Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[Rick09]

Joshua 10 is a key chapter.

Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10

Geocentrism and the Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation

 

[Rick09]

Last I checked, the Holy Spirit does not lie.

Movie producers do.

Bingo. This all has the whiff of hucksterism and Hollywood, doesn’t it? Just wait until they start hawking their merchandise and selling memberships to their secret insiders club of special knowledge. I wonder how many people they will get to part with their hard-earned money.

 

[Faith1960]

I like the quote from one of the links a poster provided in the article Geocentrism and the Catholic Church.
Pope JPII stated in 1992… concerning whether Catholics can hold to a modern cosmological view which includes the motion of the earth “was closed in 1820.” LOL.

 

[WestonGrant]

So this guy’s name is John QPublic, hunh? :ehh:

I read through his article, and the way and style it’s written makes me not trust a word he says. It just doesn’t sound right.

It’s probably Mark Wyatt. He’s used that pen name before. Wyatt is part of the team that put on a conference on geocentrism back a couple of years ago:

galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-annual-catholic-conference-on.html

He was using John Q Public in the combox over at Rawstory.com. You can see it here:

rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/12/why-are-geocentrists-trying-to-undo-centuries-worth-of-accepted-science-hint-the-jews/#comment-1335285864

He’s the same guy who was running interference for Sungenis some years back to hide the fact that Sungenis’ bible apologetics series was rejected by his bishop and another bishop for an imprimatur. So that’s probably him or him with some of the other geocentrists collaborating. It looks like part of their marketing campaign to gin up interest for their movie on geocentrism.

I used to like Sungenis’ Bible-based apologetics a lot but all of this pop controversialism he’s gotten into for years now is getting really old. I mean, seriously. Come on already. I wish he’d get his feet back on the ground. Sigh.

 

[hildegaard]

I like the quote from one of the links a poster provided in the article Geocentrism and the Catholic Church.
Pope JPII stated in 1992… concerning whether Catholics can hold to a modern cosmological view which includes the motion of the earth “was closed in 1820.” LOL.

Who here was stating otherwise? They allowed publication “according to the common opinion of modern astronomers”. That certainly does not disallow one to hold a geocentric view, and given that modern astronomers are moving closer to a geocentric view, things are getting interesting.

 

[Faith1960]

That certainly does not disallow one to hold a geocentric view, and given that modern astronomers are moving closer to a geocentric view, things are getting interesting.

I don’t believe that any more than I believe they didn’t really land on the moon.

 

[hildegaard]

I don’t believe that any more than I believe they didn’t really land on the moon.

I do not question the moon landing.

 

[Faith1960]

I do not question the moon landing.

Well at least that’s good to know.

 

[hildegaard]

Bingo. This all has the whiff of hucksterism and Hollywood, doesn’t it? Just wait until they start hawking their merchandise and selling memberships to their secret insiders club of special knowledge. I wonder how many people they will get to part with their hard-earned money.

So are you accusing Rick Delano (producer of The Principle) of lying, or are you talking in general? Remember you are on a Catholic forum.

 

[Rick09]

Originally Posted by Faith1960
Pope JPII stated in 1992… concerning whether Catholics can hold to a modern cosmological view which includes the motion of the earth “was closed in 1820.”

Who here was stating otherwise?

The leader of the geocentrists, Robert Sungenis, thinks otherwise. Maybe you think he’s wrong on this?

Turning to Bob Sungenis, he is, of course, on record as the staunchest of geocentrists, going so far as to insist that, “anyone who would adopt heliocentrism would automatically open themselves up to the judgment of formal heresy, based on this 1633 sentence [against Galileo],” and “When the Church committed herself to condemning heliocentrism as ‘formally heretical’ at the 1633 trial of Galileo, there was no turning back. Geocentrism, because it directly reflected the inerrancy of Scripture, was now indirectly made a matter of salvation, for he who rejected the Church’s decree and the truth of Scripture was putting his salvation in jeopardy ” (GWW2, p. 209 and link)

.

“The Principle” is About Geocentrism? Don’t Be Silly!

Now if you want to follow these geocentrist hucksters, go ahead. But anyone with eyes to see can tell what’s going on here. Please don’t expect us to follow you or to waste much time with this bunk.

 

[Rick09]

I do not question the moon landing.

So you disagree with the leader of the geocentrists. Interesting.

geocentrismdebunked.org/some-background-on-the-new-geocentrists/

Lunar Landing Skeptic/Conspiracy Theorist: As we will see below, it’s fairly common for the new geocentrists to also deny that men have landed on the moon. For his part, Sungenis has stated, “Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969 . . . ” (link). More recently, he has proposed the conspiracy theory that the lunar landings were filmed on a Hollywood set by Stanley Kubrick. For more on his lunar landing denial see also Dave Armstrong’s My Refusal to Wrangle With Robert Sungenis

, 2012: A Sungenis Odd-yssey, and Robert Sungenis’ Responses to Recent Critiques (In reply to Armstrong, Sungenis stated, “Yes, I guess this argument would have some impact if I was the only nut in the world who doubted the moon landings.”)

