Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[abafte]

thats why the pics from outside the system settle the issue.

Nope.

On the contrary. That has been one of the most stunning facts about NASA. They claim to have traveled outside the solar systen but yet they have not produced a single videotape or a photograph (a real photograph, i.e. perspective shots, not glossy special effect illustrations) of the solar system. Go figure! The Voyager pics you provided earlier were separate shots of various isolated dots in distant space, which were then plastered on a heliocentric diagram/board/chart.

pictures dont lie

Diagrams/illustrations/cartoons do lie

 

[abafte]

To use geocentricism as evidence of a literal interpretation becomes futile in the light of modern science and technology.

Technology (applied science) being used for the purpose of flogging abstract fantasy (agenda driven “scientific” theories, thought experiments etc)

Just like a children’s aspirine contains sugar/sweetner

 

[pnewton]

Nope.

On the contrary. That has been one of the most stunning facts about NASA. They claim to have traveled outside the solar systen but yet they have not produced a single videotape or a photograph (a real photograph, i.e. perspective shots, not glossy special effect illustrations) of the solar system. Go figure!

I must be another conspiracy by those darned Copernicums. Of course you have the trip of Voyager itself, whose tragectory is based using a heliocentric system. I am not mathmeatician, but if a little error can result in a failed mission, wouldn’t you think that something like having the orbits out of order would be a little problematic. But then maybe there is a secret cadre of folks that know the earth is the center that do the real math for them. Either way, I do not care. It is a matter for scientists, not theologians.

 

[grannymh]

I must be another conspiracy by those darned Copernicums. Of course you have the trip of Voyager itself, whose tragectory is based using a heliocentric system. I am not mathmeatician, but if a little error can result in a failed mission, wouldn’t you think that something like having the orbits out of order would be a little problematic. But then maybe there is a secret cadre of folks that know the earth is the center that do the real math for them. Either way, I do not care. It is a matter for scientists, not theologians.

Dear pnewton,

Your little cutie with the red hat brightens my day. So does your common sense.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Those are individual pics of various bodies which were then retrofitted into an abstract heliocentric illustration (with drown lines of orbits and what not).

Not one single of those photos (over 40 of them) contains a photograph of the “solar system”

anywhere more than one photo frame covers a body, you have more than one data point. from that you can use the ancient art of comparative astronomy, in order to extrapolate an orbit. the lines drawn show such an extrapolation. that is how these photos disprove geocentrism. by the oldest, astronomical technique known to man.

the lines dont need to be drawn in at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey View Post
thats why the pics from outside the system settle the issue.
Nope.

On the contrary. That has been one of the most stunning facts about NASA. They claim to have traveled outside the solar systen but yet they have not produced a single videotape or a photograph (a real photograph, i.e. perspective shots, not glossy special effect illustrations) of the solar system. Go figure! The Voyager pics you provided earlier were separate shots of various isolated dots in distant space, which were then plastered on a heliocentric diagram/board/chart.

Quote:
pictures dont lie
Diagrams/illustrations/cartoons do lie

triangulate the positions of various bodies in these photos, and the position of the camera can be traced, same way that one can triangulate the position of a radio transmitter with multiple receivers. great evidence of the fact that voyager had to be outside the solar system as these photos were taken.

the voyager pics you doubt are provable in that manner, if you think that nasa, and every astronomer on the planet has some serious motivation to lie about it.

you are correct, diagrams, illustrations and cartoons can lie. yet these are pictures, photographs

they are not the aforementioned diagrams, illustrations, or cartoons. taken together they are a picture of the dynamic relationship of the bodies of the solar system. showing geocentrism to be false.

yet, what possible motivation could every space agancy, every astronomer, and astrophysicist have for faking these things?

now, your questions answered, i have one.

are you a real person, or a sock puppet identity? if not maybe you are a geocentrist yourself? or a member of Cassinis group?

i find it highly suspicious that when a poster appears, posts on only one subject and then disappears. a check of your post activity shows a burst of activity over slightly more than an hour, only relating, specifically to the photos i posted and then no more activity, thats not a normal pattern of activity.

i suspect you are either one of the previous posters, under a new identity, or an associate of theirs.

 

[cassini]

I’m back, and what do I find, posta 271-276, amateur theoogians who think they know better than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and three popes, Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII, all of whom treated the matter as one of faith and the decree immutable.

