Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[cassini]

This is from the idea of when things blow up, they push things away.

Ah, an idea. Sorry but the Church of 1616 dealt only in what could be known for certain before it could consider an alternative interpretation to the words ‘the sun moved’.

But while we are at it doesnt the idea also say all the bits came together to form stars, planets, moons and earth? Some theory, flying apart while coming together. Ever see bits of an explosion come together? By the way did the Big Bang create space as the bits flew apart?

Finally Conall, what speed are we flying apart at and can this speed by measured?

 

[ConallCernach]

But while we are at it doesnt the idea also say all the bits came together to form stars, planets, moons and earth? Some theory, flying apart while coming together. Ever see bits of an explosion come together? By the way did the Big Bang create space as the bits flew apart?

If you blew up a large gernade, and pieces of shratnel hit each other they are able to combine. If you have particles large enough that as to be able to have their own gravity, they have an ability gather smaller pieces that are attracted due to the force of gravity.

Finally Conall, what speed are we flying apart at and can this speed by measured?

Depends on what you’re measuring against.
We’re on a speeding object, we can measure our speed in relation to other objects (such as other galaxies). Though depending on the velocity of the galaxy our measurement will be different.

If you were driving a rocket ship, and you coudl see two rocketships behind you, you could meaure your speed in relation to the others. But if one is travelling faster than another, you’ll get different measurements.

Though, why is it not possible for God to create things through the Big Bang? He uses gravity to allow us to walk upon the Earth, He uses the Sun to give us night and day. Why would the Big Bang be any different?

 

[cassini]

If you blew up a large gernade, and pieces of shratnel hit each other they are able to combine. If you have particles large enough that as to be able to have their own gravity, they have an ability gather smaller pieces that are attracted due to the force of gravity.

Depends on what you’re measuring against.
We’re on a speeding object, we can measure our speed in relation to other objects (such as other galaxies). Though depending on the velocity of the galaxy our measurement will be different.

If you were driving a rocket ship, and you coudl see two rocketships behind you, you could meaure your speed in relation to the others. But if one is travelling faster than another, you’ll get different measurements.

Though, why is it not possible for God to create things through the Big Bang? He uses gravity to allow us to walk upon the Earth, He uses the Sun to give us night and day. Why would the Big Bang be any different?

Conall, you must be new at this. Here you are trying to explain things that have no actual explanations other than the ideas of the Copernicans since Newton. We could go on forever exchanging views. I could ask you to show me any empirical evidence where pieces of an explosion ever actually came together. I could ask you to calculate the speed of objects moving away from the centre, where the Big Bang started. You would then - if you thought of it - say, well that’s relative and the earth could be the site of the Big Bang accordingly. But then you would have become a geocentricist so you would have to make up some other scenario,

What I will ask you is (1) Do you Copernicans know what speed the earth supposedly moves at relative to the Sun (answer 70,000mph). So, do spaceships leave the earth doing 5,000mph or 75,000mph?

Conall. Do you not see what you are defending in preference to taking the word of God. If you are a Catholic do you think that God would put you into a position that anyone could say ‘I can prove you wrong.’ No He would not. So rest assured, no matter what theory or so-called proof are used to deny the Church her 1616 decree, after careful examination you can be certain they will turn out not to be real proofs after all, only plausabilities. I promise any Catholic reading this thread that has not studied the details of Copernicanism, long ages and evolutionism, all are theories that cannot prove the traditional Church wrong. God created the world by fiat as He tells us in Scripture. He was born by miracle as was the Incarnation. Its as simple as that. Do you think God would make it necessary to follow heretics like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Lyell, Huxley, Spenser, Darwin etc to understand how the world began.

Again I say, the Catholic faith is a perfect religion with an answer to everything that even little Children can learn. Why would God make it so complicated that only if you understand modern physics you can be enlightened.

The cheek of the Copernicans, infering they know more about the faith than the apostles and the Fathers. It has to be the worst heresy of all, the only heresy adopted by Rome as orthodox.

Finally Conall, the reason why I and others say the Big Bang version of the creation is unacceptable is because it denies the theology of creation and carries its poison into dogmas like Original Sin etc.

 

[thistle]

The bottom line is that the Church has no infallible teaching on scientific matters and that includes your claim about geocentricism. To try to twist it to say its not scientific but an interpretation of scripture is being ridiculous.
Show us documentary evidence that the Church has such an infallible teaching. So far nothing you have produced shows that.

 

[cassini]

The bottom line is that the Church has no infallible teaching on scientific matters and that includes your claim about geocentricism. To try to twist it to say its not scientific but an interpretation of scripture is being ridiculous.
Show us documentary evidence that the Church has such an infallible teaching. So far nothing you have produced shows that.

