Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) False. His condemnation was directly related to his opposition to geocentrism. Which was thought to be a moral issue at the time. So popes can be wrong on what is a moral issue and what isn't.

Again, false it was due to his mechanistic philosophy and applying empiricism to 'heavenly' matters. They did not condemn Copernicus for his Aristotelian observations, even though they were heliocentric.

My argument is that the Church has known to be wrong. I couldn't care less if the popes enjoyed to fondle Tycho Brahe, since IT DOESN'T HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUENT.

It has everything to do with the argument. You want to condemn the church, condemn Tycho.

[giblets]

Tycho, as well as the church, were wrong because geocentrism is false. Therefore the church is not infallible.

[Kontiki]

I hate wading into this ****storm, but I've never understood why this makes any difference at all:

The oldest complete codexes are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both dating to the early 4th century.

This isn't exactly bad, considering that the oldest manuscripts of Plato date to the 10th and 11th centuries.

I mean, no inexplicable phenomena are ascribed to Plato. As far as I know, there's nothing in contemporary philosophy that comes down "well, we don't really have an answer, but Plato said so, so it's true". If the man didn't really exist and was instead some fictional character invented centuries later, it wouldn't change anything at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

I mean, no inexplicable phenomena are ascribed to Plato.

It matters wrt to historical reliability. Putting aside the question, of "did this actually happen", the question that's being asked here is "Does the text of the copies we do have match the text of the originals?"

This is why one aspect of reliability is the date between the oldest copy and the time the original was written. More time between the two, permits the text to become corrupted.

If the man didn't really exist and was instead some fictional character invented centuries later, it wouldn't change anything at all.

Textual corruption is an important problem, expecially for ancient texts, because Plato is one of the better, more reliable documents. Look at it as a building with the foundation. If you've got Plato in your foundation, what happens to other things based upon that foundation in Plato? The errors tend to perpetuate.

[Kontiki]

It matters wrt to historical reliability. Putting aside the question, of "did this actually happen", the question that's being asked here is "Does the text of the copies we do have match the text of the originals?"

Yes, that's your question. I'm pointing out that it's an irrelevant one.

Textual corruption is an important problem, expecially for ancient texts, because Plato is one of the better, more reliable documents. Look at it as a building with the foundation. If you've got Plato in your foundation, what happens to other things based upon that foundation in Plato? The errors tend to perpetuate.

Again, true but irrelevant.

[Ming]

That's a very poor summary as to why. I've studied it both ends. The church was a-ok with Copernicus.

Many people have studied both ends, and disagree with you. The church was NOT a-ok with Copernicus. You are the one making crap up yet again. But no surprise.

They had a problem with Galileo's mechanistic philosophy, ie, empirical knowledge extending to spiritual realms. Back then they didn't make the distinction between the heavens and space that we do now.

Yeah... they had a problem with that as well. But they tried him on a Heresey charge for his views, so you can make light of it all you want, but the fact remains. The Pope was WRONG on a spiritual issue.

And it's interesting that you keep ignoring all the other evils of the church I keep reminding you of.
THEY HAPPENED. Try responding to those for a change.

The church has been a leading institution for evil throughout its existence... MANY POPES have failed in their charge... showing that they don't act on behalf of Jesus. And that is the reason so many splinter groups have formed... people with a better understanding of what Jesus was talking about.

If you are STUPID enough to claim that the church has done no wrong... it just proves that you have no clue. Jesus would not be happy with supposed Catholics like you. And when you claim somebody else can't be a catholic like you, it's simply funny. Your version is totally warped, and in no way supports the actual teaching of Jesus.

It's no surprise that more and more people find the church to be irrelevent in their lives.
It's hard to support an institution that covered up major sins and allowed them to continue.
But in looking at the long history of the church, it should not come as any kind of surprise.

[Jon Miller]

I hate wading into this ****storm, but I've never understood why this makes any difference at all:

The oldest complete codexes are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both dating to the early 4th century.

This isn't exactly bad, considering that the oldest manuscripts of Plato date to the 10th and 11th centuries.

I mean, no inexplicable phenomena are ascribed to Plato. As far as I know, there's nothing in contemporary philosophy that comes down "well, we don't really have an answer, but Plato said so, so it's true". If the man didn't really exist and was instead some fictional character invented centuries later, it wouldn't change anything at all.

The statement that Christ was invented centuries later is completely rediculous. Just because the oldest complete manuscripts were from the ~320 AD or so doesn't mean that there wasn't references to them as well as people who wrote that they knew people who knew Him in ~100 AD. As well as a functioning, active, and vibrant movement even earlier (and references to Him).

And you don't seem to really understand God or what is in the Bible with your statement "well, we dont' really have an answer, but XXX said so, so it's true". The Bible isn't a list of do's and don'ts, it isn't a manual, it isn't a list of how things are. The Bible is the story of many people's relationship with God. In particularly, the Gospels are the story of God becoming man so that man might know God and God and man become closer together.

