Transubstantiation 'miracle' shenanigans

[FatAndFaithless]

Or hell, how about exorcisms as healthcare. Additionally, if they're dedicated to the scientific method then they'd know that making flat assertions about untestable or undetectable phenomena (say like..oh the substantive change of bread into Jesus-flesh) is unacceptable...unless of course you've got a direct hotline to God

[robvalue]

I think it's more a case that they have realized they can no longer get away with denying science. Now it's "God did science". It's a sensible decision. Religion needs to evolve (haha) and become less and less literal or it will only continue through force/ruthless indoctrination. In my opinion.

[Pyrrho]

A list of Catholic scientists is supposed to prove..what?

That despite the silly claims of modern-day atheists, the Catholic Church has always supported the advancement of science.

When you lie, you lie big.  You surely know of the Inquisition and Galileo.  You should remind yourself of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

There are many other examples, but one is enough to prove absolutely that you are writing bullshit when you say "the Catholic Church has always supported the advancement of science."

Undoubtedly, many scientists noticed what happened to Galileo, and did not pursue many scientific ideas in order to avoid the Inquisitors.  So it would be impossible to give a list of everyone affected by that international pedophile ring to which you are devoted.

[robvalue]

Hmm, "always" is a strong word.

Who are these "modern day atheists"?

Am I one?

[SteelCurtain]

The assertion that this is what actually happens is patently ridiculous. Just saying "Jeebus says" carries no weight. You have made a claim that cannot be tested. You say the bread and wine changes, but its physical characteristics are not altered. By what measure has it changed, then?

Perhaps ridiculous to you, yet invoking Christ carries weight in a theological context. The measure in question is theological. Now, we're not going to rush the USDA beef carcass inspectors in to examine the host after the priest consecrates it. Good thing. But for whatever theological reasons they have, transubstantiation makes sense to Catholics.

Indeed, Carson has linked it to Jesus' use of a nominal sentence in "this is my body." English can use nominal sentences to denote either representation or identity; our language doesn't mark the verb "to be" for identity, in the way that Latin marks "sum." If Catholic theology was relying on the Latin Vulgate, the identity sense of the verb would be much stronger than what English conveys with "is."

Yeah, gotta call bullshit on that. If a claim can be asserted in reality, it can be tested in reality. If the Bible says that bats are birds, that does not make it true just because the Bible says so. I can call bullshit on any claim that can be tested. So if you claim that a cracker turns into Jesus when a pedophile says some words to it, but nothing about it physically or chemically changes, then I can call that a phenomenally moronic claim. And I do.

Randy, if you are going to accuse someone of not using logic, you had better step your game up.

[FatAndFaithless]

But still, I don't get what the point of linking a bunch of Catholic scientists is supoosed to illustrate. I could find 'a list of hindu scientists' or la list of Jewish scientists' or 'a list of scientists who are atheists' and then say "x group has always supported science" to no effect.

What's your point?

And just to further dispute your point, how can the Catholic Church "always support the advancement of science" when they reject a basic part of the theory of evolution and flatly claim that there was a literal first man and first woman living at the same time?

[Randy Carson]

Yeah I'm sure Galileo was just thrilled with the support he got from the Vatican.

Galileo WAS supported by the Catholic Church, initially.

Here is an excerpt from a good article:

Twisting the Knife

How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself
By Wil Milan 
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...N=73831879

The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominicans reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order.

What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the moon does the earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the sun, not the earth) he concluded that the earth goes around the sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the sun around the earth (known as geocentrism).

Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the earth goes around the sun and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the sun.

A popular theory at the time (known as the Tychoan theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the sun, and the sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the earth orbiting the sun. He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof.

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn't it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

I hope you will take a few moments to read the full article.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah I'm sure Galileo was just thrilled with the support he got from the Vatican.

Galileo WAS supported by the Catholic Church, initially.

Here is an excerpt from a good article:

Twisting the Knife

How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself
By Wil Milan 
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...N=73831879

The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominicans reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order.

What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the moon does the earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the sun, not the earth) he concluded that the earth goes around the sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the sun around the earth (known as geocentrism).

Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the earth goes around the sun and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the sun.

A popular theory at the time (known as the Tychoan theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the sun, and the sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the earth orbiting the sun. He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof.

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn't it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

I hope you will take a few moments to read the full article.

Bolded part of your 'article' that is literally the only salient part.

And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

This is NOT how science works at all.

[Randy Carson]

Galileo WAS supported by the Catholic Church, initially.

Here is an excerpt from a good article:



I hope you will take a few moments to read the full article.

Bolded part of your 'article' that is literally the only salient part.

And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

This is NOT how science works at all.

Galileo's conundrum was not over the science. Did you read the article to get the rest of the story???

[Hatshepsut]

The Galileo story is long, and not as simple as we make it out to be. It is mainly political despite the religion freely mixed in; Galileo had made many enemies. Cardinal Bellarmine, who had protected him from Fathers Lorini and Caccini during the 1616 inquest, was dead by 1632 when Pope Urban VIII entered the fray. Galileo's decision to publish Two New Sciences in Italian rather than Latin, in effect going over the Aristotelian scholars' heads in a direct appeal to the public, sealed his fate. A good summary account is given by

Linder at UMKC Law School: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...count.html

However, as Linder says, the event put paid to the Italian Renaissance, with the Counter-Reformation now in full brutal swing. 

God cannot lie then? ... He said [Adam & Eve would] die the day they ate the fruit [of the tree of knowledge;] they did not. The snake correctly identifies the lie.

And the snake's apparent truthfulness is a big part of what this story was supposed to convey, that goes unappreciated by most readers. Thanks for highlighting it. The Canaanite and Babylonian theologies that influenced the Hebrew bible at various times admitted of tricksterism by deity. God can deceive and manipulate persons, or honor contracts for inheritance where the principal has gained by fraud, as with Jacob over Esau in Genesis chaps. 25 & 27. The garden story is told by the Yahwist, who evolves into the faction proscribing polytheism, yet the trickster is hardly discarded; it's still there with Balaam on his talking donkey in Numbers 22. Why? It is a topic in the textual research into the bible today. God also hardens Pharaoh's heart numerous times in Exodus, then still holds Egypt accountable for withholding liberty from the Israelites.

Strangely, many people are members of churches with which they disagree.

Plenty of fossil Mormons exist, inflating that claim of 15 million members. I may still be on the rolls at some churches I attended a long time ago, as I've never asked for removal.