Kenny,

Normally, when debating people with opposing views, I show them respect and will acknowledge valid points; herein, i.e., there are loads of manuscripts and there exist Christian scholars, who do work hard. Beyond that, it seems hard to agree on anything. Herein, I feel, I am failing effectively to communicate alternative positions to Aslan. I believe anyone running down my posts would see some pretty heavy weight scholars cited, capable of taking the broader historical picture and providing sound advice.

I’ll try again:

Aslan,

1. Then the jury would have found the perpetrator innocent according to the opinions.

2. I countered that scepticism would have sat well with Abelard. That had Abelard lived in the late eighteen century, he might have considered Gibbon’s proposition.

The next sentence is true. The last sentence is false. We have self-reference. That does not make the sentences without meaning. Philosophers write chapters on this phenomenon.

I don’t find what Abelard said incoherent.

3) The main two conflicts between the Church and Galileo were:

a) Galileo lampooned the Pope as a simpleton in a dialogue.

b). The difference between Instrumentalism and a Hypothetical Construct. The Church would not allow Galileo to deviate from the heliocentric universe, as a matter of fact. He could only use his theory. No… Well, that’s the point, Galileo, wasn’t allowed to have a theory, only a contrivance of measurement.

The Church forced Galileo to recant under threat of torture. He died under house arrest. Moreover, the Church held that four moons circling Jupiter could not exist, because these moons could not have any astrological affect on humankind.

4. Chapter Seven of Scientific Revolutions is about the discovery and the emergence of knowledge. The “pioneer” scientists were struggling to assert themselves in a hostile environment. These pioneers confronted “tradition” (Kuhn), manifested by the Church and had difficulties with peer communication, because of the “absence of printing”.

5. Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Greco-Egyptian, mathematician, who compiled the Almagest containing his astronomical theory, c. 150 BCE: About 170 years after Aristotle was dead. (Albeit, Aristotle did believe the Earth was stationary).

For those believe the Sun did stop in the sky:

One:

The Earth doesn’t “rotate” around the Sun. Actually, the Earth spirals around a centre of gravity warped by mass, as the solar system moves through space-time. Had God stopped the Sun, God would have also had to stop time. Had God stopped time locally, when the Universe was expanding faster than c. Well, the physicists can work it out. But, it would not be very pleasant.

Two:

“But, God suspended the Laws of the Universe”, is the retort? Then, I think the meticulous record keeping Chinese astronomers might noticed a little thing like the Earth stopping its rotation on its axis, even if God suspended inertia.

Three:

Boaz, How “literally” do you take the Bible? Is wrong to critique the Bible? If yes, why? I still have not made it to Ruth. Busy with other research :-).

I have been reading many posts in the Forum, and many people here are very educated and intelligent. Having said that, I think that the way to engage the Right is to frame political issues, like Religion & Politics, in more simplistic terms. Professional republican strategists know this very well, and that is the reason why conservative politicians are so effective in getting many conservative voters to vote against their own interest.

Actually all you’ve done Philo and Aslan is demonstrate I’m right in my assertion that Christians read what they like in the bible and re-invent the meaning of passages when science shows them to be wrong.

It is quite clear that many Christians don’t agree with you’re reasoning.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c016.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/joshualongday.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/longday.asp

Aslan as you should know old Copernicus wrote down his ideas many years before the official publishing date. He did not give consent until he was on his death bed for fear of persecution from religious hardliners.

So Aslan which bits of the bible are wrong ? Or is it just that current interpretations may be wrong?

Oliver
I take the Bible literally when the clear intention is for it to be taken so :)

I know the difference between anthropomorphic language and also cultural expression. When it speaks of the 'nostrils' of the Lord, its anthropomorphic, when Jesus said "gouge out the eye which sins" and "hate your mother and father" etc.. its culture at work. If he had NOT spoken that way, they would not have got the point as powerfully as intended, but did the disciples understand 'hate parents' as we would understand those words ? of course not. They knew what he was on about.

Oliver, one has to use ones God given brain when reading the Bible. While we believe it is the inerrant inspired Word, there are sections which have to be viewed as they stand, example, when Pauls emanuensus records in Romans 1:22

"I Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord."

What are we to make of this ? Its a simple greeting. Paul also distinguishes between commands from the Lord, and his own opinion. Lets not become in bondage to the doctrine of inspiration, but take the facts into consideration under the umbrella of that concept. A greeting from Tertius is 'inerrant' and 'inspired' doctrinally, but I can't see many lessons in the greeting except perhaps for 'It is good to find an assistant' :)

"I take the Bible literally when the clear intention is for it to be taken so" Boaz when YOU interpret that its intention is clear. What may be clear to you is not necessarily so....

Oliver, loving your posts even though I do have to read them twice! But you are making a lot of sense and giving the religious mafia a run - I am enjoying the sport.