 

[hildegaard]

I don’t pay attention to David Palm. He has a vendetta against Sungenis, and he is going to find as many ways to attack him as he can.

 

[Rick09]

I don’t pay attention to David Palm. He has a vendetta against Sungenis, and he is going to find as many ways to attack him as he can.

This from the crew that gets all up in arms for not taking their movie on it’s own merits and watching it rather than refusing to go because the geocentrists are full of other hateful, paranoid and loony ideas like anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, moon landing denial, 9-11 conspiracies, dinosaurs lived with humans, JFK was killed by the Jews, the seas are rising because people aren’t reading the King James Bible.

You guys are too much.

And the links to the moon landing denial actually go to apologist Dave Armstrong’s website (not David Palm) where he quotes Sungenis. But I’m sure Armstrong is off limits to you, too, right? He’s a bad person who shouldn’t be read.

I’ve read a good many of the articles at geocentrismdebunked.com over the past few weeks and I think they’re very well done and presented. If anything, I think Palm treated your geocentric ideas much more respectfully and with far greater consideration than they deserved.

But, look. You’re obviously a true believer. So I know the deal. I’m just telling you that all of this is way beyond the pale. To say that geocentrism is “Catholic teaching”, that the Church has just failed to teach this supposedly incredibly important doctrine for hundred of years; to say that basically the entire scientific world knows that geocentrism is true but they’ve created a huge conspiracy to cover it up? (That’s right, the name of Sungenis’ lead presentation at his geocentric conference was "They Know It, But They’re Hiding It!)

Well. If you don’t see how absurd that is, then no amount of reasoning will reach you.

Good night.

P.S. Although I did want to ask you this.

You said, “I do not question the moon landing.”

But the leader of the geocentrists (Sungenis) said, “Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969.”

Apparently, he doesn’t think much of your reasoning skills. How do you feel about that?

 

[Rick09]

I don’t pay attention to David Palm. He has a vendetta against Sungenis, and he is going to find as many ways to attack him as he can.

This from the crew that gets all up in arms for not taking their movie on it’s own merits and watching it rather than deciding it’s not worth the time or price of admission because (among other things) the geocentrists are full of other hateful, paranoid and loony ideas like anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, moon landing denial, 9-11 conspiracies, dinosaurs lived with humans, JFK was killed by the Jews, the seas are rising because people aren’t reading the King James Bible, etc…

You guys are too much.

And the links to the moon landing denial actually go to apologist Dave Armstrong’s website (not David Palm) where he quotes Sungenis. But I’m sure Armstrong is off limits to you, too, right? He’s a bad person who shouldn’t be read.

I’ve read a good many of the articles at geocentrismdebunked.com over the past few weeks and I think they’re very well done and presented. If anything, I think Palm treated your geocentric ideas much more respectfully and with far greater consideration than they deserved.

But, look. You’re obviously a true believer. I’m just telling you that all of this is beyond eccentric. To say that geocentrism is “Catholic teaching”, that the Church has just failed to teach this supposedly incredibly important doctrine for hundred of years; to say that basically the entire scientific world knows that geocentrism is true but they’ve created a huge conspiracy to cover it up? (The name of Sungenis’ lead presentation at his geocentric conference was “They Know It, But They’re Hiding It!”)

Well. If you don’t already see how absurd and delusional that is, then I don’t think anything anyone could ever say would convince you otherwise.

Look, I really don’t mean to be unkind or insult you. But it’s just not reasonable or credible at all. Sorry.

Good night.

 

[hildegaard]

Here are Robert Sungenis’ 8 response essays to geocentrismdebunked.

galileowaswrong.com/?s=david+palm&x=8&y=6

 

[pnewton]

. That certainly does not disallow one to hold a geocentric view, and given that modern astronomers are moving closer to a geocentric view, things are getting interesting.

Wow! I take back what I said about that cartoon earlier. If one can look at the changing theories in cosmology and consider this a move toward gencentrism, then yes, that cartoon was spot on.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve been away for some time and had to shake my head to see this at the CAF. These are the people we’re supposed to listen to?

Np, you should not heed everything you see on any forum. No, Catholic Answers and the vast majority of the forum participants have no problem in interpreting the Bible as per Verbum Dei. The vast majority consider geocentrism scientifically disproven.

 

[inocente]

Sorry. You are INTERPRETING indirect words of Popes to counter DIRECT and REPEATED AUTHORITATIVE and DIRECTLY documented actions of previous Popes. …]

Even if JPII did apologize (which I do not think actually happened, this was the NY Times headline), it is very unclear for what. Perhaps for his treatment. That is not the same as the Church declaring he was correct, only that he should have been allowed to express his opinion, perhaps (as future popes allowed astronomers in the 19th century).

