Vatican forgives Galileo after only 400 years

[InsaneApache]

Intresting post DoG, one thing that does puzzle me is how you can be infalible and yet not only be limited in infalibility but also make mistakes.

You know like nearly dead, or a near miss. You're either dead or alive or you hit or missed what you were aiming at.

Surely your either infalible or you're not.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, but he never said a lot of guys in funny expensive hats should follow Peter. And he especially never said those should be selected by humans, Peter was selected by Jesus himself, not by a bunch of disciples who held a few votes about who is the greatest and closest to God. In fact, the disciples tried that and Jesus wasn't exactly amused. Now the church always holds a vote about who will be the next pope, how that can be seen in the spirit of Jesus is beyond me. Like I said in another thread, show me a place in the bible where God did not choose his representative himself.
....Which is why the leadership of the church should be in God's hands and not in the Pope's hands, now if you do not get a response from god then either there is something wrong with your faith or how you ask him or there is no God, if you then put a pope in a golden hat and robe on top of your organization, it might remind you of the story where Moses was receiving God's words on top of a mountain while the people grew impatient and put a golden calf at the top of their organization.

The leadership of the Holy Father derives from the Apostolic tradition ("Who's sins you forgive....), only Peter and Paul were chosen by the hand of God directly. That is why the Holy Father is said to walk in the shoe's of the fisherman. Most are fairly humble about being worthy to fill those shoes too. The election of the new Holy Father is presumed to occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some selections have been better than others, may God forgive us.

I thought the whole point of the Pope was being God's representative on earth? If he is just as stupid as you and me, why put him on top and why not just use my own interpretation of the message? It may be wrong, but his may be just a wrong or even worse.
...
Concerning changes, God never changes and if you believe that Jesus was his son then his word is the word of God, he said you cannot buy your way into heaven, the church said you could and sold those letters of indulgence which haven't been abolished until today last I heard. Jesus also said your deeds won't save you, the church keeps telling people to pray several times to be saved etc. etc.
This is not a change of perception, this is corrupting the actual message from God himself.
...
It lead to certain corruptions of the actual message which is the actual bad part.
...
That is indeed correct, but the catholic church in my and many other's eyes has added a lot of stuff to this that runs very contrary to what God wants from his people in order to advance the relationship as I tried to point out above.

You want perfection from the Holy Father? Spiritual perfection is NOT a common commodity. We make saints of the ones who get closest while in this life. The only reason for the infallibility of certain ex cathedra statements is the presumption that the Holy Spirit is working through the Holy Father in their pronouncement. The Holy Father is not the embodiment of God on earth, but an ambassador.

Yes, the indulgences were ill-thought and temporally motivated. The same can be said of the Crusades in large part as well. The Church has all too often deviated from the best path -- it is all too human to be distracted by the mundane and all too human to conflate one's own immediate desires with an interpretation of the larger goal. Sadly, this too is part of the process of growth and learning. Fortunately, we are under the hand of a forgiving God.

[Husar]

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

So when he pronounced a crusade and that everybody who joins in would have all their sins forgiven was that infallible or not?
And if yes, why did another infallible Pope apologize for it and say it was wrong?

The leadership of the Holy Father derives from the Apostolic tradition ("Who's sins you forgive....), only Peter and Paul were chosen by the hand of God directly. That is why the Holy Father is said to walk in the shoe's of the fisherman. Most are fairly humble about being worthy to fill those shoes too. The election of the new Holy Father is presumed to occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some selections have been better than others, may God forgive us.

Considering the elections can fail several times before a consensus is found, the guidance of the holy spirit must be rather weak to nonexistant. And these people are supposed to guide the believers? If they cannot even come to a consensus on such an important matter as who should be the representative of God on earth(who we just learned says supposedly infallible things)?
That is very shaky at best, in the bible God hardly let important prophecies fail because his chosen prophet was a weak human, take Jonah and Moses for example, God made sure they delivered the right messages to the right people and he chose them himself, he did not have some cardinals vote several times and then watch them choose the wrong guy for the job.
And he didn't really have his prophets make contradictory "infallible" statements either.

You want perfection from the Holy Father? Spiritual perfection is NOT a common commodity. We make saints of the ones who get closest while in this life. The only reason for the infallibility of certain ex cathedra statements is the presumption that the Holy Spirit is working through the Holy Father in their pronouncement. The Holy Father is not the embodiment of God on earth, but an ambassador.

