DIDN’T like it. Then they learned their lesson to not interfere with astronomers, to the point that it was an ordained Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who delved into the math of Relativity and came up with the concept of “the primordial atom”, later popularly coined as The Big Bang, back in the 1920s. Which put Lemaître at odds with Einstein, who insisted on an eternal, “Steady State Universe”.
In fact, I remember reading that the Vatican itself proudly owned this fact to the point that they financed, built and still run an observatory in Arizona, doing authentic cosmological research.
Not to mention it wasn’t really “the church” as much as one egotistical asshat in the church that had beef with Galileo and more or less made up a reason to persecute him. And when more level headed parts of the church told Galileo to chill and he’d be fine he just doubled down and thumbed his nose at the pope. It was never really about the science at all, he was being funded by the church to do his research in the first place.
That is another very important consideration, I’ve heard about Galileo’s pride and ego, explosive temper and big mouth. How he would not listen to reason, and would burn all bridges behind him.
The pope even considered Galileo a friend, gave him all sorts of opportunities to get out of trouble, but then Galileo wrote a Plato-style dialogue between three people, one of them a simpleton, and gave that character the same speech patterns like the ones his pope friend had.
Lucifer, which means the bearer of light, in Greek mythology represented by Prometheus, who stole divine fire to give it to humans. The clergy naturally did not like this symbology, always doing everything to keep the people ignorant and for this reason, they turned Lucifer into a symbol of evil, just as they turned the snake that incited humans to eat from the tree of knowledge into sin. original. The true root of evil has always been the clergy for its own power and as a tool for the powerful which with a cultured people could not exist. Only possible to stay in power with an ignorant and submissive people with feelings of guilt.
All these ara adaptation from (in part even literal) from old Mesopotamian, Babylonic (Gilgamesh) and Egypth (Book of Death) Myth. The Bible (old Testament) isn’t an excepcion, the new testament are fractions of over 80 documents of which 4 were chosen at convenience, very shortened to conform to the dogma and which were published between the years 60 and the year 300 after Christ. None of these were written by the alleged authors, but by monks in those years. All the rest was either destroyed or archived as apocryphos. In other words, the Bible is no more truthful than a Harry Potter novel. Although some events in ancient myths are based on real events (eg the Great Flood), they were related by ignorant and superstitious people who sacrificed goats to have a better harvest, stories that were embellished for centuries, until the raft where a peasant saved his life. family, his chickens and goats, became an aircraft carrier with all the animals on earth.
Interesting. But not to be facetious, if one reads carefully, literally and critically the story of garden of Eden, one could easily asks “Okay, what is actually bad with eating the apple of knowledge? Everyone wants knowledge, right?” I have thought about this when I was a child. But I brushed it off because the church teach that the moral of the story is to follow god etc, or you will be punished. I guess the point of that story worked on me as I let go of that nagging feeling the it doesn’t add up. Religion discourages one from thinking critically even at the face of irrational and illogical inconsistencies; resulting in adopting a double think.
The thing is, not liking something doesn’t make it less real. A child submitting to their parents is a good thing, so is someone following the law. The only difference is that God will never issue a bad command.
It’s not like unquestioning obedience to authority hasn’t led to despair, and to both figurative and literal mass suicide before. The Germans only said they were only following orders from their fuhrer; and so were the people in Jonestown following their prophet’s order to drink poison.
Plenty of nonsensical rules in the bible, my friend. And Yahweh has issued so many bad commands, particularly in the Old testaments with violent punishments. Like, ordering to kill first born children, who have nothing to do with enslaving Jews as they are too young to be involved nor make any decisions. Not to mention the really weird accounts on Lot’s family, starting with the arbitrary command to not look back while Sodom was being smite, resulting in Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt.
I don’t like all of these, and even if they are true accounts, then the whole world just blindly follows a power-tripping deity who punishes innocent children, and turn someone into a pillar of salt for breaking a command that serves no purpose and has no sense in its nature whatsoever. Only an absolute ruler could make such rules and commands with no sense-- like ordering not to eat the fruit of knowledge. What is so bad with eating the fruit of knowledge? Everyone wants knowledge after all, right?
The firstborn children in Egypt likely went to heaven, as is common with children who do not understand sin. As for Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of those cities were very much justified.
The consolation after killing childrenfor the sins of their parents is that they go to heaven. Great.
Lot’s wife turning into a salt of pillar is not justified though…leading to his daughters raping him and committing incest to “repopulate the earth”. That would not have happened had the wife not turn into a salt of pillar, simply for arbitrary command given by Yahweh that doesn’t make sense. What a wholesome story.
So you tolerate rules that are not only nonsensical, but also makes everyone’s lives harder? And that everyone should put up with it simply because they’re rules no matter how arbitrary? Segregation between black and white people was also a rule, you know?
Moreover, nowhere did you and I mention Yahweh prevented any disobedience. In any case, your comment acknowledges that Yahweh allows disobedience but has the power to prevent it. So, either he is omniscient and could prevent future actions but does nothing, or he isn’t omniscient at all.
So let me get this straight, he punishes those who commit sins according to his own judgement, but some who commit sins are not punished? Does Yahweh have concrete rule he follows or not? Why do some get punished while others don’t? And why are some commandments just there-- like not allowing to eat the fruit of knowledge. Everyone like knowledge, right? What is so bad about knowledge that Yahweh does not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit containing the knowledge? Which goes back to the point whether Yahweh is omniscient and yet does nothing, or he’s not omniscient at all. Or rather, he’s omniscient but tempts people into commiting so-called “sins” knowing the person will disobey, and then judge later on despite knowing what the person will do prior to doing it. Interesting. Sounds like this god is a mad scientist experimenting on people.
Edit: I forgot to address.
Also, don’t see what segregation has to do with it. God never instituted that.
No. But from the beginning you essentially posits to follow the rules no matter what-- that obeying god is akin to obeying a parent. And doing means one is good at obeying the law too. If god wants segregating other human beings according to race, would you follow it?
Add comment