Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[rossum]

Rossum; Interesting that you should bring up these movements ON the earth. The theologians had to distinguish between these and the earth’s non-movement. Here is a simulation of the theologians’ thinking in 1616:

‘Very good. Let us now proceed to the second proposition, the idea that the earth moves and is consequently not at the centre of the world?

That was not my point. My point is that since different parts of the earth move relative to each other then at most one part of the earth can be static at the centre of the universe with the other parts in motion. I was asking which part is static, and what scientific experiments you use do determine that part.

Here then is a selection of some passages of Scripture for our consideration.

If you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist. Christian scripture is not an authority that I recognise, unless it is supported by Buddhist scripture or scientific evidence. If you want to convince me then you should either show scientific evidence or quotes from Buddhist scripture.

Our first consideration is that if the sun moves, the earth does not, for both cannot be moving.

This is incorrect. A simple applicaiton of General Relativity shows that both the sun and earth are moving relative to, say, Jupiter. This is a false dichotomy.

Now I realise this actually discredits your opinion rossum, but you brought it up.

It is not my opinion that continental drift happens, it has been measured directly. It is you who needs to provide scientific support for your position. What is the scientific data that tells you which part of the earth is static and which other parts are in motion? The earth is not a rigid body, as the second set of Bible verses tells us. Buddhist scriptures and science also confirm the existence of earthquakes.

rossum

 

[mich2]

That was not my point. My point is that since different parts of the earth move relative to each other then at most one part of the earth can be static at the centre of the universe with the other parts in motion. I was asking which part is static, and what scientific experiments you use do determine that part.

If you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist. Christian scripture is not an authority that I recognise, unless it is supported by Buddhist scripture or scientific evidence. If you want to convince me then you should either show scientific evidence or quotes from Buddhist scripture.

rossum

From a Buddhist point of view, rossum, would you not consider yourself to be,as an observer, not mearly the centre of the universe but also the cause of it?

Andre

 

[rossum]

From a Buddhist point of view, rossum, would you not consider yourself to be,as an observer, not mearly the centre of the universe but also the cause of it?

I am looking at a computer screen. Light from the screen strikes my eyes and is focused onto my retina. There it is converted into electrical impulses and is passed down my optic nerve to my brain. The signals in my optic nerve are processed inside my brain to match with the concept “computer screen” that I have learned from previous experience. The only universe I am aware of is inside my brain and hence I must be the cause of it - how can it be otherwise. I hope that the universe inside my brain is a reasonable match for the real universe outside, which is not directly knowable. All of my senses reduce to electrical impulses arriving at my brain down various nerves so all of my perceptions are indirect.

rossum

 

[mich2]

I am looking at a computer screen. Light from the screen strikes my eyes and is focused onto my retina. There it is converted into electrical impulses and is passed down my optic nerve to my brain. The signals in my optic nerve are processed inside my brain to match with the concept “computer screen” that I have learned from previous experience. The only universe I am aware of is inside my brain and hence I must be the cause of it - how can it be otherwise. I hope that the universe inside my brain is a reasonable match for the real universe outside, which is not directly knowable. All of my senses reduce to electrical impulses arriving at my brain down various nerves so all of my perceptions are indirect.

rossum

I don’t have any problems with what you wrote; so would you not claim a “self-centered” universe as being closer to the geocentric model rather than the heliocentric one in this case?

Andre

 

[cassini]

You really should avoid accusing people of heresy as you pontifiacte your view from the fringe. Yes, papal commisions represent the Church in that where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Catholic Church. No, the pronouncement in 1992 was not infallible. Few things are. This commission did not even address any items of faith and morals. It is, however the most recent statement we have and is what Catholics believe, unless you think the Catholic Church today is no longer the real Catholic Church.

Happy new year to all my Copernican friends and to my fellow traditional Catholics. Pnewton, it is not I who defined and declared Copernicans heretics it was the Church you say you believe in. At no time did the Church abrogate this heresy. What CHURCHMEN did was derogate it out of sight. This act probably turned the heresy from formal to material with no punishment due because the interior intent was/is not to defy the Church but held in ignorance.
However, now that you Copernicans have been told to remember that the Church cannot err and that no falsification has even been shown to contradict the Church’s definition and declaration, this inculpable ignorance no longer applies.