An ambassador who is very often very wrong and makes statements contradictory to the word of God. The word of God also happens to say that one should test those who claim to speak in the name of God by their deeds and whether they fit with the word of God, things like the crusades, burning witches, the Inquisition in general, letters of indulgence, praying to "saints" etc certainly do not fit with the word of God. Now you could claim the word of god is outdated and we have to develop our relationship with God etc. but it already took "us" 2000 years, it is still plain wrong and if you're going with updates you could also follow Muhammed, who also claimed to have the actual version of the word of God.

Yes, the indulgences were ill-thought and temporally motivated. The same can be said of the Crusades in large part as well. The Church has all too often deviated from the best path -- it is all too human to be distracted by the mundane and all too human to conflate one's own immediate desires with an interpretation of the larger goal. Sadly, this too is part of the process of growth and learning. Fortunately, we are under the hand of a forgiving God.

Then how about praying to saints, having pictures of God and praying for the dead?
The first of the ten commandments pretty much forbids praying to anyone or anything but God.
Apart from that the bible says all believers are saints, there is no papal selection method mentioned anywhere.
The second commandment says one should not make pictures of God.
And praying for the souls of dead people, while it sounds like a nice and comforting idea even to me, would at least be rather useless since the bible says everybody has to stand before God alone and the only one who can save them is Jesus Christ, not their granddaughter.

Last but not least I would like to know what you think about people nowadays (catholics as well as atheists) who say that the church should become more modern and let go of it's old traditions?

[Duke of Gloucester]

So when he pronounced a crusade and that everybody who joins in would have all their sins forgiven was that infallible or not?

Well let's apply the tests:
1. The Pope must be acting as the Pope. Probably, it may have been a call from a temporal power as the papacy was at that time
2. The pronouncement must be concerning faith or morals The bit about forgiveness of sins is to do with faith.
3. The pronouncement must be made in a way that makes it clear that the statement is a full, final and addressed to the whole church. I have never seen a translation of Urban's statement so I can't tell. However whatever he said would have referred to the first crusade only

I think we need a theologian to decide whether this was an infallible pronouncement or not.

why did another infallible Pope apologize for it and say it was wrong?

He didn't. He chose his words very carefully. Either he was infallible or no fool (or perhaps both). In any case I don't think point 3 would apply to his apology.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ex Cathedra was only written into canon law at the end of the 19th Century, Urban did not have the power to speak infallably. Urban, in fact, did not have the power to appoint Bishops and Abbots accross all Christondem.

[Duke of Gloucester]

That's not quite correct. Ex cathedra was written in to Canon Law in by the First Vatican Council but is was not defining something new, merely clarifying something that it was claimed had always existed. Therefore it would be possible to go back to Urban calling a crusade and decide whether this was an Ex Cathedra statement and therefore infallible or not.

[Husar]

He didn't. He chose his words very carefully. Either he was infallible or no fool (or perhaps both). In any case I don't think point 3 would apply to his apology.

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize for blatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize for blatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind.

You can make this criticism if you are pacifist and believe that war is never justified. Most Christians accept that war is sometimes acceptable. It is true that Jesus condemned violence (Mt 5:39) but he acted violently himself (Mt 15-17). We might feel that a war to support a Chrtistian state and re-open a pilgrimage destination to be insufficient cause but that would be applying modern standards to the early middle ages. What Urban did not sanction or encourage was the behaviour of crusaders when they were in the Middle East and this is what JP II was apologising for (amongst a whole range of other things too.)

[Husar]

Oh, you mean he was violent in the temple? There are several things to consider:

- He did not hurt any people.
- He is God and he can look into peoples' hearts, his judgement is ultimately just, if you disagree with that, well...
- Human judgement, is, as has been said, flawed, which is why humans should not judge and thus not kill others.
- God judges people and may use violence to punish them, he can do it because he is ultimately just and almighty, because he is God, that doesn't mean humans should act like God.

You're right that many Christians believe violence is necessary etc but I also know that the Bible says "Not everybody who will shout 'God! God!' will get into heaven." or something in that sense.
Or in other words, many consider themselves Christians but that does not mean God agrees with them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, so he didn't really apologize foer it which means the Church didn't even apologize forblatantly acting against the infallible words of Jesus Christ who condemned violence? And that is about coming closer to God? When you don't even really admit and apologise for such a grave and obvious mistake?
It should be like digging your own grave but obviously millions of people don't really mind.

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself. I haven't found an instance where Jesus makes a blanket prohibition against all violence. "Turn the other cheek" is limited to "seven times seven" at which point you can bring the offender before what would amount to a Church court and then cast him out if he is unrepentant.

