What should Christian apologists say?

[katerinah1947]

Hey kat...once again, I'm not sure what the point that you're making is. This is becoming a bit of a pattern for your replies to me lol. Fortunately, I'm always willing to at least consider the problem is on my end....

Were you trying to say you can use math to provide evidence of god?

Hi,

Yes.

LOVE,

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi,

Yes.

LOVE,

Care to demonstrate this?

 

[AV1611VET]

He was not wrong then.

He is not wrong now.

LOVE,

What issue did he take a stand on?

 

[AV1611VET]

Galileo.

Galileo!?

You said this about Galileo!?

On one issue in my field of science, the religious apologists, have always taken the position, that a particular scientist was wrong.

I strongly disagree.

 

[katerinah1947]

Galileo!?

You said this about Galileo!?I strongly disagree.

Hi,

Fine.

How did Galileo not act as a scientist only?

How did the church not miss the fact that they were talking about science and not religion?

Or, on what point do you disagree of your own?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

What issue did he take a stand on?

Hi,

Galileo said, this is a science issue, not a religious issue.

The church disagreed with him.

LOVE,

 

[AV1611VET]

How did Galileo not act as a scientist only?

How should I know?

If I had to guess, I'd ask:

1. When he tithed?
2. When he took communion?
3. When he sang songs in church?

How did the church not miss the fact that they were talking about science and not religion?

When they were finally convinced that heliocentrism didn't violate their version of the Scriptures?

Or, on what point do you disagree of your own?

I'm sure my pastor would side with Galileo.

I believe God was on Galileo's side too.

While under house arrest, Galileo was able to concentrate on ... and finish ... his two most important works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi,

Galileo said, this is a science issue, not a religious issue.

The church disagreed with him.

LOVE,

That's because the church believed in geocentrism and was being true to their own beliefs.

For crying out loud, give people a chance to change.

Was the Catholic church supposed to change overnight, just because one man ... or maybe a handful of men ... were saying otherwise?

And how many of Galileo's own scientists ... that is, his peers ... disagreed with him on heliocentrism?

Welcome to the world of faith, where churches just don't jump when some scientist tells them to start preaching otherwise.

Scientists today think the same thing.

They think that just because they've got what they call evidence to support a certain viewpoint, that the churches here on earth had better get in the program and agree with them.

Well, some churches' faith aren't that weak.

Should the Catholic church today automatically accept string theory, or the demotion of Pluto, or evolution?

If so, I'd say their faith is pretty weak.

 

[katerinah1947]

How should I know?

If I had to guess, I'd ask:

1. When he tithed?
2. When he took communion?
3. When he sang songs in church?

When they were finally convinced that heliocentrism didn't violate their version of the Scriptures?I'm sure my pastor would side with Galileo.

I believe God was on Galileo's side too.

While under house arrest, Galileo was able to concentrate on ... and finish ... his two most important works.

Hi,

Historically Apologists have always sided with the church.

They have always said it was his poor attitude, meaning his poor priestly attitude.

On that basis, the apologists have always said, Galileo was wrong and the issue back then was never about science, but his attitude.

Yet, the apologists error, as he always acted as a scientist. His attitude was correct in scientific circles.

If you look at the sentence, they sentenced him on theological grounds, ignoring the dissenting options, and cited essentially their equivalent back then of papal infallibility on scripture, via the recent council of Trent.

He was held wrong scripturally, yet his work was not about theology.

The opposing side made it about theology.

Looking at the sentence, the church gave themselves no outs.

Either, back then they were not inerrant scripturally, or they were telling a lie.

They cited scriptural reasons only. Yet, at the time, many had actually looked through that telescope, members of the church did, and it is said they then changed their minds.

The outcome was, that science alone corrected the Bible, and the church.

And, as such Galileo being the chief agent of that scientifically, by that telescope, corrected the Bible.