Any non Catholics reading this thread be aware that, according to these believers in the Copernican heresy, there once existed a Church that couldn’t tell the difference between a matter of faith and a matter that had nothing to do with faith. They share their belief with Galileo Galilei who said exactly the same thing and was put on trial for it, found guilty and committed to house arrest for the rest of his life. If this is how popes ran the Church for centuries, what else did they get wrong? Do you want to be part of such a Church of incompetents?

Ah, but I hear them say, it wasn’t infallible, so no harm done. Good God how could anyone believe in such a Church. Whenever they get it wrong all that one needs to do is to say it was not infallible and everything is back smelling rosy in the Catholic Church.

I have asked many times to show me where the Church abrogated its decree. The best they can come up with was the opinion of a papal commission 1981-1992 that was never intended as an abrogation, only an investigation of the ‘rights and wrongs’ of the Galileo case.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and when engaged in matters of faith and morals never makes a mistake. This I uphold without reservation and now, post the Galileo fraud, never having to apologise nor make excuses.

Reading up on the Church’s reaction in the aftermath of this great battle between the Church and the forces of evil presented by Galileo, I rejoiced in the words of popes and the Vatican Council of 1870, a dogmatic (infallible) Council that had the time to deal with the matter of faith and reason and the Church’s three kinds of infallibility. What is even more amazing is that even though all Churchmen from 1741 on were Copernicans, their teachings were consistent with the Catholic faith and God’s promise to guide the Churchmen in matters of faith. In other words, the teachings were all compatible with the 1616 decree even though those who made them were Copernicans.

Pope pius IX Encyclical on Faith and Reason Nov 9, 1846 (Denz 1634-1639. This is the first reaction to the poisonous ‘fruits’ of the infamous U-turn, whereby man’s fallible reason was mounting its attack on further revelations held by the Church. It could have been written by Pope Paul V and Urban VIII.
Then came the Allocution concning Rationalism and Indfference in 1854
Next the epistle The False Freedom of Science 1862.

Then came the Syllabus. Modified Rationalism 1864.

No 12: FALSE: The decrees of the Apolostic see and the Roman Congregations hinder the free passage of science.
This is a beauty for if the 1616 decree was in error it certainly was hindering the free passage of science. So while Churchmen were Copernicans, the Church’s teaching here is correct and contrary to that belief.

NO 13. FALSE: The method and principles according to which the ancient scholastic doctors treated theology are by no means suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences.
Again this false belief shatters all those posts above that follow this kind of reasoning. I could if I ad time go through some and they would be seen to be saying what was condemned by Pope PiusIX

Then came Vatican Council. My next post will deal with this.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Any non Catholics reading this thread be aware that, according to these believers in the Copernican heresy, there once existed a Church that couldn’t tell the difference between a matter of faith and a matter that had nothing to do with faith. They share their belief with Galileo Galilei who said exactly the same thing and was put on trial for it, found guilty and committed to house arrest for the rest of his life. If this is how popes ran the Church for centuries, what else did they get wrong? Do you want to be part of such a Church of incompetents?

please be aware that the Papal Comission of 1992 formally called the Galileo affair a mistake. thats what actual, real Catholics believe.

Ah, but I hear them say, it wasn’t infallible, so no harm done. Good God how could anyone believe in such a Church. Whenever they get it wrong all that one needs to do is to say it was not infallible and everything is back smelling rosy in the Catholic Church.

I have asked many times to show me where the Church abrogated its decree. The best they can come up with was the opinion of a papal commission 1981-1992 that was never intended as an abrogation, only an investigation of the ‘rights and wrongs’ of the Galileo case.

actually we told you it was abrogated by Vatican 1 in 1870 that defined infallibility as only applying to matters of faith and morals, not science.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and when engaged in matters of faith and morals never makes a mistake. This I uphold without reservation and now, post the Galileo fraud, never having to apologise nor make excuses.

yes, but not science, the church only speaks infallibly on those topics, regardless of Bellarmine, whose opinion matters no more than JPII

Reading up on the Church’s reaction in the aftermath of this great battle between the Church and the forces of evil presented by Galileo, I rejoiced in the words of popes and the Vatican Council of 1870, a dogmatic (infallible) Council that had the time to deal with the matter of faith and reason and the Church’s three kinds of infallibility. What is even more amazing is that even though all Churchmen from 1741 on were Copernicans, their teachings were consistent with the Catholic faith and God’s promise to guide the Churchmen in matters of faith. In other words, the teachings were all compatible with the 1616 decree even though those who made them were Copernicans.

more conspiracy theory, thats all you offer.