Now if you and others have a problem with this GOOD, it might make you THINK like a Catholic should. Think about it. The Church cannot be wrong when it ruled definitively on a matter of faith or morals. The interpretation of the Bible is a matter of faith. There is not a scientists in the world today who denies spatial relativity. This means nothing is proven nor falsified regarding the relative movement of the earth and sun. WHY then, in GOD’S name, can modern Catholics recognise that this means the Church was never wrong ?
I tell you why. Because you are all puffed up with intellectual pride and might become the laughing stock of your friends as you try to make a laughing stock of us who have discovered this truth for ourselves.
Further, it would mean that all those Churchmen from 1741 who accepted the heresy and hid it from the world would be seen for what they did, ‘putting the Catholic faith in danger’ as Pope Urban VIII predicted.

The problem with you guys is that we have the Church’s legality on our side. Vatican I said that Peter is not elected to CHANGE the teaching of the Church but to protect it. Once the Church defines that a decree is immutable then NO, I repeat, NO, pope can change it. We have the Church, you have Churchmen only, that is your problem.

The Church today is the same real Catholic Church. But the beliefs of Churchmen is not the Catholic Church and if you do not know the difference then I cannot help you any more.

Finally, if you think the findings of the Pontifical commission on Galileo is the mind of the Church, then God help Catholicism. I would not like to show you how perverted and deceitful that report was.

 

[hecd2]

There is not a scientists in the world today who denies spatial relativity. This means nothing is proven nor falsified regarding the relative movement of the earth and sun.

I have no problem with belief in bizarre things like unicorns, fairies and geocentrism if people choose to delude themselves. But I do have a problem with people who attempt to use scientific concepts in support of their superstitions. When you say “There is not a scientists in the world today who denies spatial relativity”, what are you talking about? Are you referring to Galilean relativity, Special Relativity or General Relativity. You have never explained how any form of relativity helps the case for geocentrism. It’s not enough merely to say that all things are relative - you have to show specifically, using a proper mathematical formulation if necessary, exactly how one or other of these forms of relativity can give rise to phenomena such as the Coriolis force, the equatorial bulge, the preference for launching satellites from the equator etc, on a stationary earth. You haven’t begun to do this.

If your answer is that you personally believe in geocentrism because you think Revelation and Tradition tells you so in spite of all physical evidence, but you acknowledge that others can conscientiously come to a different view, I can respect that. But to claim that science supports your superstition, and by doing so makes bad Catholics and heretics of the vast majority of currently practising and devout Catholics is not respectable, unless you can demonstrate, in far more detail than you have so far been able to do, exactly how science supports your position.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

agreed; however it shows only one reality relative to a sun centered system…there are other frames
one could choose.One which the sun moves relative to something else, for example.

pics are outside the frame of reference.

Again, I agree. But how does it prove the heliocentric model to be the only true model?The sun’s unknown motion prevents us to know this. If the sun is moving along a spacetime curvature at a great speed , relative to the source of gravity, and , along with it, the planets follow suite, while at the same time crossing the sun’s path since they are influenced by it’s own spacetime curvature,giving the illusion of orbits, when observed on the heliocentric frame, then, the planets motion, viewed on such a frame would be greatly due to the unknown gravitational source.

because we have pictures

This is why such a frame is prefered by the scientific view,it is less complex. However, while I’m not a scientist, we do know that a three body system’s outcome gives and extremly complicated
system. Could it be possible that the heliocentric view, while less complex, is not the best in revealing the physical laws of nature? Could it be that another frame could give us more enlightment to the theory of gravity?

no, because we have pics from outside the frame of reference

All you are doing in this case in introducing yet another frame. So, now the observer in the plane will claim the car is moving at x miles/hr relative to him ect… He will nevertheless claim three different speed for the bullet. One x+100 miles/hr relative to him, 100 miles/hr relative to the gun and 50 miles/hr relative to the observer in the car. Which of the three velocities is the “true velocity” of the bullet leaving the others simply illusions and unreal?

learn your physics, the voyager photos are like a birds eye view of the whole event.

Do you think the pictures would convince him?

yep, he wrote that long before the photos were taken.

I don’t think you understood what I was trying to ask. Why are we always using the geocentric model when we observe the nightsky to identify the location and movements of the celestial bodies, if such a model is erronious and false?

i understood, i am saying that you dont understand what geocentrism means, they could choose any locus, earth is just the most convenient.

