It only took 400 years. Go Galileo!!

[gsdx]

Good heavens! Vatican rehabilitation sees Galileo go from heretic to hero

23/12/2008 6:28:00 PM
Nicole Winfield, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
VATICAN CITY - Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero.

The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim of its Inquisition as a man of faith, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo's telescope and the UN-designated International Year of Astronomy in 2009.

Pope Benedict paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist Sunday, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works."

In May, several Vatican officials will participate in an international conference to re-examine the Galileo affair, and top Vatican officials are now saying Galileo should be named the "patron" of the dialogue between faith and reason.

It's quite a reversal of fortune for Galileo (1564-1642), who made the first complete astronomical telescope and used it to gather evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the centre of the universe.

The church denounced Galileo's theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest.

The church has for years been striving to shed its reputation for being hostile to science, in part by producing top-notch research out of its own telescope.

In 1992, Pope John Paul declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

There's more: http://technology.sympatico.msn.ca/...line=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

 

[Ram]

A smart marketing move I say.

 

[gsdx]

^ Ah. You caught that comment, too, eh?

 

[Apollo]

A smart marketing move I say.

I have to agree.

 

[Spiff]

Galileo, king of night vision, king of insight.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Did you know the Vatican has its own telescope and operates one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world?

The Vatican Observatory: http://vaticanobservatory.org/

 

[Apollo]

Did you know the Vatican has its own telescope and operates one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world?

The Vatican Observatory: http://vaticanobservatory.org/

oooooooo, now I want to visit that!

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

tragic mutual incomprehension....

Sounds about right actually: The cardinal that tried Galileo didn't understand the harm he was doing his church, and Galileo didn't understand respecting other people (if they had had the internet in Galileo's time, he would have most likely have been a troll).

no, ignorance and close mindedness, one of the hallmarks of western religion.

Ironically, you demonstrate your own ignorance and close-mindedness for not really bothering to understand the full situation, and going after the easy argument. It's a jerk statement, but Galileo's being a total prick to anyone h disagreed with, as well as the cardinal's political ambitions, contributed more to issue than any degree of actual heresy. It's even easier to ignore that the Catholic Church paid to have Galileo's books published after the cardinal (who had become pope) had died (in fact, it was one of the first acts of the pope that succeeded him).

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

oh believe me hun, my disdain for the western and Abrahamic traditions is nothing less than absolute.

I never did understand the idea that the way to earn someone's respect was to hold that person in disrespect. I know that Christianity gets some things wrong, but at least seeking to love others is something that they get right...

RG

 

[GL]

wow! from heretic to hero?

that was quick.

 

[davy]

^ Ah. You caught that comment, too, eh?

it's hilarious.

after 400 years and undeniable proof that they were wrong; they STILL won't take the full blame.

damn! those guys can sure be stubborn.

 

[JayHawk]

tragic mutual incomprehension....


no, ignorance and close mindedness, one of the hallmarks of western religion.

I wonder when Gay people will be forgiven because of tragic mutual incomprehension?

So the eastern religions are much better? Do you count Islam as eastern or western? I simply don't know. I would be classified as a heretic in all forms of religion since I have hard time believing that I need a crunch to believe in myself or have hope in the future.

I am not throwing out hate as simpleton buddhist evidently does. I really would like to know is Buddhism tolerant of homosexuality? I can understand by most of the things I read the Muslim culture is not very accepting.

 

[davy]

I like logic exercises....

The cardinals carry out the orders of the pope.

The pope's decrees, ARE the word of god.

god will is infallible.




Ok, somewhere along the line there is a breakdown in the lines of communication.

there's no breakdown in communication; it's done on purpose. the papacy can't refute it's previous incarnations because it weakens its own argument that it speaks for god.

what's the truly sad thing about it. the church is poised geographically and monetarily to change the world for the good, but it's too caught up with protecting and defending itself from itself.

 

[davy]

Several years ago the Dali Lama said that Buddhism considers homosexuality wrong, however, if it could be proved that homosexuality is due to genes, then Buddism might need to modify it's determination.

- but more importantly, that one key figured has the freedom to change his mind (and does from time to time) and the religion follows suit.

 

[thermodynamics]

Eh, history is still history. It doesn't change the fact that they did it.

 

[davy]

...
The Vinaya (monastic code) holds the strongest wording against homosexual activity. A monk who engages in homosexual activity must admit his transgression to the sangha and he will be summarily removed from the sangha. Whereas heterosexual contact demands the same admission, but results in a probationary period. Commentary on this throughout the ages has varied, but the most level headed explanation points to the lay texts treating all sex as a fetter no matter it's kind, and then returning back to the actual structure of the sangha. Male and female monks were kept seperate in their own living areas. A monk who transgressed against the Vinatic code with a female did not endanger the coherency of the sangha as much as a monk who had a leaning towards his fellow male monastics. The commentary extrapolates that the expulsion from the sangha was one of protecting the coherency and the other members of the sangha from falling to the same mortal pleasures. A male monk who had transfressed with a female had much less a tendancy to cause trouble since he was greatly removed from that which caused him to transgress in the first place.
..

ouch.

i hate to say it, but it sounds like fuel for the american army's defense for not having gays in the military. eg: it's hurts group's morale.

i would like to talk more; but i know next to nothing on the subject.

bleh.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Perhaps a clarification? Who, not me, said that I was holding people in disrespect? I'm confused, please clarify for this simpleton Buddhist.