JM

[MikeH]

Exactly! Which is why it's so infuriating when people do treat it as a list of dos and don'ts (but only very selectively choosing which is which, based on their own prejudice). eg. Ben.

[Berzerker]

[Kontiki]

The statement that Christ was invented centuries later is completely rediculous. Just because the oldest complete manuscripts were from the ~320 AD or so doesn't mean that there wasn't references to them as well as people who wrote that they knew people who knew Him in ~100 AD. As well as a functioning, active, and vibrant movement even earlier (and references to Him).

And you don't seem to really understand God or what is in the Bible with your statement "well, we dont' really have an answer, but XXX said so, so it's true". The Bible isn't a list of do's and don'ts, it isn't a manual, it isn't a list of how things are. The Bible is the story of many people's relationship with God. In particularly, the Gospels are the story of God becoming man so that man might know God and God and man become closer together.

JM

You're completely missing my point, Jon. I'm not claiming that Jesus was invented centuries later. I'm challenging the assertion that there's any link between the veracity of claims of Jesus' divinity and when the claims were first written about.

As for the second paragraph, MikeH said it pretty succinctly. The Bible is absolutely used as a manual by a huge number of people. Hell, I'd say that's the case for the vast majority of Christians. I find it nearly impossible to believe you could think otherwise, regardless of your personal position on the matter.

[Jon Miller]

There are a lot of Christians who don't put much thought into it, just like there are a lot of atheists who don't put much thought into it.

It is probably just a subset who use it like a manual. The majority don't use it like a manual. They reference a couple of things, say that they believe, and than ignore it and religion for the rest of their lives. Maybe they might go to church occasionally, but more as a social thing than as a faculty for a relationship with God.

Paul, who wrote ~20ish years after Christ and was a leader of the early Christians (before they were called Christians even), believed in Christ's divinity. As well as significant others, including the ones I reverenced above who were taught by His disciples.

It is true that there were a significant group who did not believe in His divinity, like there is now. And these groups were significant enough to create division even in the first 100 years. Saying that these claims were invented later (and not held by some of those who knew Him) isn't very reasonable.

Whether there is truth to those claims, has to be something you decide for yourself. A lot of people have had a difficult time understanding this, and there is still discussion about it today.

I note that in one of the gospels, Christ says that no one knows the Father but the Son and who the Son chooses to reveal Him to, but that no one knows the Son but the Father.

As someone who does believe in the divinity of Christ, I don't think it is possible correctly understand it and how the divinity of Christ works for those of us here on earth. I don't think we have enough information, most obviously. I don't think it is of utmost importance either though.

JM

[Kontiki]

I'm a little unclear on how you think it's only a minority subset of Christians that use the Bible as a manual. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church's position on, say, homosexuality is not based on scripture?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you are wrong, you've basically condemned yourself and everyone who's followed your words about sodomy to hell.

This doesn't work for Protestants, Ben. We are saved by grace alone. If we strive to live a Christ honoring life, even if we are wrong on certain aspects of what is or what is not sinful, based upon what the Holy Spirit works in our lives (and being baptized in the Holy Spirit, I'm most definitely sure He is with me - though, yes, that's a very Pentacostal belief), we will be saved. Jesus loves us and is against legalism. As long as we try to live that honors the Lord and believe that he is our Savior and our Master, he will save us.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I did what I did because I sincerely believed it to be right and God's will because of his overbearing love for all of his creation. I don't think God will judge me harshly for that (after all, we are all wrong about something or another, what matters is that we strive to live for Jesus and try to honor him the best we can).

(Then again, I also am more universalist and believe that all will be "saved" through God's love, but that Hell is a distancing from God rather than a physical place of torture - more like mental torture knowing God exists and is full of love and grace, but you can't get there... at least not yet)


Furthermore, adultery and incest are choices. Homosexuality is something people are born with and I don't think God would create those who are born homosexual and then say his creation is sinful.

[Jon Miller]

I'm a little unclear on how you think it's only a minority subset of Christians that use the Bible as a manual. Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church's position on, say, homosexuality is not based on scripture?

I am saying that a large portion (probably majority) of Catholics don't give much thought to it, and don't let it really effect their lives. Neither the Bible, nor the Church leadership.

I would expect that a decent number of porn stars/whores are Catholic, for example.

And actually Catholics mostly take their direction from the Pope, treating the Bible as a manual is a lot more common in the protestant community.

JM

[N35t0r]

In any case, it seems like the main point we are trying to make about using the bible to know what Jesus thought isn't getting through:

You have a book, which is a compilation of many different writings from a relatively wide period of time, and in different languages, about the life and deeds of, ultimately, this one guy. These writings were actually set on paper many hundreds of years after his death.

Don't you think that claiming to know what he would think on certain matters with 100% certainty is a bit ridiculous?