I use the word philosophical approach in order to differentiate the scientific approach. I will once again specify that I don’t believe that the geocentric model is the only true model. I am only saying and arguing that the heliocentric model is not the only true model as well. So if the geocentric view is opposite to the true heliocentric view, why do we use the geocentric model all the time except when doing calculations for planetary orbits…something that we don’t do everyday, you know.

only problem is that the geocentric model is falsified by the pictures, all the talk in the world wont change that.

So why do we all keep using it then, if it’s false?

we dont, you are confusing a locus in a system for geocentrism, to entirely different ideas

ok…I respect, although do not agree with your point of view. Just one question…

noi you dont you are ttrying to tell mme that i cant see what i can obviously see.

Having God’s permission to rewrite scriptures; how would you have discribed the “sun as standing still for Joshua”?

1. i didnt rewrite scriptures, please show me any scripture i rewrote.
2. i assume G-d did as he promised jeremiah

we can keep talking but i have pics, you can never win.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Luke, old pal, there is no such thing as ‘planet earth’. A planet moves, The earth does not. It is earth or Mother Earth. I used to make that mistake. Keep up the good work.

Mitch2, great to have your support. Now it is the three Muskateers. We are growing in numbers. On our own the Copernicans try to pick us off as crackpots. With three of us on the same thread that is more difficult.

sorry but i can type the number 3 as easily as the number 1

ignore the photos if you wish, but they wont go away

 

[cassini]

That was not my point. My point is that since different parts of the earth move relative to each other then at most one part of the earth can be static at the centre of the universe with the other parts in motion. I was asking which part is static, and what scientific experiments you use do determine that part.

If you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist. If you want to convince me then you should either show scientific evidence or quotes from Buddhist scripture.

This is incorrect. A simple applicaiton of General Relativity shows that both the sun and earth are moving relative to, say, Jupiter. This is a false dichotomy.

It is not my opinion that continental drift happens, it has been measured directly. It is you who needs to provide scientific support for your position. What is the scientific data that tells you which part of the earth is static and which other parts are in motion? The earth is not a rigid body, as the second set of Bible verses tells us. Buddhist scriptures and science also confirm the existence of earthquakes.

rossum

A Buddhist? ‘Christian scripture is not an authority that I recognise, unless it is supported by Buddhist scripture or scientific evidence.’ tell you what rossum, if I were to give you the answers I’d like to I would probably get barred from this forum. Good luck to you, hate what the Chinese are doing to your monks in Tibet and I didn’t know you has ‘scriptures’. I thought you just meditated with your false god peacefully.

 

[cassini]

I have no problem with belief in bizarre things like unicorns, fairies and geocentrism if people choose to delude themselves. But I do have a problem with people who attempt to use scientific concepts in support of their superstitions. When you say “There is not a scientists in the world today who denies spatial relativity”, what are you talking about? Are you referring to Galilean relativity, Special Relativity or General Relativity. You have never explained how any form of relativity helps the case for geocentrism. It’s not enough merely to say that all things are relative - you have to show specifically, using a proper mathematical formulation if necessary, exactly how one or other of these forms of relativity can give rise to phenomena such as the Coriolis force, the equatorial bulge, the preference for launching satellites from the equator etc, on a stationary earth. You haven’t begun to do this.

If your answer is that you personally believe in geocentrism because you think Revelation and Tradition tells you so in spite of all physical evidence, but you acknowledge that others can conscientiously come to a different view, I can respect that. But to claim that science supports your superstition, and by doing so makes bad Catholics and heretics of the vast majority of currently practising and devout Catholics is not respectable, unless you can demonstrate, in far more detail than you have so far been able to do, exactly how science supports your position.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Back to square one again. If this is the progress we have made on this thread I give up. Now the Copernicans are denying the relativity - call it WHAT YOU LIKE - that makes it impossible for a man on the earth (or the sun) to say which of these two bodies moves RELATIVE to the other. If you are still holding out against this universal understanding, then I are debating with an alien, if I believed in aliens, which I dont.

 

[pnewton]

We have the Church, you have Churchmen only, that is your problem.

The Church today is the same real Catholic Church. But the beliefs of Churchmen is not the Catholic Church and if you do not know the difference then I cannot help you any more.

