Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

The Galileo affair was essentially a clash of personalities and the
Pope badly misusing his authority to satisfy his personal pique at
being treated as he saw it as an idiot by Galileo and made subject to
public scorn. FWIW, I think things probably ended up going a lot
farther that the Pope intended and that is likely why he converted
Galileo's imprisonment to a very loose form of house arrest in a
luxury villa where he was able to carry on with his other scientific
studies.

I worked for a few years on the Arcetri hill, from there you could see the place where GG spent his last years, it is a nice little place in the valley below the hill, but definetely not a "luxury villa".

G

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2024 19:05, Vincent Maycock wrote:

They should never have been on it in the first place as there was
nothing heretical about them

Except that the Bible says the earth does not move.

The Bible also says that the earth is flat.

The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible includes idiom, metaphor,
poetry and allegory, inter alia. Augustine, an early Church Father,
recognised that empirical data trumped Biblical interpretation, and
advised Christians not to bring the faith into disrepute by adopting
positions (such as flat earth) that were obvious nonsense.

When I looked into the subject I found that the Catholic Church was
rather more literalist than I had expected. There is a presumption of literalism in the absence of contrary data. I have read that Galileo had
a theological dispute with the Church - he argued that the Church should
not give hostages to fortune by unnecessarily nailing its mast to interpretations that might be overturned by later discoveries.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 07:31:12 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
Church documents.

Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a trumped-up charge as I described it.

Or argue about something else. It's scarcely about origins.

Point of Order:
============
You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia
exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
containing the Galileo article published in 1907.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its >disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 05:08:23 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

[Huge snip]

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its >disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

Way to go. Point the finger at the other guy(s).

Hint: KillFile or "Mark Thread as Read" are useful.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:52:30 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 20:43:19 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 17:38:17 +0000
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when >> >and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

FWIW, I have stuck for this because I generally have very high regard
for Ron and the *scientific* stuff he reports and it bugged me to see
him ignoring respected scientists and historians buying into a claim
from a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism. Brick walls tend to
be sore on heads, however, so I'm out of it now.

Thanks. 40kb of repeated to and fro is too much, IMO.

You're showing your age now when you regard 40kb of bandwidth as
excessive :)

True. But I find "Read Next, Pgdn" routine takes longer with all the
quoted stuff.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:45:04 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

On 1/7/25 11:02 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:09:21 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/7/25 2:08 AM, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

To all concerned: let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when >>>>> and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap,
but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.

Errr .... you moan about Ron and me wrangling and then instigate what
will inevitably be an even more pointless wrangle.

My mistake. i shouldn't have responded to her.

That's probably for the best.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 05:08:32 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:


If we (FSVoW) wish to demonstrate that scientific logic is superior
to Inspired Knowledge, we should, IMO, present clear arguments backed
by data, not attack debating style. YMMV.


Yrs, from a warm little vent.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)