(Edited) Of course the Church has no infallible teaching on a matter of science, but it has on a matter of faith. I have showed you one of the greatest theologians that ever graced the Catholic Church explaining how it was a matter of faith. But you still do not see. (Edited)

 

[thistle]

(Edited) Of course the Church has no infallible teaching on a matter of science, but it has on a matter of faith. I have showed you one of the greatest theologians that ever graced the Catholic Church explaining how it was a matter of faith. But you still do not see. (Edited) .

(Edited)

Geocentricism is NOT a matter of faith. It is a matter of science. We do NOT have to believe in geocentricism. It is NOT a Church teaching!

 

[ConallCernach]

Finally Conall, the reason why I and others say the Big Bang version of the creation is unacceptable is because it denies the theology of creation and carries its poison into dogmas like Original Sin etc.

How does the Big Bang deny the theology of creation?
Is Georges Lemaître a terrible priest for the hypothesis of the primeval atom?

What about the radiation in the universe? Did God plant this to test our faith?

The Church doesn’t make infallible statements on matters of scientific discovery.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This whole idea was ruthlessly crushed on scientific, observational, and moral grounds as detrimental to the formation of faith. here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291773

it is certifiably false from scientific observation, specifically observation of other star systems with their stars at the center of the planets orbits, and from observation of space probes sent out since the dawn of the space age.

further in 1992 the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, in committee instituted by the Papal Authority as exercised by John Paul II, reported to His Holiness that a mistake had been made in the Galileo affair. 400 years ago

the statements made 400 years ago are incorrect as found by the the Pontifical commission appointed by JPII, a denial of this is a denial of the Promises of Christ to uphold His Church, and the Promise of Authority He Gave Peter, and is in practice a form of protestantism.

as this argument has repeatedly denied the authority of the modern church in favor of errors having nothing to do with matters of faith and morals, committed four hundred years ago.

to deny the churches most recent response is to deny the Promise Of Christ of Authority to the Church

to deny that promise is anti-Catholic bigotry, as it is avowed in the presence of the public here, on the forum, it maligns the credibility of the church and should be immediately repudiated as a substantive evil damaging the formation of Catholic faith among those who read these posts.

to the general public:

these are not the official positions of the Roman Catholic Faith, they are little more than conspiracy theories similar in nature to more well known crackpottery such as area 51, alien abductions, the illuminati, secret free mason world order, and the infamous black helicopters.

please take them with a grain of salt, as that is more than they deserve

 

[pnewton]

I guess this shows one reason why ever word from the mouth of every Cardinal or Saint is not granted the charism of infallibility. I deny geocentrism, yet do not deny the virgin birth. One is a matter of faith and morals; one a matter of astrophysics.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is from the tribunal ordering Gallileo to stop teaching his position publicly. I’m asking for the document of Pope Urban’s that says the teaching of a fixed sun was “immutable” as you earlier had in quotations.

“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

Again, no “immutable” in this quote. And again, this is a scolding from a tribunal, at which numerous people have told you, dogma is not defined. Should I even ask you a third time to produce the quote about the dogma of the fixed sun being “immutable”?

 

[cassini]

My but aren’t ALL the forces (bar you Luke65) on this forum now joined together to deny the Church any credibility in its handling on scriptural exegesis from 33AD to 1741. I am not surprised for research into this scandal shows the conspiracy to deny the Church its own teaching began once Churchmen lost faith in the Church’s divine guidance and preferred instead to go the route set for them by the number of Freemasons involved in the rise of Copernicanism.

Let me list some of the denials. First St Robert Bellarmine is cast as an incompetent. Here are some of St Bellarmine’s credentials:

Confident in his ability to stand and defend a heliocentric interpretation of Scripture, Foscarini came to Rome to argue the matter with Church theologians. Slowly but surely the matter was knocking on the door of Pope Paul V (1605-1621). First though, as with all such conflicts of the time, it would have to pass through the office of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Consulter of the Holy Office (Inquisition) and Master of Controversial Questions.

And who employed Bellarmine’s (useless?) expertise:
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.

Let us note also that at the time Bellarmine was writing his own book entitled De Ascensione Mentis in Deum: The Mind’s Ascent to God (by the Ladder of Created Things). In this book, completed in 1614, the cardinal devotes seven of his fifteen steps to ‘The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.’ Anyone reading these chapters would be in no doubt that the cardinal accepted as certain the physical and theological geocentricity of the universe. —See Bellarmin’s Spiritual Writings, Paulist Press, New York: Mahwah, 1989.

In early 1615, Fr Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece document of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the cardinal, chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was almost certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Cardinal Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’ —Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.