Then you can not help me. As I see it, your use of this strange term “Churchmen” only begs the question. It represents the Catholic Church part you do not agree with. Likeswise, declaring geocentrism a matter of faith and morals begs the question. In fact, your arguments go in more circles that a geocentric diagram of the solar system. I am or a simpler mind. Show me the where the Catholic Church today recognizes the truth of what you say, and I will listen to that.

 

[rossum]

I don’t have any problems with what you wrote; so would you not claim a “self-centered” universe as being closer to the geocentric model rather than the heliocentric one in this case?

Neither of the above.

The heliocentric model appears to be a closer fit to the external reality. Though with either Special or General relativity it is not possible to define “static” in any meaningful way - only “static with respect to X”, where X is some other object in the universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Good luck to you, hate what the Chinese are doing to your monks in Tibet

Please do not hate, it is not a useful emotion and will tend to hold you back. What the Chinese are doing is wrong and will hold them back. All actions have consequences.

and I didn’t know you has ‘scriptures’.

Buddhism indeed has scriptures, usually called “suttas” (Theravada) or “sutras” (Mahayana). Totaling up the Pali, Tibetan and Chinese canons comes to about 200 volumes, though there is a lot of repetition in there.

I thought you just meditated with your false god peacefully.

Meditation is nothing much to do with God or gods. The primary function of the gods in Buddhist scriptures is to applaud at the right places. Meditation is something different: breathing and counting to ten is meditation, as is saying the Jesus Prayer from the Christian Orthodox tradition.

The Buddha is not a god:It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

rossum

 

[LutheranDK]

Thank you for some good laughs

Now, for the serious part:

Whether or not the sun revolves around the Earth, or the Earth around the Sun is not, as many people have already pointed out, a matter of faith. It is a matter of fact. The Earth DOES revolve around the Sun, and although people at the time of Galileo could be excused for thinking otherwise, to claim this today is just downright nonsense. It is a fact, which has been observed, as others have pointed out, also with planets orbiting other stars in distant solar systems.

I basically don’t see where the problem is, really. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that the RC church claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in matters of science?

 

[cassini]

Then you can not help me. As I see it, your use of this strange term “Churchmen” only begs the question. It represents the Catholic Church part you do not agree with. Likeswise, declaring geocentrism a matter of faith and morals begs the question. In fact, your arguments go in more circles that a geocentric diagram of the solar system. I am or a simpler mind. Show me the where the Catholic Church today recognizes the truth of what you say, and I will listen to that.

The Catholic Church of 1616 IS the same Catholic Church of today. The Catholic Church does not Change.The 1616 decree of Pope Paul V, never having been abrogated, is where the Catholic Church of today is.

Now you show me one official statement from the CHURCH that says different and you have a good case.

 

[cassini]

Please do not hate, it is not a useful emotion and will tend to hold you back. What the Chinese are doing is wrong and will hold them back. All actions have consequences.

Buddhism indeed has scriptures, usually called “suttas” (Theravada) or “sutras” (Mahayana). Totaling up the Pali, Tibetan and Chinese canons comes to about 200 volumes, though there is a lot of repetition in there.

Meditation is nothing much to do with God or gods. The primary function of the gods in Buddhist scriptures is to applaud at the right places. Meditation is something different: breathing and counting to ten is meditation, as is saying the Jesus Prayer from the Christian Orthodox tradition.

The Buddha is not a god:It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

rossum

Correct rossum, I deplore what they do to such peaceful men.

The rest is very informative. I was told Buddah was your God, I stand corrected. So, do you have a God, or is God just God?
I presume you know that our Scriptures say that all the Gods of the pagans are devils?

 

[pnewton]

I basically don’t see where the problem is, really. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that the RC church claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in matters of science?

You are correct, which is why the Church is not bound to a medival understanding of science. Yes, the Bible is a matter of faith. But even then there are areas of the Bible which are not. For example, grammar and syntax are a matter for linguists. The Bible often deals with matters of science, but this can only be understood from the frame of mind of the science of the time. The Bible does not deal with the concept of geocentrism, as it is understood today because celestial mechanics and even the existance of the other bodies, as opposed to points of lights did not exist.

Geocentrism will never put man on the moon.