Apart from Vatican Observatory there are several sources which say the Pope apologized and several others which say he later formally acquitted Galileo.

Other reports say the Church planned a statue of Galileo in the Vatican gardens in 2008. There are also several glowing references to Galileo by Pope Benedict (search vatican.va).

When I have time I’ll start a free blog and copy all of the citations there so that they meet this thread’s standards of evidence. Also I’ll copy the NT to the blog so I don’t have to INTERPRET its words by actually reading them. I never realized the power of the blog. Or maybe we’re not in Kansas anymore. :takeoff:

 

[inocente]

John Paul II did not say that Galileo was right about what he taught, because that was " proven " only by Issac Newton. He had not demonstrated that the sun was the center of the universe. John Paul II’s emphases was a criticism of the method employed by theologians of the time and of course of the Inquisition system as employed. You seem to relish putting as black an interpretation on the foibles of the Church as possible.

Far from a black interpretation, I think the Church finally came out of this very well. In googling around I discovered the Church has apologized for a whole bunch of past errors. Bound to get some things wrong over two millennia, and I think it’s admirable of the Church to own up like that rather than try to sweep it under the carpet.

On your specific point, imho it’s unfair to JPII to treat his address as if it was a technical lecture on the history of science. He said things such as “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system.”

And I ask you as well, what good did the apology do? Not much judging from the fact that the secular world still can’t let it go. Today’s science texts are full of condemnations still, and the university professors never let an opportunity pass to take a swing. And then there are the Pied Pipers of modern Cosmology who are constantly bringing it up.

I’m glad you agree that JPII apologized. But apologizing for the past doesn’t make it go away. When F W de Klerk apologized for apartheid, he didn’t magically make it go away. It is a matter of history that many suffered under apartheid. It is a matter of history that science had to win its intellectual freedom, and it’s worth repeating that bit of history in books so we don’t take such freedoms for granted.

And have any of these people bothered to point out that Galileo never demonstrated the validity of the Copernican system? Have any of them apologized for the errors of Newton, presumably corrected by Einstein? And are they absolutely certain that we have the truth even now. No. But never mind, the Inquisition punished the great Galileo, that is all that matters. And that appears to be all that matters to you as well.

I’ve never mentioned any punishment, never even alluded to any punishment.

So Galileo was punished, you say? By all normal rules of justice wouldn’t that mean he cannot be repeatedly re-tried over and over again? And it would be un-Christian to do such a thing? Please take foot from mouth.

But also I think you may misunderstand the nature of science. Hypotheses get thrown in the bin every day, no big deal, but none of the guys your mention there were wrong. Empiricism concerns itself with knowledge gained by experience, so there isn’t a handbook containing the correct answers. Each of them produced an hypothesis which agreed with what was then known, so none of them were wrong, just each a bit closer to an answer only God knows and which we may never know fully.

Never mind that if it hadn’t been for the Church there would never have been a university system in the first place, there would never have been a Copernicus or a Galileo or a Newton even…

If you look at your logic, I think you just said it was their education, courtesy of the Church, which led them astray! Please remove other foot from mouth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Far from a black interpretation, I think the Church finally came out of this very well. In googling around I discovered the Church has apologized for a whole bunch of past errors. Bound to get some things wrong over two millennia, and I think it’s admirable of the Church to own up like that rather than try to sweep it under the carpet.

On your specific point, imho it’s unfair to JPII to treat his address as if it was a technical lecture on the history of science. He said things such as “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system.”

I’m glad you agree that JPII apologized. But apologizing for the past doesn’t make it go away. When F W de Klerk apologized for apartheid, he didn’t magically make it go away. It is a matter of history that many suffered under apartheid. It is a matter of history that science had to win its intellectual freedom, and it’s worth repeating that bit of history in books so we don’t take such freedoms for granted.

I’ve never mentioned any punishment, never even alluded to any punishment.

So Galileo was punished, you say? By all normal rules of justice wouldn’t that mean he cannot be repeatedly re-tried over and over again? And it would be un-Christian to do such a thing? Please take foot from mouth.

But also I think you may misunderstand the nature of science. Hypotheses get thrown in the bin every day, no big deal, but none of the guys your mention there were wrong. Empiricism concerns itself with knowledge gained by experience, so there isn’t a handbook containing the correct answers. Each of them produced an hypothesis which agreed with what was then known, so none of them were wrong, just each a bit closer to an answer only God knows and which we may never know fully.

If you look at your logic, I think you just said it was their education, courtesy of the Church, which led them astray! Please remove other foot from mouth.

You are welcome to your prejudiced opinions and interpretations.

Linus2nd