In his Letter to Foscarini Bellarmine compares the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to that of geocentricism, stating that it is a matter of faith.
‘Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

It must be pointed out that in Denzinger’s history of Catholic doctrine one can still find instructions in FORCE for proper Catholic teaching issued by the same Holy Office. But one cannot find a single word on any of its decisions on the matter of proper interpretation of Scripture from 1616 to 1835.

Now that the truth is out, that there can be no human way of determining whether the sun is fixed or not, except by divine revelation, the matter is of faith, we find a conspiracy was enacted by Churchmen and others to deny the Church its own teaching.

This denial is continued on this thread. The Holy Office has been demoted to a talk shop of deluded popes and Cardinals and Bellarmine given the reputation of a foolish man. If these opinions are true, I suggest readers search elswhere for the true faith.

 

[cassini]

Again, no “immutable” in this quote. And again, this is a scolding from a tribunal, at which numerous people have told you, dogma is not defined. Should I even ask you a third time to produce the quote about the dogma of the fixed sun being “immutable”?

"since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

If this statement, issued directly by Pope Urban through the Congregation is not a declaration of immutability, then we speak different languages.

Here’s more for others to read

   “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s letter]:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.
“And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’

 

[ConallCernach]

Quick question. Are you a sedevacanist?

 

[mich2]

First read what Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

We know all but a few have denied God’s word that the world is geocentric. We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.

But most interesting of all is that the Virgin Birth is now under a similar denial. Once one rejects one interpretation of the Fathers, one cannot guarantee any other.

There are many very good interpretations given in this thread over this passage. It seems clear that the issue involves a philosophical point of view, not a scientific one. Cardinal Bellarmine seems to point to the Creation as being “Man (humanity)centered”, the focus of scriptures being Man in relation to God. This enables Man to be made as observer over the creation and therefore puts him in the centre of everything.
Notice these words:

** We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.**

The relativistic point of view is of great importance. The earth’s movement is not influence mearly by the mass of the Sun but of the planets as well. The Sun is also subject to the planets’ mass, small as it may be, and follows a motion influenced by all of the matter in existance within the universe. This includes all of the dark matter. This makes it clear that the sun moves in a path totally unknown to us when seen relative to the universe.
Therefore, the best possible philosophical point of reference is that of the observer, that is, the geocentric one, not the heleocentric. The advantage of the heliocentric over the geocentric is to enable the orbits of the planets to be viewed as elliptical orbits and used as a scientific and mathematical tool.

Andre

 

[cassini]

This whole idea was ruthlessly crushed on scientific, observational, and moral grounds as detrimental to the formation of faith. here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291773

it is certifiably false from scientific observation, specifically observation of other star systems with their stars at the center of the planets orbits, and from observation of space probes sent out since the dawn of the space age.

further in 1992 the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, in committee instituted by the Papal Authority as exercised by John Paul II, reported to His Holiness that a mistake had been made in the Galileo affair. 400 years ago

the statements made 400 years ago are incorrect as found by the the Pontifical commission appointed by JPII, a denial of this is a denial of the Promises of Christ to uphold His Church, and the Promise of Authority He Gave Peter, and is in practice a form of protestantism.

as this argument has repeatedly denied the authority of the modern church in favor of errors having nothing to do with matters of faith and morals, committed four hundred years ago.

to deny the churches most recent response is to deny the Promise Of Christ of Authority to the Church

to deny that promise is anti-Catholic bigotry, as it is avowed in the presence of the public here, on the forum, it maligns the credibility of the church and should be immediately repudiated as a substantive evil damaging the formation of Catholic faith among those who read these posts.

to the general public:

these are not the official positions of the Roman Catholic Faith, they are little more than conspiracy theories similar in nature to more well known crackpottery such as area 51, alien abductions, the illuminati, secret free mason world order, and the infamous black helicopters.

please take them with a grain of salt, as that is more than they deserve

Hi again warp. I tried to change this thread from others by showing Bellarmine and The Church of 1616 considered the G interpretation of Scripture on the same level as the Virgin Birth. The reaction was similar to other threads discussing the ‘science’ of the matter. Thus I found out that even this did not matter, nothing can get through the Copernican heresy once described by Pope Urban VIII as ‘dangerous to the whole Catholic faith.’
Popes, Saints and institutions of the Church up to 1741 now have to be disowned by so-called Catholics today.

And above you tell us we have to rubbish their place in history because modern Churchmen say so. God how you try my Catholic patience but the rules seem to allow rubbish like above be posted but not any human reaction to them.

I told you elsewhere that St Paul advised me even if an angel of light were to appear before me and tell me to ignore the papal decree of 1616 ad a null and void piece of rubbish, not to believe him. There is your answer for all to read.

