Does the Errancy of Fundamentalism Disprove the God of the Bible?

First provide evidence for this statement: Secondly this quote: concerns the Albigenses - a heresy that taught that all things corporeal (the body, material things) were part of the evil substances (which were equal in power and commanded by someone (satan?)) The spiritual things, however, were part of the good substances (commanded by God who was equal in power to the evil side). Thus the body was bad, so Christ couldn't have had a body because the body is evil. Ummm...this is not what Christians believe. They were corrupting the Christian beliefs. I don't know for sure how they were dealt with. I would be nice if you provided proof for your assertion.and this quote: Is an incorrect assertion: you have no proof to back this statement up. Jesus was most likely referring to the persecution by the Scribes and Pharasees using the Roman army (seeing as he just got done talking about the descent of the Holy Spirit that would take place in Luke's second volume of his Gospel - id est Acts) that would take place during the Apostles' lifetimes (notice they were all martyered, except John -- who was exiled).Thirdly, you seem overly ready to condemn the Catholics and Protestants. Why? Who told you these people were not Christian? Catholics, especially seem to be quite Christian, because they are uncompromising on things like Jesus' teaching on marriage (no divorce unless the marriage is invalid -- caused by fornication according to the Greek, which would invalidate the marriage in Jewish Law). Further, they have vowed celibates which reflect Paul's teaching that a man who does not marry does better coupled with the Eunichs for the sake of the kingdom bit taught by Jesus. Further, they have monks who dedicate their entire beings, renouncing every thing of this world (the cloistered monks) to praise and pray to God, and to Meditate on His word.. How is this not Christian, might I ask? I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the Denominational Christians, because, non-denominational Christian Fundamentalists have had there bad eggs in higher up places as well. By that logic every Christian federation of any sort that has corruption in it anywhere is going to hell. That's absurd to condemn the entire sect based on the sins of a few. How about the thousands of Catholics and Protestants during Galelio and otherwise who were not written about (not just the few clergy unfaithful to their promoses) -- those that were praying and fasting, and doing good works -- are they to be held accountable for the sins of others? That's absurd.Fourthly, I brought up the Trinity issue to make you look for where the term came from. I ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THE TRINITY AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR! However, it was a term told to you by someone. Where did the term first come from (the term is not in the bible itself). I'll tell you: it was the term used to describe the relationship between the three Divine Persons as definied in one Church Councils (the product of one of these councils being the Nicean Creed that many Denominationals use which clearly defines the relationship of the Trinity). The idea was already there, but people were challenging the concept, so they had to define it using a term...so they could protect the deposit of faith.You also seem quick to condemn evolutionary theory. Sure hapazard chance evolution is satistically absurd. But if it was God's hand guiding it, is it in conflict with scripture?This message has been edited by smak_84, 04-23-2006 10:13 AM

Galileo was not persecuted for going against church teachings about where the earth was. In fact (if i remember my history appropriatly) he was encouraged by the Pope to look into it.The reason why Galileo was persecuted because he made a satirical attack against the Pope, a very bad one to my understanding. (plus disobeying papal orders). And then he and his works were censored.

Wow...that's helpful. I was never made aware of those facts about Galileo. Do you have some reading on this? I'm VERY interested in this information.

http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/About/galileobio.html has mention of it, toward the end of the article.the character you will be looking for is 'simplicio' and he was a caricuture of pope urban.

Yes, they did get it from the Bible. Joshua told the sun to stand still in the sky. Isaiah had it go back ten degrees for...uh, shoot, I think it was for Ahaz, but maybe not.Either way, they would have argued, "If you're going to believe the Bible, then you need to believe the sun moves, not the earth, or how did Joshua command it to stand still?"I answer this, because later you talk about scientists defending Origin of Species, and the fact is that those who oppose evolution now are no different than those who persecuted Galileo and Copernicus. They don't have the political power to throw anyone in jail, but if they did, they would.My point is that some things the creationists and fundamentalists do are exactly like the Catholics and they don't reflect Christ very often, either.

Your web site contradicts your statements about Galileo. While the pope may have been irritated about being the model for Simplicio, Galileo was charged with teaching the Copernican theory, which is that the earth goes around the sun. Your article also points out that a fellow named Giordano Bruno was burnt to death by the Catholic Church in 1600 for the Copernican theory plus saying there was life on other planets.In fact, Galileo was originally threatened and ordered to stop teaching this theory because of the dastardly crime of interpreting the Bible without being a clergyman.All this according to your link.

The reason interpeeting the Bible without being a clergyman was viewed as a problem was for a number of reasons:1. Most people were uneducated (with a high illiteracy rate) and would comprehend it incorrectly (Galileo obviously doesn't fall into this category).2. Secondly, the Church viewed itself as the authority for interperting the deposit of faith due to its Apostolic succession (all the bishops in the Catholic recieved their authority by the laying on of hands described in Acts throughout the centuries - ask any Catholic bishop, and he can give you his historic apostolic lineage going all the way back to one of the Apostles). They were viewed as having recieved the authority from the apostles to guard and interpert the deposit of faith. That's why they didn't allow people to interpert the Bible on their own account (because they felt they were guarding the deposit of faith and people not authorized by the Church could have a high chance of introducing heresy into the faith). Not allowing people to read the Bible without explaination from an educated clergyman was the best solution they could come up with at that time. That's what they felt was the best recourse then. Now the situation's different, for whatever reasons. Galileo wasn't clergy and didn't have the authority of a bishop to interpert the scriptures (clergy are SUPPOSED to be taught the meaning of the scriptures according to the deposit of faith). He disobeyed Church Law, so he got in trouble (he knew he would've gotten in trouble if he did it, but he did it anyways). By the whole Catholic Church, or by a directive from a few of its members? If he was burnt by Cardinal so and so then he was burnt by Cardinal so and so, but not the Catholic Church as a whole (don't be condemning innocent people here, as thousands of Catholics at that time knew nothing of the event). What's the point of including this passage anyways? It's not really relevant to this discussion about Galileo.I would love to progress in this discussion, but unfortunately I'm beginning work that will keep me from the internet for a while. I thank all who've helped my deepen my knowledge on this subject. God Bless!