Disdain usually mean disrespect; that is, you hold someone or something in contempt. Read: I'm not seeing a need for clarification here, outside of a need for backpedaling.

My disdain is for the religion(s) and its modus operandi for the last 5 or so centuries of creating a flock of brainless sheep devoid of any ability to take responsibility or their condition.

There are these things called "history books"; you may want to bother reading them at some point, and I mean the non-picture parts. Yes, a lot of religious people (including Buddhists) tend to be take their ministers (or equivalent) seriously, but that's because they tended to be the most educated in the area, and were able to intercede for the hoi polloi both spiritually and temporally; in essence, they talk to the local nobles when there was hope and offer a prayer when there wasn't. From a noble's perspective, there was an advantage to having someone in the area who had some education that he didn't have to pay for (even if that education was just in local herbs), especially if that clergy kept his ear to the ground, or noted any trends in sins confessed or discussed (keeping in mind that it could stop a revolution cold).

Yeah, there were priests that abused their power, and those should be condemned as roundly as any other that betrays any form of trust.

As for the people themselves, a lot of scientists come from religious stock, and at other times the Catholic Church sponsored a lot of sciences, especially the proto-sciences (such as when alchemy was started to be taking seriously or astrology turned to astronomy). In general, the more practical the science, the more likely that it was sponsored by some religion.

Clarification on the "brainless sheep" comment before you go off on some wierd tangent. "God will let me into heaven." "God won't let him into heaven", extrapolate those two sentiments into the only logical resulting finality and what do you have?

A lot of people who don't reason too well. However, I would point out that that most Christians don't think in those terms; for that matter, I'm not really sure how many believe in Heaven as a literal destination. I think that one of the reason you're not getting a lot of what you would intelligent conversation is because a lot of Christians think in terms of God as more of an advanced intelligence and worry more about the philosophy than the end result. That is, they're worried about the journey more than the destination, and so asking them about the destination is asking the wrong question.

An ideology which becomes elitist, and lends itself fully unto that position.

Any religious viewpoint sets itself up for that. Note your own belief that your own viewpoint is better than theirs; how is that not elitist?

The Abrahamic traditions coddle the weak, and nurture the weakness, and is only furthering the decline of moral responsibility at an astonishing rate. When we find our condition as having nothing to do with our actions we lose all sense of responsibility to self, and ultimately others.

And some would argue that increased sexual options, giving into temptation, and general lack of respect for authority is responsible for moral decline. And they would agree with your second sentence. Why is your position the correct one?

Hence we have proposition 8 passing.

Although I will admit that a lot had to do with religious idiocy, I would point out that a lot had to do with not educating heteros about the numerous rights marriage gives that aren't included in domestic partnerships, and all of the really effective ads weren't put into circulation until the last days of the election (which was a shame considering the power that absentee votes had this year). There was simply no reason for them to vote against it.

Of course, it could be argued that this was God's plan all along, ensuring that the concept of gay marriage as illegal would be dealt with in one fell swoop rather piecemeal, and that it would be defeated in such a way as to ensure its defeat. But that's assuming we went the religious route...

Only when the individual takes full responsibility for their condition (read that as no god put us here, no god did this or chose this life for us, that only our self is wholly responsible) can any civility and any hope for true brotherhood be reached.

You know: It's interesting that I could take out the part that you put into parentheses, and a lot of Christians would agree with you....

Weird that, once you examine things closely, you have so much in common with people you hate....

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I can see where this is going...

But...this topic has never come up before!

My microwave is broken!

RG

 

[star-warrior]

A male monk who had transfressed with a female had much less a tendancy to cause trouble since he was greatly removed from that which caused him to transgress in the first place.

Additionally when we look to the teachings of buddhism we find that all sensual pleasures are ultimately a hinderence on our path to enlightenment. Furthermore that we should hold no one to any standard other than our self. While the individual may find the act of homosexual sex repulsive he is admonished to have a live and let live mentality so long as the actions cause no harm.

Because of these two points (the historical absence of any commentary regarding homosexuality being unwholesome to a degree more than heterosexuality) and the admonishment to hold only ourselves to a standard, I find most if not all Buddhists much more agreeable to homosexuals and the queer spectrum of society.

When the nun gets pregnant by a monk, how does that not affect the other's sangha? Sex has consequences, of which the child is an innocent.

In nature, sex is natural. Not only heterosexual but nature has homosexual sex in other non-human species. Celibacy is unnatural, and any religion or sect which would promote doctrine of celebacy especially in its preisthood is itself unnatural.

Maybe you're lucky in the Buddhists you've met to have them so accepting. I imagine that given statistics, and human nature, there is a larger world out there where there must be unaccepting ones too.

 

[davy]

You beat me to it. Exactly: Unit cohesion. Still the same shit, in saffron or khaki.

no.

with the army we're sure it's a load of shit because gays in the military works great for other countries like england and isreal.

with the buddhists; there are real cultural and philosophical ideas as work. ideas that we can't totally grasp because we're not part of those philosophies nor part of the cultures.

the decision to call it bullshit has to come from them.