Pope pius IX Encyclical on Faith and Reason Nov 9, 1846 (Denz 1634-1639. This is the first reaction to the poisonous ‘fruits’ of the infamous U-turn, whereby man’s fallible reason was mounting its attack on further revelations held by the Church. It could have been written by Pope Paul V and Urban VIII.
Then came the Allocution concning Rationalism and Indfference in 1854
Next the epistle The False Freedom of Science 1862.

Then came the Syllabus. Modified Rationalism 1864.

more conspiracy theory

No 12: FALSE: The decrees of the Apolostic see and the Roman Congregations hinder the free passage of science.
This is a beauty for if the 1616 decree was in error it certainly was hindering the free passage of science. So while Churchmen were Copernicans, the Church’s teaching here is correct and contrary to that belief.

NO 13. FALSE: The method and principles according to which the ancient scholastic doctors treated theology are by no means suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences.
Again this false belief shatters all those posts above that follow this kind of reasoning. I could if I ad time go through some and they would be seen to be saying what was condemned by Pope PiusIX

Then came Vatican Council. My next post will deal with this.

the decree was abrogated by the definition of infallibility in Vatican 1, only matters of faith and morals count.

why are you still here, you promised to leave when shown that abrogation, yet here you are.

 

[pnewton]

I’m back, and what do I find, posta 271-276, amateur theoogians who think they know better than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and three popes, Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII, all of whom treated the matter as one of faith and the decree immutable.

I do not disagree with them, just your interpretation of them. On the other hand, O hypocrite, you are an amateur theologian who disagrees with the former Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict XVI. Only one person in this whole list wields authority today. I for one am at least willing to admit that I am an amateur and do not know more than the Pope and the whole of the Curia.

 

[Luke65]

I do not disagree with them, just your interpretation of them. On the other hand, O hypocrite, you are an amateur theologian who disagrees with the former Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict XVI. Only one person in this whole list wields authority today. I for one am at least willing to admit that I am an amateur and do not know more than the Pope and the whole of the Curia.

Papal visit scuppered by scholars
Pope Benedict XVI has cancelled a visit to a prestigious university in Rome where lecturers and students have protested against his views on Galileo.
The Pope had been set to make a speech at La Sapienza University on Thursday.
Sixty-seven academics had said the Pope condoned the 1633 trial and conviction of the astronomer Galileo for heresy.
The Vatican insists the Pope is not “anti-science” - but in light of the protests they have decided it would be better for him not to attend.
…
Pope Benedict was in charge of Roman Catholic doctrine in 1990 when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he commented on the 17th-Century Galileo trial.
In the speech, he quoted Austrian-born philosopher Paul Feyerabend as saying the Church’s verdict against Galileo had been “rational and just”.
…
The academics at La Sapienza signed a letter saying Pope Benedict’s views on Galileo “offend and humiliate us”.
They said it would be inappropriate for the Pope to open their academic year on Thursday.
“In the name of the secular nature of science we hope this incongruous event can be cancelled,” said the letter addressed to the university’s rector, Renato Guarini.
In a separate initiative, students at La Sapienza organised four days of protest this week. The first revolved around an anti-clerical meal of bread, pork and wine, the BBC’s Christian Fraser reports from Rome.
The banner at their lunch read: “Knowledge needs neither fathers nor priests”.
Vatican Radio said the protest at La Sapienza had “a censorious tone”.

Imagine that.

 

[pnewton]

Imagine that.

Date line 1992 - from your article. Cardinal Ratzinger was not the Pope. John Paul II was.

In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret at the way Galileo had been treated. “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture,” he said.

As Pope, Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist Sunday, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and “contemplate with gratitude the Lord’s works.”

In May, several Vatican officials will participate in an international conference to re-examine the Galileo affair, and top Vatican officials are now saying Galileo should be named the “patron” of the dialogue between faith and reason

maderatribune.com/news/newsview.asp?c=248925

This is not to say that the judgements against Galileo at the time were not appropriate. That was a different age, something many people have a hard time grasping.