The Crusades were about a lot more than re-opening a route of pillgramage. Let's not forget that all those lands had only been under Muslim rule for a relatively short time and that they did not have a majoriety Muslim population, far from it in many cases.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

I am an amateur historian, a trained social scientist, a skilled speaker, an insurance salesman...and a Knight of Columbus and life-long Catholic. I am neither ignorant of the history of my church, nor willing to water it down into a nothingness that would make that history -- and the learning and growth that have come with it -- an irrelevance.

Pizza, your version of God -- a higher power, left undefined -- would barely suffice to keep a 12-step group focused. Religion is supposed to challenge your thinking. It is supposed to make you consider -- carefully -- how you live your life and why. The genuflections, the rituals -- as much as I enjoy them -- are not the point. The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

Reality never changes. Events occur and alter the present circumstances, but they do not alter the past. The past is set in stone. The past is how our present reality is determined. Therefore reality never changes. If the past were to change, so would the present, and we are talking about an alternate universe. Everything I am saying applies only to THIS universe, because anything outside of it does not matter to the discussion, and we will always be part of THIS universe.

Our perceptions of reality may change, but it does not. Subjective opinion and objective facts are two separate things. The truth is not governed by our opinions, and reality goes on whether we understand it fully or not.

What is my version of God, exactly? I'm curious, because I don't believe in any God as you may define it.

I will admit, I am not an expert on Catholicism, and I would not stand up long in a debate about the facts of the church with someone who knows most of the facts. However, when trust is placed in one man, who we all admit is fallible, then we are not following a higher power, we are following a man.

As such, why do we not follow our reasoning instead of accepting the words of yet another mortal as being the word of God? There may be a place in life for faith, as I've already said, but it MUST remain separate from our rational mind, and we must look on everything with a critical eye. I question why Papal Authority is required to achieve inner peace, especially when that Papal Authority has led so many so astray for so long, and led to wars, chaos, and the burning of heretics and the hatred of science.

The current Pope, I admit, is much better than his predecessors, but I still have criticisms of him and the Roman Catholic church, indeed all organized faith.

I criticize any organization which cites religious doctrine and the supernatural as reasons for making laws and policies. That sort of thing affects this reality, and it must take into consideration reason primarily over faith. Ultimately any religious discussion boils down to "It's what I believe, it's what I've been taught" but tradition itself is not reason. Some traditions are meant to be broken, and some are long overdue.

I seek further reforms from the religious organizations of the world, and will continue to speak out against them until the day I die. It's not faith I oppose, but the concept of faith trumping science, faith trumping reason, faith trumping fact. Such things are dangerous beyond imagination.

[Lord Winter]

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself. I haven't found an instance where Jesus makes a blanket prohibition against all violence. "Turn the other cheek" is limited to "seven times seven" at which point you can bring the offender before what would amount to a Church court and then cast him out if he is unrepentant.

The Crusades were about a lot more than re-opening a route of pillgramage. Let's not forget that all those lands had only been under Muslim rule for a relatively short time and that they did not have a majoriety Muslim population, far from it in many cases.

I thought that 7 times 7 times was our equivalent of saying hundreds of time. Likewise when whatever it may be hits 1,000 it doesn't expire. Don't hold it literally.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I see no evidence that Jesus condoned violence, either aggressive or defensive.

Defensive violence, I see the point of. But I never read about Jesus raising a hand to defend himself against the Romans. And I definitely did not hear of him calling anyone to raise their swords and prepare armies for invasions.

If Jesus was just another guy who claimed to have a two-way radio to God, I would consider him a fool. What interests me about Jesus was the peaceful coexistence he preached and the moral life he led. If you contend that Jesus condoned violence, then we have differing opinions of Jesus. If you contend that Jesus condoned aggression, then it contradicts what he preached, according to your texts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought that 7 times 7 times was our equivalent of saying hundreds of time. Likewise when whatever it may be hits 1,000 it doesn't expire. Don't hold it literally.

Sorry, I misspoke, it's variously "7 times 70" or "77", so that's a total of 490 times. The relevant verses are Mathew 18.15-21, with a following parable up to 18.35. In these passages Jesus lays out the process for seeking restitution from another who has sinned against you, from confronting them privately to rejecting them, "as a Gentile and a tax collector" (18.17)

It's litteral, sorry. The figure comes in response to a question by Peter, after Jesus has spoken regarding dealing with those who sin against you and refuse to admit their fault. Forgiveness is unlimited provided the sinner admits sinning. As far as I am aware this is in agreement with Christian teaching and accords with most thought on salvation as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see no evidence that Jesus condoned violence, either aggressive or defensive.

