Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-apple!arndt
From: arndt@apple.DEC
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Message-ID: <202@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 07:42:27 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.202
Posted: Mon Jan 14 07:42:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 03:10:56 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 37

I'm so mad I could spit!

If I hear one more turtle egg stink up the net with a mention of how
Christians held back science by bringing charges against Galileo I'll
. . . I'll . . . , well I'll do SOMETHING.  And it won't be pretty!

ALL scholars in the West at that time were Christians.  Members of the 
Church.  Those in power in the Church used their office to uphold THEIR
view of astronomy.  They were eventually (in light of the evidence) forced
to give up their position but AT THE TIME it was not at all clear to most
thinking 'scientists' whether the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system was 
going to be the accepted one.  These men, in the Church, did nothing more
or less than members of scientific bodies have done many times in the
course of history and will likely do into the future.  Argue and make
pronouncements and enforce, by the rules of the society, THEIR  viewpoint.

It was a HUMAN thing they did to Galileo!  Not a Christian thing, however much
they couched their condemnation in terms of their authority as Churchmen
as well as 'scientists'.  It has long since been shown by biblical scholars
of many stripes that the Bible does NOT hold to a Ptolemaic view of the
universe.  It simply uses figurative language to explain in a simple way
wah

what APPEARS to be happening when one looks at the heavens.  Just like the
ole weatherman who says, "The sun will rise . . . ."  The Bible does not
claim to be a science textbook.  It couldn't be as I have previously
pointed out.  If it were exactly true, who could understand it?  We hardly
believe we (in the 20th or think we will in the 21st for that matter) have
an exact model of the universe now.  So how could we recognize the 'real' 
one?  [That's 20th century above, of course - sorry flying fingers outpace
brain, or visa versa - (run with it Rosen)]

But go ahead, use the cant in lieu of thinking and investigating.

Signing off, 

Ken Arndt