G
goofyjim
Guest
Very cute. The Wacky World News.
- Status
T
trth_skr
Guest
And it is the Church that decides what is to be taken literally, and what is not, not you (nor I), unless it is unstated (in which case we are free to speculate with an informed concience).
The Church has said fairly definitively that (from Parts III and IV of Geocentricity 101 on my blog, and in Galileo Was Wrong ):
24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:
( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy (i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith".
This was first stated in 1616, but repeated multiple times under different conditions, including in a papal bull (with different wording, but the same idea), with very authoritative language.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
G
goofyjim
Guest
Well then brand me as a heretic and burn me at the stake. I have read the Bible many times and never once saw any reference to the sun going around the earth. They didn’t know. Just as when they wrote it they didn’t know about the Immaculate Conception. But it was revealed to us by God and the Blessed Mother. Some things about the nature of the universe God reveals to us through scientific discovery.
Objects of smaller mass(earth) gravitate around objects of larger mass(sun). These are facts. Noone is trying to disprove the existence of God or morality in Scripture. They do not contradict faith in God.
B
BradW
Guest
Actually, that’s not quite the fact. Both objects revolve around a common point on a line between their two centers of gravity.
Can I ask one question, before reading the book? Does Surgenis’ model allow the Earth to rotate at the center of a mostly stationary universe? Or is it totally immobile, with everything else whipping around it like a merry-go-round?
Linear motion is all relative, but rotational motion is not.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Thank you for the clarification. I’m no expert. I just remember some things I learned in school. Yet it is still more likely that the earth goes around the sun than the sun going around the earth. Your explanation of course would also lead to the idea of our solar system going around some other centrifugal area and this continues until such time as one hits the dead center of the universe. All this constant motion explains the passage of time for us and why nothing is ever repeated in exactly the same way(position of the stars for instance).
T
trth_skr
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t keep up with the news magazines. Guess I must have missed those issues.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Mark,
The tabloids are cute but my faith does not rely on them. I do not and will not take a fundamentalist approach towards things. It is perfectly within reason to accept science as long as it does not contradict faith and morals. This is the case when it applies to how the sun and planets move. As I said before I have read the Bible, 70 times in fact, and never once saw any statement saying the earth was the center of the whole universe, or even the sun for that matter. It was one of those things that frightened the Church at the time. It doesn’t now. They are not afraid of continuing scientific discoveries in this area.
The tabloids are cute but my faith does not rely on them. I do not and will not take a fundamentalist approach towards things. It is perfectly within reason to accept science as long as it does not contradict faith and morals. This is the case when it applies to how the sun and planets move. As I said before I have read the Bible, 70 times in fact, and never once saw any statement saying the earth was the center of the whole universe, or even the sun for that matter. It was one of those things that frightened the Church at the time. It doesn’t now. They are not afraid of continuing scientific discoveries in this area.
H
hecd2
Guest
Sungenis/Bennett and their uncritical acolyte Mark claim the latter.
Just so, dealt with here:
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm
Basically Sungenis is a scientific illiterate (actually, he goes further than that - he actively despises science), and Bennett who has a real science education and should know better, demonstrates over and over again that he does not understand the basic astrophysical principles that he pontificates about. As for Mark, his ignorance of science in general and astrophysics in particular is astonishing in someone who seems to think that holding to one or other physical hypothesis is critical to salvation.
Alec
T
trth_skr
Guest
Here is what St. Cardinal Bellarmine had to say:
“…Second, I say that, as you know, the
Council prohibits interpreting Scripture
against the common consensus of the Holy
Fathers; and if Your Reverence wants to
read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the
modern commentaries on Genesis, the
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will
find all agreeing in the literal interpretation
that the sun is in heaven and turns around
the earth with great speed, and that the
earth is very far from heaven and sits
motionless at the center of the world.
Consider now, with your sense of
prudence, whether the Church can tolerate
giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the
Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin
commentators.”
As far as science advancing- this has nothing to do with geocenrtism vs. heliocentrism. Science can advance under either system, and neither has been demonstrated scientifically the correct one.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
G
goofyjim
Guest
I refuse to argue with a point that has no basis in fact. The Church has consistently stated that the Bible is not supposed to be document of scientific knowledge. It provides the groundwork for faith and morals. And sometimes even Saints can be incorrect. St. Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic after she thought she shouldn’t be afraid of what had already happened to her. The vision she had meant instead not to be afraid of the future sufferings. If you, Mark, want to bring the Grand Inquisitor to challenge me I will accept it but I understand the Church is not investigating this as heresy anymore.
B
buffalo
Guest
Refute the issue with the common courtesy. Many of your posts resort to bashing the person causing a loss of respect. You do a disservice in your replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a mistake to conclude that God’s transmission of truth does not contain science. The science requires correct interpretation by humans who are quite limited and restricted by 5 senses and 4 dimensions.
Is the Bible a scientific textbook? No, it doesn’t delve quite that deeply. However, there are places where there is an intersect.
(I am not going to argue the following link - only provided as an example)
Science and the Bible
T
trth_skr
Guest
Jim:
That was a pretty goofy thing to say.
No one is calling an inquisition. This is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss things- I thought that is what we were doing.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
G
goofyjim
Guest
Showing that the earth goes around the sun should not shake anyone’s faith. They didn’t have the technology for space travel and what have you to know the difference. While the moral code is correct some of the statements of science in the Bible could be considered primitive to today’s standards. We must not take everything so literally. After all, there are two creation stories in Genesis. That should be proof enough right there.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Well you do make it sound like a papal bull is still in effect that forbids anyone to accept today’s scientific findings. That to me sounds you are calling it heresy which would bring in the Inquisitors.Jim:
That was a pretty goofy thing to say.
No one is calling an inquisition. This is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss things- I thought that is what we were doing.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
Actually that’s my question too.
I remember reading somewhere about Surgenis and what he had to say made sense until I got to what I think was heliocentrism? Then I gave up.
T
trth_skr
Guest
:yawn: yawn…
synopsis:
- The first 50+% deals with the “Newtonian View”, i.e., static space as a reference frame. Of course geocenrtism will not work. The big bang theory would not work in the Newtonian system either (BB needs expansion amongst other things).
- Switch to the relativistic view, but don’t mention that all those juicy points in the Newtionian view no longer apply. Make philosophical arguments why geocentrism does not make sense in the [FRWW, isotropic, homogeneous, redhsift = expansion, i.e., establishment preferred set of assumptions] relativistic view.
Bulldog for the establishment preferred set of assumptions applied to our observations.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
T
trth_skr
Guest
Sungenis’ book does teach geostaionism, since this is what Scripture teaches, what the fathers held, and what the popes upheld. In fact the centrality issue is actually less important than the geostationary issue.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status