Defensive violence, I see the point of. But I never read about Jesus raising a hand to defend himself against the Romans. And I definitely did not hear of him calling anyone to raise their swords and prepare armies for invasions.

If Jesus was just another guy who claimed to have a two-way radio to God, I would consider him a fool. What interests me about Jesus was the peaceful coexistence he preached and the moral life he led. If you contend that Jesus condoned violence, then we have differing opinions of Jesus. If you contend that Jesus condoned aggression, then it contradicts what he preached, according to your texts.

I said he did not prohibit it, not that he condoned it. The famous "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" (Mathew 26.52) is hardly a cast iron prohibition.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Seems to be pretty ironclad that he was warning those who live by the sword that their efforts are self-destructive.

I simply disagree, but we can do that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't dissagree there, but that doesn't necessarily say that you shouldn't fight, merely that you must accept the consequences. Further, it is not necessarily so that all fighting constitues "living by the sword" especially when, as Jesus points out, it was not the last option in this instance; had he so wished he could have called down legions of angels.

So overall I would say that violence should be avoided, and that there should always be a better path, but that fighting (even as the lesser choice) does not automatically seperate someone from the body of the Church, or however you want to define Us.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I would be happy to see Jesus' legion of angels come clean things up.

Until then, I prefer to BE the positive influence, rather than wait for a supernatural one from the heavens to save us. I prefer not to wait for prayers to be answered, and I would rather do my best to answer them myself. I would prefer not to blame the Devil for my shortcomings, and acknowledge who is truly responsible. I prefer not to believe that only certain people can experience an afterlife, simply because they hadn't been properly initiated into "the club". I prefer not to follow men dressed in cloth speak of morality and prefer to be the morality of which they speak, and never blindly follow these men of the cloth who have led us astray many times.

Remembering that these men are mortal, sinners, and ignorant just like us, we acknowledge that they have no superior or special relationship with any God. As such, we should consider everything they say and do critically, just as we look at everything the non-pious folks do critically.

If we trust in the message of a book that has been changed and altered and added to and taken away from and voted upon and mistranslated, then we have to assume it could change again. And by the very fallible men mentioned above.

Why not try to determine a non-revelation-based method of determining what is moral, proper, and reasonable? Can we not use basic reasoning to determine right from wrong?

If I go to hell for using the mind this God supposedly gave me, then he was wrong to give it to me and allow free will. He was also terribly hypocritical for creating me and then destroying me for being myself.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's because the Pope as a person is not infallible. His pronouncements on faith and morals are.

Don't take this as sarcasm, as I am probably woefully underinformed, but I do have a question:

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on the status of Limbo? Wasn't it part of the Church's teachings for centuries, only to be reversed later as something that was totally made up?

It concerns the status of the born who died quickly before they were baptized, and all the people who were upset that the church's position was that those babies would not join them in heaven.

If the Church can amend the heavens to meet the will of the people... why is it the word of God?

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/7144846.html
http://agonist.org/20070421/catholic...ching_on_limbo
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_limbo21.html

[Husar]

Oh, if only we had a record of Christ's words, maybe a book he had writeen. Unfortunately we don't, nothing, nadda, zip, and sod all from the man himself.

If you're trying to say you do not believe what others wrote about him in the bible, and thus do not believe what the bible says, then surely you're an atheist anyway and do not need to care.
Or believe in something else and call yourself a christian for fun and giggles.

[Meneldil]

okay, so it sounds awfully presumptuous, taking a look back at it now. I was going to write a big long shpiel on why I still think most people don't care, but its an opinion based on my own dealings with Catholics who can't even seem to remember the Pope's name.

I'm formerly catholic and couldn't give a rat about the Pope and his ideas, but that's only because I'm atheist .

Catholic who actually follow the teachings of the religion (a tiny minority mind you) actually care about what the Pope says and doesn't say. That's the basis of catholicism, that whole religion is built around this character. If you don't know his name, then you're not a true catholic.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Don't take this as sarcasm, as I am probably woefully underinformed, but I do have a question:

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on the status of Limbo? Wasn't it part of the Church's teachings for centuries, only to be reversed later as something that was totally made up?

It concerns the status of the born who died quickly before they were baptized, and all the people who were upset that the church's position was that those babies would not join them in heaven.

If the Church can amend the heavens to meet the will of the people... why is it the word of God?

