiority complex that are constantly attacking religion (read: Christianity). I for one am an agnostic atheist, and I've made my fair share of stabs at Christianity. I don't think it's been to the point of true malice though.
Last edited on
@Grey Wolf,
That sounds right, though, to be honest, I don't hear much of that. Maybe that's just where I live.
I have no idea what gave you that impression.
Possibly true, but the thread is not about that. Unless you're equating being christian and being an extremist.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm an atheist too. But I also believe that there is religion, because there is need for religion. And I hate it when people give it silly criticism.
@Cheraphy
Sarcasm? I've seen several, but that was long ago. Though I had stopped coming here for a while.. Did I miss any?
| one religion attacking another |
| The Westboro Baptist Church an example of being "the better man"? |
| There are extremists in all walks of life |
Don't misunderstand me. I'm an atheist too. But I also believe that there is religion, because there is need for religion. And I hate it when people give it silly criticism.
@Cheraphy
Sarcasm? I've seen several, but that was long ago. Though I had stopped coming here for a while.. Did I miss any?
Last edited on
| rather than start hateful threads |
this is not my intent - I'm merely interested in the official answer/come back the church in general has about those past claims made.
I have googled this topic but found nothing really.
I am a person who respect when someone can call a thing for what it is and not try to sweap things under the carpet.
If the church have no valid come back to this topic then I am very curious how the religious peoples minds works to disregard this fact of logic that they were wrong and so can be wrong about many other things
Firstly WTF is "the church" i am a christian and do not believe a lot of what many "churches" think/say/do. Remembering that "the church" is only as good as the sinful men and women who form part of them.
Regarding the whole earth is flat, ect. (stated in the OP) "the church" specifically in Rome, was given (IMHO) way too much power, and thus the sinful men (not women in those times, not sexist - i promise) would not want to loose any control they had.
Plus, there are many interpretations/beliefs that different Christians have, that does not make the "wrong".
Also, "wrong" (IMHO) is an imprecise (biased) way to state the above accusations, rather they were "incorrect" / "false" (if you want to get scientific).
And (hopefully) to close off, people follow God+Jesus+Holy Spirit [or just the Holy Trinity] (note the CAPITALS of the previous words!)
Regarding the whole earth is flat, ect. (stated in the OP) "the church" specifically in Rome, was given (IMHO) way too much power, and thus the sinful men (not women in those times, not sexist - i promise) would not want to loose any control they had.
Plus, there are many interpretations/beliefs that different Christians have, that does not make the "wrong".
Also, "wrong" (IMHO) is an imprecise (biased) way to state the above accusations, rather they were "incorrect" / "false" (if you want to get scientific).
And (hopefully) to close off, people follow God+Jesus+Holy Spirit [or just the Holy Trinity] (note the CAPITALS of the previous words!)
closed account (z05DSL3A)
hamsterman,
Sorry, I was being overly sarcastic again. I was just having a bit of a dig as I did not find this a hateful thread and I find religion to be less tolerant than they make out to be. I do have strong opinions on religion but do try to be respectful of others (or be as respectful to them as they are to others). Just for the record, I did start out life as a Christian but ... I'll probably leave it there...
Sorry, I was being overly sarcastic again. I was just having a bit of a dig as I did not find this a hateful thread and I find religion to be less tolerant than they make out to be. I do have strong opinions on religion but do try to be respectful of others (or be as respectful to them as they are to others). Just for the record, I did start out life as a Christian but ... I'll probably leave it there...
The problem I have with Christianity is that it was the root cause of societal advancement in western culture coming to a complete halt after the fall of the Roman empire. Over the centuries it has held us back, been subject to corruption at it's finest, and been used to justify mass amounts of bloodshed supression and hate. For all the good it has done the world it has done so much worse. I firmly believe the only reason it exists to this day is because religion is passed down through generations, and most children are not given the choice to find their faith for themselves. I think if every parent left religion out of their children's lives, or teach them all the religious views they could be knowledgeable of themselves, religion as a whole would die out except among those inclined to believe the impossible in the first place.
@zepher
I can't find a definite statement about flatness. Wikipedia on flat earth shows debate between theologians of the middle ages. The other two claims are more evident though.
Well, apparently in 1822 heliocentric books were un-banned. I guess that counts.
In general, "the church" is hardly a unit to apologize for "its" mistakes, nor can it be blamed for following the most apparent and widespread theory of the time. Note, pope does not claim to "talk" to god.
Lastly and most importantly, these statements have very little religious relevance. If "the church" hadn't been the main source of intelligentsia for so long, perhaps nobody would have cared.
@Cheraphy
The stagnation of middle ages is a bit of a myth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
Also, you don't seem to have proof that whatever horrors "the church" committed would hot have happened without it. In other words, that "the church" is the cause, rather than a symptom.
I can't find a definite statement about flatness. Wikipedia on flat earth shows debate between theologians of the middle ages. The other two claims are more evident though.
Well, apparently in 1822 heliocentric books were un-banned. I guess that counts.
In general, "the church" is hardly a unit to apologize for "its" mistakes, nor can it be blamed for following the most apparent and widespread theory of the time. Note, pope does not claim to "talk" to god.
Lastly and most importantly, these statements have very little religious relevance. If "the church" hadn't been the main source of intelligentsia for so long, perhaps nobody would have cared.
@Cheraphy
The stagnation of middle ages is a bit of a myth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages
Also, you don't seem to have proof that whatever horrors "the church" committed would hot have happened without it. In other words, that "the church" is the cause, rather than a symptom.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
It is so popular to attack religion that very foolish people join in.
These people did not say awake in their 101 philosophy course in school or they would realize how little is known and can be proven.
People confuse philosophy/religion with science. They are not the same and they provide different services for society.
Everyone needs to have a philosophy/religion based on a small group axioms that they are willing to accept--because little can be proven and we need to get things done.
On a different note: if you are pleased with Western civilization-- then you need to thank the Western Church/Latin Church because without them Western civilization would not be.
These people did not say awake in their 101 philosophy course in school or they would realize how little is known and can be proven.
People confuse philosophy/religion with science. They are not the same and they provide different services for society.
Everyone needs to have a philosophy/religion based on a small group axioms that they are willing to accept--because little can be proven and we need to get things done.
On a different note: if you are pleased with Western civilization-- then you need to thank the Western Church/Latin Church because without them Western civilization would not be.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| ...because without them Western civilization would not be. |
Last edited on