I mostly agree with you, so put me down for a “+1” or an “amen” whichever is more appropriate. 
I’ve mostly bowed out of the tread because I don’t think Kable is listening. But it’s hard when he says things like
which demonstrates he is really only operating with a caricature of the bible or Christian belief.
Kable, here is what is central:
The rest is adiaphora.
OK, something novel that Jesus said is that remarriage is adultery. Do you consider that a central thesis based on your criterion?
I was listing themes, not theses. (None of the three themes I listed are specific citations of biblical passages.) I do think that the biblical passage you cite is marked for its novelty and difficulty, and I do think it reflects a central theme of the Christian teachings, in fact, one of the themes I listed: All rules are only tools.
The “instruments of torture” laid out at the beginning of an Inquisitorial trial were a formality dating from the practice of employing torture to guarantee “correct” confessions from those accused of actual crimes. Galileo was never accused of a crime and was never in danger of being tortured.
He also never perjured himself. Which trial are you looking at? In the first trial, he was told to come up with actual evidence of his claims, put forth the silly notion that the movements of the planets were the cause of the tides, and was told to go home and shut up until he had genuine proof of his claim. (The proof that was held out as acceptable was a stellar parallax, which no one had, at that time, discovered.)
The second trial started when he misjudged the temper of the pope, published a book setting out his ideas against those that the pope published, and used the name Simplicio, (fool), for the character in the book to whom he ascribed the pope’s views. That got him hauled back into court for a second trial. When the second trial opened, a letter was found in the documentation from the first trial that had ordered him to be completely silent on the topic. Galileo claimed that he had never seen that letter, (and there is some evidence that it might have been a forgery inserted without the knowledge of the first court), but without modern forensics to establish whether it was actually a forgery, it was accepted as genuine and Galileo was convicted only of having violated the letter’s prohibition.
While the the first court made a claim that he had published heresy, they never actually indicated what he had claimed that was heretical. (It was a political trial, after all.) They also failed to get all the judges in the trial to sign off on the verdict, indicating that some sort of political maneuvering had gone on.
Both trials of Galileo were miscarriages of justice, but they were carried out by factions within the church that were upset by his polemics, not actual church-wide assaults on science. Galileo’s silly defense from tides was handily disproven. When an actual stellar parallax was discovered a century later, the church never made any effort to disprove it or hide it.
You are also special pleading with regards to what makes your list of themes rather than theses. I suppose that’s hard for you to see.
OK, but Jesus taught that if you don’t follow certain rules he would light your soul on fire. The hellfire talk was relatively novel for it’s time as well.
OK, well maybe you need to substantiate that this is a central theme of the Bible.
And if you don’t, what did Jesus teach would happen to you?
That’s ghastly!
So he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for no reason?
That silly Galileo! Wikipedia says he was told this:
““to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it… to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.” -The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616.[29]”
You make it all sound so antiseptic, I can tell from reading your paragraph how silly Galileo was and how YOUR church was really only slightly in the wrong. But why does the whole affair sound so different when I read it on wikipedia?
Is it that the writers of the above didn’t have the benefit of attending a good Catholic school?
You may call them what you like. I shall henceforth refer to them as “theses.” Okay now, what is your point about the three theses again?
I don’t believe that’s true. What’s your evidence for it?
I was talking about the central themes of the teachings of Jesus which suggested divinity to his immediate followers. That rules are just tools is an idea found in several places in the stories about Jesus. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” springs to mind. Also the woman caught in adultery. The several places where he accuses rule-mongering religious leaders as hypocrites. Etc. It is a pervading theme (Sorry! I meant Thesis!) throughout the synoptic gospels. You will also find a counter-theme (-Thesis!) of pro-rulesiness, but see prior posts. Pro-rulsiness is nothing new, anti-rulesiness is difficult and unexpected. It is much more likely the latter is the kind of thing early followers found important. The other stuff came later. (Note that Paul’s earliest writings are also pervaded with this theme. He even affirms “everything is permitted!”)
The point is that using your criterion for coming up with various thesis, you could come up with numerus, and certainly opposite thesis.
The Gospel. I think that’s the same source you are using.
Umm, God of the Bible was smiting people right and left for being anti-rules from the beginning. Being anti-rules was not a new theme at all. And Jesus was making up rules on the fly, and what did Jesus tell the adulteress after saving her from stoning?
Since you’re such the Bible scholar I’m sure you can provide a cite for that assertion?
You’ll miss out on the Kingdom of God, until you come around.
The remarriage one I’ve shown doesn’t work for your point. We’re currently discussing the hell-fire teachings, so at this point in our conversation it’s debatable at least. So your point is by no means made. But we’ll see, of course, how it turns out in the end.
