Christianity and Science

[Cristoforo]

Originally Posted by Perun

Do you actually have any evidence of this?

I don't of course* but is it so far-fetched to think so?

*If they were so smart to trick their fellow people, I doubt they would have left much hints to find centuries later

[Perun]

Making an argument you cant back up? ........brilliant!

[Awar]

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Awar

Oh have a sense of humor

[Awar]

Ok, I'll grow a sense of humor, if you grow a sense of regular discussion,
and not a "source & article overspamming of the opponents"

[Cristoforo]

Originally Posted by Perun

Making an argument you cant back up? ........brilliant!

It's not an argument. It's a legitimate doubt. You are certainly not in a position to prove that what I said is not true. In my opinion, it is perfectly legitimate to think that there was a time when the Church was infiltrated by atheists just to use her once big power.

You, being a believer, should be the prime supporter of "arguments brought forward without proof" We heard of infiltrators everywhere, so why exactly would the church be exempt ? Due to God?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Awar

Ok, I'll grow a sense of humor, if you grow a sense of regular discussion,
and not a "source & article overspamming of the opponents"

Ok but you just condemned such an attempt as "over-generalized" conclusions

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Perun

Ok but you just condemned such an attempt as "over-generalized" conclusions

Ok, I admit I've wronged you

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

It's not an argument. It's a legitimate doubt. You are certainly not in a position to prove that what I said is not true. In my opinion, it is perfectly legitimate to think that there was a time when the Church was infiltrated by atheists just to use her once big power.

I dont have to prove a negative, the purden of proof is on you to prove atheists infiltrated the church and that was the cause of the Church's support for scientific research.

You, being a believer, should be the prime supporter of "arguments brought forward without proof"

Ahh concerning the question of God's existance I assume. Well to bad I dont engage in those kinds of debates....knowing how fruitless they are. Being a former atheist I know this from first-hand experience.

We heard of infiltrators everywhere, so why exactly would the church be exempt ? Due to God?

Im not saying the church is exempt per se. Im saying it did not happen here.

[son of Roderic]

How pleasant to see you all debate such a sensitive topic like well mannered adults. I for one do not agree with christianity/ science helping eachother hand in hand. I can agree that science has helped uncover some questions about Christ; Mary Magdalen his lover and an Apostle not a prostitute for instance. CNN news story on recent scroll discoveries. I believe he was a prophet who was enlightened but I am not a Christian or affiliate myself to any religion though I was baptised a Catholic; recovered Catholic. I am spiritual and am of the source of life that we all share in this Universe.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by son of Roderic

I can agree that science has helped uncover some questions about Christ; Mary Magdalen his lover and an Apostle not a prostitute for instance. CNN news story on recent scroll discoveries.

I don't buy that stuff.

[etoile noir]

nor i. quite frankly this sort of talk comes from people who have read too much into dan brown's da vinci code, forgetting it's fiction.

[Graeme]

I wish I hadn't come to this section as I cannot understand much of the discussion at all. Gallileo Gallilei did suffer under the the Roman Catholic church's KGB for his book. People were regularly being tortured and burnt at the stake for heretical teachings or views. Gallilei just escaped because of his recanting. He also wrote his heretical book using a dialogue between protagonists rather than state his own views directly. Being under house arrest until his death was not showing church tolerance. Copernicus had his work published after his death. The RC Church and the others had fixed ideas which they did not like challenged. Medicine was held back due to an adherence to Galen and a prohibition against post-mortems. Sorry I find nothing about the Roman church to give it any reputation points.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

I think that either this was done despite the fact that the benefactors were Catholics or maybe because unofficial atheists infiltrated the church. Remeber that the Church offered power at those times.

Any atheist who understood the Church power at that time and wanted to reduce it, would first of all, say nothing about his faith and secondly use the same power against her.

Now, what is the best way to use its power than to actually become part of the institution?

I believe that this is a vastly unproven thesis. You are a victim of vast generalisations inherent in the Secular Atheistic Dogma. I call it "Dogma" specifically because of the fact that even your position witholds in it a degree of faith in relation to your ideas.

I would like to see some proof to your thesis. Thesis such as the above give rise to Anti-Clerical currents which are vastly connected to the realm of ignorance in many lands.

Is it so difficult to believe that Science and Catholicism are irreconciliable when it falls out of the generally-accepted current deriving from Secular Atheistic ideas in relation to the Church?

I expect proof in relation to your assertion that contrasted Perun's post.

[Cristoforo]

I did not assert anything. Let me quote my own post:

I think that either this was done despite the fact that the benefactors were Catholics or maybe because unofficial atheists infiltrated the church.

It's a legitimate doubt which I expressed and which, if true, cannot be proven. Even the fact that the church was never infiltrated cannot be proved. So we end up in the same position we usually end up when discussing the existance/non-existance of God. Just like atheism/theism is a matter of faith, the infiltration or not in the church of atheists will probably remain a matter of belief too.

As Graeme said in his post, it would be illogical for such an anti-science Church to invest in the same science. I am not saying it's not possible that the Church underestimated the power of science and actually helped to bring to life something which in the end killed her but I think that is perfectly logical and sensible to have doubts on the faith of people who invested so heavily in science research.

In nature, it's not the first time that an offspring actually kills his own mother and maybe the relation between the science and the church is just that

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

As Graeme said in his post, it would be illogical for such an anti-science Church to invest in the same science.

Whether it was as Anti-Science as depicted is debatable and open for discussion. I believe that thoughts in this regard have been hijacked by Anti-Clerical and Secular Atheists and due to that the actual truth is a matter of the perspective given to the question of Science in relation to the Church.

I am not saying it's not possible that the Church underestimated the power of science and actually helped to bring to life something which in the end killed her but I think that is perfectly logical and sensible to have doubts on the faith of people who invested so heavily in science research.

The Church is far from dead, it is however in decline but not due to Science primarily. It is in decline because it neglects certain principles that it should have continued to adhere to or because of ethico-moral corruption of the Clergy itself.

Even the Church itself suffers from currents of Liberalism, rather than being a bulwark in favour of a Traditional livelihood and a decent enemy of Materialism and Consumerism, two vices that grip the West, and which are the by-product of the loss of all Spiritual and Religious values within European Civilisation.

[son of Roderic]

The church has persecuted ancient beliefs that tied man with nature. Pagans were not bad people. The people who force others into their ways by any means necessary are the bad people.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by son of Roderic

How pleasant to see you all debate such a sensitive topic like well mannered adults. I for one do not agree with christianity/ science helping eachother hand in hand. I can agree that science has helped uncover some questions about Christ; Mary Magdalen his lover and an Apostle not a prostitute for instance. CNN news story on recent scroll discoveries.

Let me guess, the Nag Hamandi library which was discovered 50 years ago and supposedly uncovers new information about Christianity's roots? And of course who can forget Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, which supposedly adds credence to the scrolls.


Of course Philip Jenkins refutes much the common theories concerning the scrolls in his book Hidden Gospels: How the Quest for Jesus Lost its Way. These texts were of a fringe minority that had no basis on the theological thinking of the church as a whole. Basically these texts have been blown way out of proportion; which actually destroys their true value as historical document.

Heres a review of the book written by the author himself. Enjoy!

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/hiddengospel.htm