 

[ConallCernach]

I told you elsewhere that St Paul advised me even if an angel of light were to appear before me and tell me to ignore the papal decree of 1616 ad a null and void piece of rubbish, not to believe him. There is your answer for all to read.

I missed that part of the NT XD

 

[cassini]

Quick question. Are you a sedevacanist?

No. Galling isn’t it. I am a Catholic open to truth. When it began to emerge that no proof that the Church was wrong in 1616 and 1633 I was struck with joy at this long coming endorcement of the Church’s divine guidance. After 350 years of denial of this divine presence (the accusation of being wrong in 1616) I found the promise of Christ DEMONSTRATED. I thought there would be dancing in the streets of Rome at this. Alas when I studied the retreat from the 1616 decree since 1741 I found there could be no return to truth in this matter because of what Churchmen has done to PROMOTE the heresy in the years since.

The Devil has won this battle but not the war.

 

[ConallCernach]

No. Galling isn’t it. I am a Catholic open to truth. When it began to emerge that no proof that the Church was wrong in 1616 and 1633 I was struck with joy at this long coming endorcement of the Church’s divine guidance. After 350 years of denial of this divine presence (the accusation of being wrong in 1616) I found the promise of Christ DEMONSTRATED. I thought there would be dancing in the streets of Rome at this. Alas when I studied the retreat from the 1616 decree since 1741 I found there could be no return to truth in this matter because of what Churchmen has done to PROMOTE the heresy in the years since.

The Devil has won this battle but not the war.

So your opinions of Benedict XVI’s statement about how the battle between Creationism and evolution is an absurdity? Or that he believes in the process of evolution?

 

[cassini]

There are many very good interpretations given in this thread over this passage. It seems clear that the issue involves a philosophical point of view, not a scientific one. Cardinal Bellarmine seems to point to the Creation as being “Man (humanity)centered”, the focus of scriptures being Man in relation to God. This enables Man to be made as observer over the creation and therefore puts him in the centre of everything.
Notice these words:

** We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.**

The relativistic point of view is of great importance. The earth’s movement is not influence mearly by the mass of the Sun but of the planets as well. The Sun is also subject to the planets’ mass, small as it may be, and follows a motion influenced by all of the matter in existance within the universe. This includes all of the dark matter. This makes it clear that the sun moves in a path totally unknown to us when seen relative to the universe.
Therefore, the best possible philosophical point of reference is that of the observer, that is, the geocentric one, not the heleocentric. The advantage of the heliocentric over the geocentric is to enable the orbits of the planets to be viewed as elliptical orbits and used as a scientific and mathematical tool.

Andre

Mitch2. Thanks for the above. A few points. God created man on the earth. For us the world is geocentric. Why in God’s name would anyone want to deny this reality? Well G is God centred as the doctrine shows. G has to be a created world. H is not God centred and can have a material explanation. Agnostics and atheists need a H formula. The Devil needed to purge the God-only G reality out of the minds of man. the Devil cannot change what we see so he gets our mind to change what we see. That was the whole purpose behind the Copernican Revolution, a revolution against God.

There is no point in trying to explain anything using H physics and theory. G is not subject to their physics but relies on God’s physics. Pope Urban VIII said this as far back as 1632. I do not adhere to Kepler, Newton and Einstein’s physics and theories for H. I will stay with the Catholic astronomer Domenico Cassini and what he found. Such detail would be wasted on the disbelievers on this thread. They would deny their own fathers’ heights if it meant protecting their belief system.

 

[ConallCernach]

Mitch2. Thanks for the above. A few points. God created man on the earth. For us the world is geocentric. Why in God’s name would anyone want to deny this reality? Well G is God centred as the doctrine shows. G has to be a created world. H is not God centred and can have a material explanation. Agnostics and atheists need a H formula. The Devil needed to purge the God-only G reality out of the minds of man. the Devil cannot change what we see so he gets our mind to change what we see. That was the whole purpose behind the Copernican Revolution, a revolution against God.

There is no point in trying to explain anything using H physics and theory. G is not subject to their physics but relies on God’s physics. Pope Urban VIII said this as far back as 1632. I do not adhere to Kepler, Newton and Einstein’s physics and theories for H. I will stay with the Catholic astronomer Domenico Cassini and what he found. Such detail would be wasted on the disbelievers on this thread. They would deny their own fathers’ heights if it meant protecting their belief system.

So why does having the sun at the centre of the solar system stop us from focusing on God? Once again, that’s like saying gravity is an infringement of God holding us to the earth Himself. God uses gravity to hold us on earth, just like He can use a sun centred solar system to provide us light and warmth.

If I were mistaken about my father’s height, and was showed to be wrong through measuring, then I would have to admit that I was mistaken about my father’s height.