I should clarify my question. What is your evidence that the teaching of a fiery hell for the bad guys was novel?
I have explicitly stated that these are not ideas that were completely new. What I have said, instead, is that he communicated the message “rules are only tools” (which btw is saying a lot more than just “be anti-rules,” I used the phrase “anti-rules” as shorthand in my last post) in a way which suggested to people that they were learning something new about divinity.
Go and sin no more. How does saying this contradict, or maintain some kind of tension with, the idea that rules are only tools?
OK, cite?
It works just fine. Jesus tell you something new and novel, thus according to you it should get more weight, but you ignore it anyway.
I don’t know of that angle being played up in the Bible anywhere else. So the evidence is on par with all the other things you apparently think are “really” novel. You don’t see the special pleading here?
Special plead away, you are really good at it.
“Go and sin no more” is the same as saying “go and follow the rules.”
No, I did not ignore it, I pointed out that the statements made in that passage are in keeping with the thesis “All rules are only tools.”
No, I have been under the impression that teachings about a fiery hell were common at that time and place. If I’m wrong about that, I’m wrong about it. This is not special pleading, this is me possibly being in a state of ignorance about the status of fiery hell teachings. I asked you for evidence, though, and you did fail to provide any, so I’m not feeling any particular pressure at the moment.
Which is perfectly compatible with the view that all rules are only tools.
Kable, I’m repeating myself, not because I have nothing more to say, but because you seem to be ignoring things that I’ve already said several times. I do not think either of us is getting anything more out of this conversation. I am willing to continue it for as long as you wish, but I want to register that concern.
Instead of cutting and pasting quotes, please elucidate on which of those you provided indicates, in context, that failure to love God and your neighbor results in God lighting your soul on fire (or being thrown into Hell)?
For a quick and easy read on why you’re wrong, check out Love Wins by Rob Bell. For a more scholarly treatise, try Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright. Both examine the Gospels and first-century religious tradition to clarify what Jesus meant (and didn’t mean) by “the Kingdom of God” and why the concept of “going to heaven (or hell)” when we die is a departure from the earliest Christian teachings, which was the promise of God’s kingdom here on earth and eternal life.
Welcome to Renaissance Europe.
So, where is the perjury? You are quoting the letter that he may have never seen and that may have been forged. And you want to accuse Galileo of perjury. You cad.
It appears that you really cannot tell much of anything from any text.
Galileo was railroaded. He was summoned to the Inquisition, twice, by factions within the church. He should never have been put through that trauma.
However, he also contributed to the atmosphere that made persecuting him easy and he offered fairly silly defenses of his position, defenses that even those within the church who were willing to defend him recognized as erroneous.
As to the authors of the Wikipedia article, nothing in that article contradicts what I have posted.
I find it amusing how much effort you exert in trying to make ad hominem attacks based on the belief system of a writer. I suppose that, in fairness, I should simply dismiss anyone to whom you look for support if they are atheist, but I suspect that your own prejudices should not be ascribed to everyone who shares one or two beliefs with you.
Tools for what?
Have you ever read the Bible? Not much talk of fiery hell until Jesus mentions it, again, and again, and again.
OK, so you ignored the verses I gave. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that’s what you would do.
It’s OK, you are special pleading and cherry picking, but you can’t tell that you are. I don’t expect either of us to get much more out of this.
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
No thank, I’d rather just read the Bible if I want to know what Jesus supposedly said.
And Catholicism. Have you heard the song “Thumb hang?”
The perjury was when Galileo was forced to lie and recant what he believed was true. Calling me a cad is a direct insult. You should moderate yourself and maybe say a few hail Mary’s or whatever it is you people do.
Right, you should just stop there.
I find it amusing how far backwards you will bend to defend YOUR church. But how far will you go? What are your thoughts on homosexuality, remarriage and birth control? Do you embrace dogmatism, Biblical literalism, and your Catechism on each, or do you stray?
Various things, including using or otherwise mastering people, refusing to face things that make one uncomfortable, living a basically happy life, and other things. Different rules, different contexts, different uses.
Kable, there are two different claims which I do not think you are keeping distinct as you should.
Claim one: Jesus said bad guys are burned in hell.
Claim two: This was novel for his time and place.
When you say I ignored the verses you gave, this is irrelevant, because the verses you gave are evidence for claim one and I have not disputed claim one. What I have disputed is claim two. And claim two is the one you haven’t given any evidence for. Now I don’t consider the matter settled–after all, I haven’t given any evidence against it, either. But let’s keep the terms of the debate straight, right?