 

[cassini]

Thank you for some good laughs

Now, for the serious part:

Whether or not the sun revolves around the Earth, or the Earth around the Sun is not, as many people have already pointed out, a matter of faith. It is a matter of fact. The Earth DOES revolve around the Sun, and although people at the time of Galileo could be excused for thinking otherwise, to claim this today is just downright nonsense. It is a fact, which has been observed, as others have pointed out, also with planets orbiting other stars in distant solar systems.

I basically don’t see where the problem is, really. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that the RC church claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in matters of science?

One last post before I go to bed. LutheranDK, we have covered this ground many times already. I know you and 99.999% of all the human race now consider the earth’s supposed rotation and revolution around the sun as a FACT, but a few others know this is not true.

I presume you are as your name implies, a Lutheran, a Protestant?

Now we Catholics believe certain things about the Catholic Church that distinguishes it from all the other false Churches, that it alone is God’s Church and that He Guides it infallibly, that is, makes sure it makes no mistakes when defining and declaring on matters of faith.

Now if this is true then the Church’s definition and declaration of 1616 must be divinely guided, yes. But as we all know the Freemasons of the Royal Society of London confirmed Newton had finally proven the earth orbits the sun. After that all who wanted to be considered sane conceded to their lead. There is a long history to this which I shall omit.
Now with this ‘falsification’ of geocentricism the enemies of the Church danced with delight, the Church was WRONG. The Church had become the laughing stock of the world. It proclaimed truth as heresy. What else had it got wrong? Could it ever be taken seriously again outside by anyone but its own blind followers?

Now with this ‘falsification’ of geocentricism the Churchmen of the Catholic Church had to worm their way out of this ‘disasterous error’ and the ridicule of its divine guidance. Every excuse was invented over a period of 100 years. The decree wasn’t infallible. It wasn’t on a matter of faith. It was a temporary ban only. The Scriptures do not teach us science only how to get to heaven. You name it, it was churned out by every Tom, Richard and Harry in Christendom, all thinking they needed to SAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The volume of these Apologists and Minimisers is hard to believe.

But the Catholic Church does not need saving. So what was the answer. Easy, but it took faith. It took faith in the belief that if the Church defines a matter of faith, and how the Scriptures are interpreted is a matter under the auspices of Catholic Faith, that the ‘falsification’ must be examined carefully and it will be found to be no real falsification at all.

It took a Calvanist in the 1960s to make such a breakthrough. But his motivation was to reexamine the ‘proofs’ for H based on his belief that the Scriptures say the world is G and the Scriptures cannot err because they were written under the guidance of God.

But the Catholic position is infinitely MORE secure than the Protestant one, for it has TWO sources to determine truth, the Scriptures and more importantly, the Church’s CONFIRMATION of this truth in 1616.

Now we know that no system for the universe can be proven as the correct one empirically. Many on this thread either do not understand this, don’t want to, or CANNOT because of the magic of heliocentricism. Even those who do acknowlege relativity prefer the H order to the G order. But this does not eliminate the possibility that, scientifically, the G order could also be true.

This new paradigm however, if applied to the history of the Galileo affair and its aftermath has serious consequences.

At first I say there should be dancing in the streets of Rome now that the 300 years of ridicule can be shown to have been a fraud, that the Church’s decree was never falsified by science. They should dance because the one mistake even popes have acknowledged turned out to be no such mistake after all.

The Divine guidance must be restored to its proper place now, that it did cover the 1616 decree and that the Church until 1835 were right to uphold the ban on the heresy.

Alas, no such dancing can be expected. An admittance of the truth would expose the heresy of those who disbelieved under the pressire of those pseudo-proofs. This silence will be easy, for so powerful is this heresy that it blinds most, even the elect, to the truth. They are NOT open to truth any more, and that is why Pope Urban VII has been shown to have been correct, this heresy has ‘put the Catholic faith in danger’.

Not so hilarious Lutheran, eh?

 

[hecd2]

Back to square one again. If this is the progress we have made on this thread I give up.

Well, perhaps you should give up, since you have not made a single scientific argument that advances your position one jot.
Now the Copernicans are denying the relativity - call it WHAT YOU LIKE - that makes it impossible for a man on the earth (or the sun) to say which of these two bodies moves RELATIVE to the other. If you are still holding out against this universal understanding, then I are debating with an alien, if I believed in aliens, which I dont.

 

[CWBetts]

This thread is more and more becoming an excellent proof showing how Radical Traditionalists have no credibility.