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/7144846.html
http://agonist.org/20070421/catholic...ching_on_limbo
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_limbo21.html

Once again, the true position is more complciated than the press would have you believe. I refer you to the wikepdia article on limbo which explains the true position. (This is all a bit off topic having nothing to do with Galileo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you're trying to say you do not believe what others wrote about him in the bible, and thus do not believe what the bible says, then surely you're an atheist anyway and do not need to care.
Or believe in something else and call yourself a christian for fun and giggles.

I do not believe that the Bible is the infallable word of God, one need only make a side-by-side comparison of the Gospels to see the errors in the various accounts. Since God does not make errors he cannot have been directly involved in it's writing.

In point of fact, I believe that it is Roman Catholic teaching that to declare the Bible infallable is heresy. Which is interesting because at one time the reverse was heresy. If you take a look at parts of Vatican II you can see that the inneracy of the Bible is considered to be limited, because there obviously are errors. For starters the world is not flat.

Further, even if the original Bible were inerrant the original Bible does not actually exist as a physical object, so much as a concept.

[rory_20_uk]

I never understand why the new gospels are never incorperated into the Bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So many reasons. One is definately fear; fear of interfering with a divinely inspired canon. Whether you believe the Bible is infallable or not you have to ask the question of whether the decisions of the Councils in the 4th Century were infallable seperately. Leaving that aside though, we are in a far worse situation in terms of determining canon 1600 years later because we are fairly certain that the Church fathers had access to better records and more complete information. Additionally a lot of these "new" Gospels were only lost prior to the reformation and at least some were known in Mediaeval Europe and Byzantium, at that time the "Bible" or "Scripture" was much more a body of writings than a "book" in the modern sense, so that non-canonical texts were less distinguishable.

Ultimately the canonical texts are those considered to be of reliable providence, and modern scholarship hasn't really challanged this in a serious way. No earlier Gospel has been claimed, for example, and while Thomas and Peter may have a great deal in them which is true they are a century or more later than John, which is the latest of the canonical texts, and the most divergent.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, the Bible tells us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Right from the beginning we are told that God and the Word are inseperable. Obviously the Greek texts have not been translated word for word (indeed in Greek there's nine words for 'love', only the one is used in English, for example), but we must presume that God still gets His message across, otherwise He would be allowing us to base our beliefs on a lie.

If people deliberately tamper with the translations, as has been done with the NIV, then it's not really the Bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the Bible tells us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Right from the beginning we are told that God and the Word are inseperable. Obviously the Greek texts have not been translated word for word (indeed in Greek there's nine words for 'love', only the one is used in English, for example), but we must presume that God still gets His message across, otherwise He would be allowing us to base our beliefs on a lie.

If people deliberately tamper with the translations, as has been done with the NIV, then it's not really the Bible.

No, Saint Paul said that, "All scripture is inspired by God is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in rightiousness," (2 Tim 3.16, NRSV translation). My Bible contains a note (i) "Or, Every scripture inspired by God is also" for the first part. If you would like to examine some parralel translations, I found this: http://bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm.

Note that only the KJV and AKJV contain the word doctrine. Since neither of us can speak or read ancient Greek I think we will have to take a consensus view here. Even so, several things are immidiately apparent.

1. Scripture for Paul means the Torah, i.e. the Old Testemant, and can only mean that because the New Testemant has not yet been written.

2. Varient translations reveal the possibility that Paul acknowledges non-inspired scripture, what we call the Apophryca.

3. There is no evidence that Paul considers himself to be writing scripture, therefore his statement does not apply to his own remarks. In other words just because he says it doesn't make it true and this conclusion can be drawn from a critical reading of the text.

[Husar]

I do not believe that the Bible is the infallable word of God, one need only make a side-by-side comparison of the Gospels to see the errors in the various accounts. Since God does not make errors he cannot have been directly involved in it's writing.

In point of fact, I believe that it is Roman Catholic teaching that to declare the Bible infallable is heresy. Which is interesting because at one time the reverse was heresy. If you take a look at parts of Vatican II you can see that the inneracy of the Bible is considered to be limited, because there obviously are errors. For starters the world is not flat.

Further, even if the original Bible were inerrant the original Bible does not actually exist as a physical object, so much as a concept.

I don't really know where the bible says earth is flat but in that case I see two options, go ecomenic because noone can claim to know anything really, not even the pope, or become an atheist which is what I'm personally tending to anyway.
If there is no infallible word of god as a guideline, anything could be right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't really know where the bible says earth is flat but in that case I see two options, go ecomenic because noone can claim to know anything really, not even the pope, or become an atheist which is what I'm personally tending to anyway.
If there is no infallible word of god as a guideline, anything could be right.

Well if we had the infallable word of God it wouldn't be faith, would it?