1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures. 2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. -The Catholic Church, 1633 "absurd" "philosophically false" "formally heretical" "erroneous in faith" By golly, I think I've found the Republican playbook.
Oh ... I see,How shallow an analogy. This little attempt of yourn is easily debunked. Just watch - A Man For All Seasons - and see how a Religious and very lawyerly scholar like Sir Thoman More using Philosophical religious understanding to confront and Deny a King { Henry VIII } his adulteorus affair and then marriage at the Kings usual whim. More,who was beloved by the common people for his principle and refusal to Bend to this usurping King. Carl Sagan was an atheist yet he too adapted to an understanding of the complications of Space.That in fact,there was More than One Universe.That was thought impossible at one time not long ago. Know we know that are many Universe,maybe hundreds,thousands. Recantation {June 22,1633 } " I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith,I curse and detest the same errors and heresies,and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. " - Galileo
An analogy between Gingrich/Santorum and the Catholic Church of 1633? Glad you recognized it. Debunk it then. You ain't gonna do it with Thomas More.
I refuse to ascribe with the Carl Sagan approach of divinity. That if by God one means our physical laws thereby " it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. " But in a Liberals mind it is thoroughly acceptable to both pray and bow down to any law of Obama. That is Clinical Insanity. Without the austere saneness of a God and a Church,life on this planet would surely revert back to the Roman Empire. You can recognize that I hope.
The King wanted an annulment because he was involved in an incestuous marriage and believed he was being punished by not being given a male heir. His case was cast-iron: he had married his brother's wife. The Pope refused for purely political reasons, and it had nothing to do with adultery. More had, incidentally, happily had other people burned to death, a habit Anglicans lacked, luckily.
I'm not familiar with Sagan's approach to divinity, but without gravity we're pretty much screwed. Can I at least be grateful for gravity? Such an assertion is, in itself, insane. So God has to exist because you don't like the Romans?
Sorry you right pal.Incest is far more demonstrable than merely adultery.The King was in the wrong and refused to Bend. More was just doing what the Churchs and yes,in particular the Papacy in Rome dictated.King Henry tried to bribe both the Roman Catholic Church and More for his sinning thru marriage. More stood on principle and refused to bend to the will of a reckless ruler like King Henry VIII. More was beheaded and his skull hung on the tower for a month for all to see and know what happens to those defying a ruthless monarch.There are good Kings in History and Bad Kings. In the least,you could have found a Better King to defend.
God has to exist because GOD IS.Of all the Nouns to have been written and printed by Man,GOD is far and above the most common and widely used. You and yer ilk are actively discounting centuries upon centuries of the most scholarly,wisest and knowledgable men on earth and what import God has or had. " The most tyrannical governments are those which make crimes of opinions,for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts. " " No one can hate God. " - Baruch Spinoza
Henry finally got rid of the intrusive Roman influence, re-established Christianity in his country and then got legally married, as you know. More was a traitor and was executed, as you know. The Bishop of Rome, of course, had not, and never had had, any legal jurisdiction in the realm.
Oh my goodness gracious another Religion hater.Fat Henry was a ruler.He even placed himself as head of the Roman Catholic Church in England.Henry was BTW a Catholic.That is why his 6 marriages were kind of a sticking point.Like GEE I wonder why. Henry also near bankrupt England.His extravagence in spending and borrowing cause great conflict,particularly given he inherited a prosperous economy.Henry seized control of lands and shut down Monasteries and made radical changes to religious practices. Even such benign things like removal of candles.Shrines to Saints were destroyed.The guy was near hysterically driven to Usurp everything at his whim. You shor picked a really cruddy fellar to enshrine in such defense.
Where did I deny God's existence? All I'm saying is that the CHURCH and its bishops are whack. See the OP.
You will find no greater minds when it comes to debating than that of a Catholic Bishop or Archbishop.
Aren't you silly! You know nothing about this matter, so shut up do! Britain was a Christian country from the third century, mucked about by smelly interference from the Bishop of Rome a lot later, and more than ready to boot out his yesmen by Henry's time. Elizabeth finally saw them off, and a good thing too!