As such he and maybe Nicolas Copernicus should be called Doctor's of The Church, because that is a huge and accurate correction to Holy Scriptures.

Science is on an equal footing with Theologians, WHEN, science ACCIDENTALLY, overlaps into religion which is rarely.

The purpose of science is to find out What God has Done, not to to say what the Bible says, or to defeat The Bible, rather they are to Subdue the earth. A Comnand given by God in Genesis 1:28.

Thus, for the many articles written by apologists saying Galileo was wrong and not the church, those apologists are all discredited.

That is why alologists are not that reliable, through past history of their actions.

The church also from that event, shows us their lack of implied infallibility.

Further, the church missed Mark 9:38-42, for the Inquisition it seems, and they are missing both Genesis 1:28, and Romans 13:1-5 for some modern,two, but really one modern day issues/issue similar in nature to The Galileo Incident.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

That's because the church believed in geocentrism and was being true to their own beliefs.

No. They said he was wrong scripturally. They used their knowledge of scripture, and did not look at anything he presented. Lower officials did, They all knew Galileo was right. At least that is what the article says.

The guys at the top did not even look at the evidence. The scientists complained about that in the article.

For crying out loud, give people a chance to change.

All they had to do was tell the truth.

Was the Catholic church supposed to change overnight, just because one man ... or maybe a handful of men ... were saying otherwise?

No they were supposed to be honest in their dealings with him.

And how many of Galileo's own scientists ... that is, his peers ... disagreed with him on heliocentrism?

Nobody who looked through his telescope, who examined the data, disagreed with him.

Welcome to the world of faith, where churches just don't jump when some scientist tells them to start preaching otherwise.

Scientists, don't preach. We experiment and present data. If you think or say otherwise, you are wrong.

Scientists today think the same thing.

They think that just because they've got what they call evidence to support a certain viewpoint, that the churches here on earth had better get in the program and agree with them.

You are wrong. And saying things which are not even close to reality in science, is unfortunately what you are doing, hopefully accidentally.

Well, some churches' faith aren't that weak.

I have never seen a church that is weak in faith. Not even the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons are weak in faith.

Should the Catholic church today automatically accept string theory, or the demotion of Pluto, or evolution?

All proven science, The Catholic Church says she does accept.

If so, I'd say their faith is pretty weak.

The Catholic Church's faith is so strong they even oppose science, when science is correct.

It took them 370 years to budge on their errors with Galileo.

They have made other errors, and after much time corrected them, but in faith, they held on and on and on.

LOVE,

 

[AV1611VET]

They have made other errors, and after much time corrected them, but in faith, they held on and on and on.

As they should have, until satisfied otherwise.

That's how faith works.

Listen to what the highminded here say about faith.

They say faith is believing something you know isn't true.

If that's so, then the Catholic church should still be embracing geocentrism.

Scientists say we're pushovers, and that, given enough rope, we'll hang ourselves.

They think Christianity and the Bible will be gone in another 50 years.

I submit they don't know how strong (and dangerous) faith can be.

 

[katerinah1947]

Care to demonstrate this?

Hi,

I would show you how to do it not demonstrate it.

Remember, math only comes to a person who uses math.

Math is only learned by doing.,

Both The concepts of Algebra, Proofs, Definition of terms like what do things really mean, and looking at one thing at a time, to see what that thing does, when there are lots of other things going on, Biblically, we're all used by me, when I did The Proof for the validity or non validity of the Bible. You will need all of those also.

After the proof of The Bible was done, and God started revealing Himself to me, (as it actually says He will do after that much hard work), one of my favorite things, which I will do for you here in some detail is substituting God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit, in Psalms 2, which is a very Algebraic idea, from information gotten from The New Testament.

Jesus is talked about by Moses.
Therefore Jesus is in some places in The Old Testament. This is a mathematical idea. The idea of equal.

Here that equalness means, both The New and The Old Testsment have Jesus in it.

