Yes, it appears that the Catholic Church can escape all responsibility for anything by pointing at itself and saying "That guy is not us". But nobody is buying it. Look, whatever doctrines Galileo was "guilty" of was in place before the trial where he was convicted of heresy by THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You know, the ones who admitted that they were wrong 350 years later. You don't have to admit you were wrong. We already know.
Who cares? The statement that you made that the Catholic Church has no conflicts with science is wrong. The Inquisition, the Grand Inquisitor, and 10 bishops represented the Catholic Church and were appointed by the Pope. FACT. Galelieo was convicted of Heresy. FACT You (at least to your mind) don't get to redefine heresy. You are not the Church. FACT. They were wrong about science and later admitted this. FACT. Thus you were incorrect. You may keep repeating distractions about who writes doctrines and who does not, but it is irrelevant. I will just keep posting the facts that show this to be untrue.
Nonsense. Crawfish are a treasured delicacy in Scandinavia and in Valhalla. Buy they have no Tony Chacheres . . .
I have heard about Swedish crawfish boils. Eat one crawfish and chug a shooter of Akavit. A commercial crawfisherman in Sweden might catch about 3000 crawfish in a season. In Louisiana that's about an hour's work
Good Lord, man. You introduced the word "dogma" into this discussion. FACT I went back to look and find in post #367 you used the phrase "religious dogma". I had not used that word in any post prior. FACT In post #374 I wrote "No dogma of the Catholic Church has ever been disproven by science. See if you can poke any holes in that". FACT I should have continued to type out "Catholic Church dogma" every time after that but got lazy and condensed it to the "Catholic Church". I have already stated that I agree with you, the Italian Inquistion was way out of line using the term heresy. I don't understand how they could use that term. This is what caused me to stumble into this point, in the beginning. That is why, although I was aware they placed Galileo under house arrest I was not aware they had convicted him of heresy. It seems totally illogical.FACT wikipedia: The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.[5] It seems completely illogical because geocentrism has never been declared Catholic Dogma.FACT I don't get to redefine heresy, I agree. Neither do you. Neither does the Italian Inquisition.FACT We are not authorized define heresy for the Catholic Church. The Magisterium of the Church does that, which is seperate entity from the Italian Inquisition. FACT The Magesterium has never declared heliocentrism or geocentrism dogma. FACT Dogma from wikipedia: The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[4] also: The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.[5]
If you wanted to really get a good point in against a Catholic I would suggest you hammer away at Limbo. I think the Church has backed off of that one and at one point I think it was about as close to being doctrine as you can get.
Man you lose an argument in spectacular fashion. Ya' got dogma on the brain. Why in the world is science supposed to "disprove" a religious doctrine? Science doesn't give a rats ass about beads and rattles.
