by poopsiecakes 127 Replies latest jw friends
Sure they had their issues with the Church and the church with them, the the church supported them and many other scientists over the centuries.
As long as their ideas didn't conflict with the Church. I mean, the Church finally apologized to Galileo, what, 3 years ago? "Ooops, sorry we tried to destroy your life because your science didn't agree with us."
Sorry, I meant Socrates.
In that case my answer would be this....so? People don't go around starting wars over what Socrates thought or said and telling other people how to live their life. People don't worship Socrates and insist that others do the same.
If Jesus were considered on the same playing field as Socrates then the question would be more fair.
I suggest:
http://biologos.org/resources/galileo-goes-to-jail-and-other-myths-about-science-and-religion/
In that case my answer would be this....so? People don't go around starting wars over what Socrates thought or said and telling other people how to live their life. People don't worship Socrates and insist that others do the same.
If Jesus were considered on the same playing field as Socrates then the question would be more fair.
Ah, so IF no one had gone around starting wars over Jesus that means that he did exist?
Fact is, in terms of an historical figure ( outside a king or such) the evidence for Jesus's existsence is much the same as for others that we say existsted.
Paul actually wrote about him just a few decades after his death.
Besides, nowher ein any of his teachinsg did Jesus advocate going to war nor did he ASK or DEMAND to be wosrship or that anyone be forced to worship him or even forced to worship God.
Good suggestion. The summary points out that Galileo wasn't jailed as many people thing. He was merely interrogated under the threat of torture, found guilty of heresy, put under house arrest, publishing his book was forbidden and that edict was extended to include anything he MIGHT write in the future.
Sure, the Church wasn't holding science back at all. I mean, had he been put in jail, whoo boy look out, that CLEARLY would have been holding science back but threats of torture, interrogation, house arrest, book banning....that was like an ice cream social back in the day.
Galileo was threatened by the Church with death because he claimed that Earth revolved around the Sun.
Now - had he claimed that Earth revolve around the Son he would be a bl**dy Pope by now!
Ah, so IF no one had gone around starting wars over Jesus that means that he did exist?
No, I didn't say that at all. I said the question regarding Socrates would be a comparable question to Jesus. I was illustrating that they aren't in the same ballpark with what people do with their idea. Heck, they aren't even the same sport.
So for the question to be relevant and comparible, you have to be comparing two similiar things.
Fact is, in terms of an historical figure ( outside a king or such) the evidence for Jesus's existsence is much the same as for others that we say existsted.
Paul actually wrote about him just a few decades after his death.
I agree. Scant to non-existant. The point is, philosophers can debate the existance and teachings of Socrates all day without bothering anyone (other than people that might be in earshot). Debating the same for Jesus could get you killed. See the difference?
Regarding Paul...so? He wrote a lot of hearsay. His early writing were being written at the same time the canonical Gospels were and those accounts don't agree internally on the details. It was all hearsay from at LEAST 30 years after the fact.
Besides, nowher ein any of his teachinsg did Jesus advocate going to war nor did he ASK or DEMAND to be wosrship or that anyone be forced to worship him or even forced to worship God.
I never said that he did.
I think you guys are being a tad closed minded to the other side of the arguments.
To say thet Jesus didn't exist because ther eisn;t enough evidence, but to accept the existence of another supposed historical figure on pretty much the same evidence, doesn't seem correct.
To argue that the church repressed science in some case and not mention where it accepted and even supported it, is also one sided.
To say thet Jesus didn't exist because ther eisn;t enough evidence, but to accept the existence of another supposed historical figure on pretty much the same evidence, doesn't seem correct.
Where did I say I accepted the existance of Socrates, the example you gave? But let's assume Jesus did exist. Since at best the only things we know about him are internally inconsistent documents of unconfirmed authorship (and we know quite a bit about the authors of the info we have Socrates, so he actually has more credible writings) based on hearsay from no earlier than 30 years after the fact, it seems like telling others how to live, taking lives and forming governments based on that is, to say the least, suspect.
To argue that the church repressed science in some case and not mention where it accepted and even supported it, is also one sided.
Facts are one sided?