Jesus gave another value, He said in Psalms 110:1, The Holy Spirit is having King David Say those words: The Lord said to my Lord....

By taking a guess and trying to prove it wrong, I did this substitution there. The Lord was changed to God The Father. My or our Lord was changed to God The Son.

Then it was reread and checked for any Heresies, or impossibilities.

There weren't any.

Thus, the text, Psalms 2, with those substitutions read the same way, with or without them.

Only, with the substitutions, it is like a first grade reader in simplicity.

Further, the Trinity more easily flows out of The Bible, when using Algebraic ideas of equalities, even in the area of us being made like God, in some ways.

Just, knowing and having it proven, that we humans, are a certain way, then reveals God to us, by seeing if our human ways match some feature of God, in us who are made in ther image and likeness.

And in certain ways that all humans are, God as Father Son and Holy Spirit, is understood better by us.


LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

As they should have, until satisfied otherwise.

That's how faith works.

Listen to what the highminded here say about faith.

They say faith is believing something you know isn't true.

If that's so, then the Catholic church should still be embracing geocentrism.

Scientists say we're pushovers, and that, given enough rope, we'll hang ourselves.

They think Christianity and the Bible will be gone in another 50 years.

I submit they don't know how strong (and dangerous) faith can be.

Hi,

Dear, I am a scientist. In science none of are pushovers. Additionally, people can say they are scientists to non scientists, and they have no way of knowing usually, if the person is or is not a scientist.

Some scientists lie. When they are found out, never again are they listened to and all of their past work is no longer credible, even if some of it is actually right.

We scientists can police our own, but that is not our job. Our job is really to make ourselves useless, by solving all of the problems we are given; Putting it in papers, and then drifting off into time, with no one usually, ever knowing we were alive.

Any scientist who thinks science will replace God, is incompetent or a liar somewhere.

No scientist is supposed to say things that they cannot prove, or have verified the proofs that others have done, on what they are talking about.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi, (edits done now)

As they should have, until satisfied otherwise.

That's how faith works.

In Mark 9:38-42, the greater burden is on he who knows more about God, than he who knows less about God, in not making a person angry and thus maybe turning away from God.

The church always knows more about God than Scientists, normally, thus it was her job not to hurt or make Galileo upset, according to Jesus.

Listen to what the highminded here say about faith.

They say faith is believing something you know isn't true.

A real scientist would not say that. All scientists like me, go toe to toe with all other scientists and corporate leaders if we are right and they are wrong.

Faith is not believing in something that is not true to any real scientist, rather that is held as a possibility only.

If that's so, then the Catholic church should still be embracing geocentrism.

Scientists say we're pushovers, and that, given enough rope, we'll hang ourselves.

No. Faith people are not pushovers. Some do believe in false things. Some believe in realities, that are called faith only.

They think Christianity and the Bible will be gone in another 50 years.

If it happens it happens.

I submit they don't know how strong (and dangerous) faith can be.

The word dangerous is threatening and scary to me. It is an ISIS, terrorist word to me.

If God is Real, and He Is, even if no one else knows, I do, then what happens in the future is up to Him.

Do you really think, like in my case, or in any, In-The-Spirit-prophetic-type Christian, ALL, who have experienced God in some One on one Personal Way, can ever forget The away God Revealed Himself To them?

No, we are all alike that way. Each Christian church, normally has a minimum of one In-The-Spirit type.

In our church there are at least ten. All are Similar in this way, once we have seen God, in any way, We are in love and can't Get Over Him.

Can't.

It Ain't Possible.

For me, after my first big God contact, I WAS IN AGONY. (Follow please)

I looked over to where God was now, and said to Him: "You can't leave me like this. You can't."

I was out of my head with grief. Never have I been like that before.

All it took was for one look at The Essence of God, and I was a goner.

I did not even know what my agony was, except, I no longer wanted to be on planet earth instantly.

All In-The-Spirit-types have some version of that.