You are going to have a really rough time on any debate board if you are going to take references to the RCC personally. The RCC--its hierarchy or whatever you want to call it--has take responsibility for making an error in Galileo's case, and in many other cases. You can't go around being offended because someones said "the Catholics did this" or "the RCC did this."To answer your question directly, the link suggests that Bruno was burnt at the order of the Inquisition, but it's only a hint, not a statement, so I didn't attribute it to the Inquisition directly. If you'll look at the post I was responding to, you'll see that it was very relevant. The person was trying to say the RCC didn't persecute Galileo over the issue of the centrality of the earth in the universe. He was wrong, and the link he gave contradicted him. Not only did it contradict him, but it gave another name that was put to death, around the same time, over that issue.You should easily have recognized the significance of this. You slobbered all over that post I was responding to, hoping you would find the RCC vindicated on this issue. Good grief, man, the RCC itself has apologized over the issue. I know this. I was raised Catholic, and I paid attention in Catechism, because I was pretty serious even as a child.Are you trying to justify this practice? You mention the dangers of the uneducated interpreting the Scriptures, but if a person could read the Scriptures, that probably meant they weren't uneducated in those days.Listen, that period of Catholic rule is known as the Dark Ages. The Roman Catholic hierarchy stifled and almost eliminated education for the common person. Don't try to defend it. Even the RCC itself has given up defending it.If the RCC will produce a holy, spiritual, and united congregation, I will praise them for it and have fellowship with them. I'm not even asking for them to unite the over 1 billion that exist; just one holy, spiritual, and united congregation. My problem with the RCC has nothing to do with the past. I'm willing to let those awful bygones by bygones (as long as the RCC agrees never to hold political power again).I was not attacking the RCC. I was opposing a revisionist version of history that was being offered. That's why I posted.

Fair enough~ lesson learned... Pay attention to what is being read and whats presented and make sure that the sorce is credible as well as accurate.Thanks much.

oh come now you can not compare a murder to a religious person, we are talking beliefs in god/s not actions, i think everyone can agree that murder is not a belief, unless you are clinicly insane they do believe the bible, they don't believe it like you do, calling them non-christians is based solely on your beliefs, which give you no authority to call them christian or not. I'm not even sure what you mean by force, force them into what? How do you know he was an athiest? that quote is mined from somewhere and i doubt he said that. you said that nazism, slavery, and other such things are to blame because of ToE, considering that all of the bad things go back farther than that i would say you are making unsupported claims. The the thoery is accepted because of the evidence more baseless claims, wheres your evidence?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-25-2006 03:31 AM

It was Hezakiah,if that's where theygot it from they are reading more into it then what it says.

...Along with illiteracy, the bible was not widespread. However, with the coming of Gutnburg's invention, people began to read and interprate for themselves: Enter Martin Luther, cue Reformation.

I believe that God is Perfect and that all that he has created is Perfect. Even as we stumble through our "imperfect" world, if there is to be a God then it must be our perceptions that are defective.
We see a broken cup and say that it is not perfect. We are correct but if the point of the breaking was to create a job for a cup maker, then we can say that the breaking was for a good reason even if we did not know of the reason beforehand.
If God is to be real then His purposes has to be applied to all the things happening about us.Perfection does not mean lack of evolution.
If a newborn is said to be perfect, we call it that knowing full well that is is just starting to evolve. Perfection then can be said to be in constant flux as new factors are included in the big picture.
A person sickens and dies and we call this imperfect but we do not know that his lessons are all learned and God wants him in Heaven for a purpose or even to just make room on Earth.
Judgement is mine says the Lord.
In the end we have to allow God His function if all within a Perfect system have a function.Regards
DL

I believe God is Perfect, but not creation. Nowhere in Genesis does God ever say "Perfect". It's always referred to as "very good" or "good". Jesus wasn't attractive, the only reason why he was the "Perfect son of God" is because of his sinless nature."A person sickens and dies and we call this imperfect but we do not know that his lessons are all learned and God wants him in Heaven for a purpose or even to just make room on Earth."That's the main difference between christians and most others who are not. As a christian, i fully understand that my human body, my shell, means nothing. Why should i care about what i look like on the outside if it's my soul that really matters? As for people who do not live in Christ and strive to be like Christ, their bodies are all they have and all they know, so they strive to perfect themselves.

You say you believe in a Perfect God and from this Perfection only imperfection comes. Strange.
If God started in a Perfect universe, then this universe is always Perfect.
At no point in time can God look at His reality and say oops I screwed up.
If His universe ever became or ever contained imperfection it would mean that God screwed up.God does not do oops.As a Christian, how can you place a blemish on God?Regards
DL