It is eight years later for me, I and I am not the only one in my church like this, have asked God personally and been refused each time, to have Him take us, so far.

Tears. Tears are here for one person in my church. She talks to Jesus and Mary personally, she is in much pain constantly. Jesus has always said No to her, she has to stay here with us.

I know of another, and he is only 24. He us like her in pain and full contact God encounters.

In the near future, it looks like faith will still be here in 50 years.

LOVE,

 

[AV1611VET]

Any scientist who thinks science will replace God, is incompetent or a liar somewhere.

Then what's this?

Scientism

From the link:

Several scholars use the term to describe the work of vocal critics of religion-as-such. Individuals associated with New Atheism have garnered this label from both religious and non-religious scholars. Theologian John Haught argues Daniel Dennett and other new atheists subscribe to a belief system of scientific naturalism, which holds the central dogma that "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real: that God does not exist; and that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality."

SOURCE

 

[katerinah1947]

Then what's this?

Scientism

From the link:

SOURCE

Hi,

It is Philosophy.

Philosophy, is not science. If anything, in effect it's a number of people talking about nothing that applies to science, who are convincing many that they understand science, when in fact they do not.

It is Philosophy.

LOVE,

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi,

I would show you how to do it not demonstrate it.

Remember, math only comes to a person who uses math.

Math is only learned by doing.,

Both The concepts of Algebra, Proofs, Definition of terms like what do things really mean, and looking at one thing at a time, to see what that thing does, when there are lots of other things going on, Biblically, we're all used by me, when I did The Proof for the validity or non validity of the Bible. You will need all of those also.

After the proof of The Bible was done, and God started revealing Himself to me, (as it actually says He will do after that much hard work), one of my favorite things, which I will do for you here in some detail is substituting God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit, in Psalms 2, which is a very Algebraic idea, from information gotten from The New Testament.

Jesus is talked about by Moses.
Therefore Jesus is in some places in The Old Testament. This is a mathematical idea. The idea of equal.

Here that equalness means, both The New and The Old Testsment have Jesus in it.

Jesus gave another value, He said in Psalms 110:1, The Holy Spirit is having King David Say those words: The Lord said to my Lord....

By taking a guess and trying to prove it wrong, I did this substitution there. The Lord was changed to God The Father. My or our Lord was changed to God The Son.

Then it was reread and checked for any Heresies, or impossibilities.

There weren't any.

Thus, the text, Psalms 2, with those substitutions read the same way, with or without them.

Only, with the substitutions, it is like a first grade reader in simplicity.

Further, the Trinity more easily flows out of The Bible, when using Algebraic ideas of equalities, even in the area of us being made like God, in some ways.

Just, knowing and having it proven, that we humans, are a certain way, then reveals God to us, by seeing if our human ways match some feature of God, in us who are made in ther image and likeness.

And in certain ways that all humans are, God as Father Son and Holy Spirit, is understood better by us.


LOVE,

Hey kat...

Thanks so much for that detailed explanation...it was enlightening (I think that's the word for it).

I want you to know that, for me personally, your explanations are always a joy to read. I think it's a pity that other christians on here don't seem to pay closer attention to your explanations of all things biblical/christian...they might see something of themselves in your posts.

Don't ever change.

Much love back at you,

Ana

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

From what I have seen, it is also the use and introduction of Philosophy into Religion that has removed religion almost totally from the grasp of even those in Religion, from understanding what The Bible actually says and means.

Try this as an example: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

Science considers philosophy, but apples epistemology and metaphysics in a very particular sense. They aren't opposed, they aren't contradictory, they're complementary

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

From what I have seen, it is also the use and introduction of Philosophy into Religion that has removed religion almost totally from the grasp of even those in Religion, from understanding what The Bible actually says and means.

Try this as an example: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

LOVE,

There's a difference between studying religion in a sense of fulfillment and the like and academically. They aren't contradictory, they're different methods of approaching the same subject