Geocentric Universe?

[j1akey]

buffalo:

Faith is everything. It is a choice and commitment, so when people make it they are in all the way.

This statement really got my attention. When you say faith is everything, how far does that go? Is faith the most important thing in your life? How about family? Is it so important that people are unwilling or unable to question their religion or the people who govern it? Does it extend to the health of loved ones? Do you pray for a cure or treatment to an illness rather than seeking a medical professional? I’m not really going anywhere with this except just curiosity because these questions have been on my mind for a while.

You basically say that faith is all or nothing. Why is this? If one thing is false then is everything false? Not that I think any of it is true but I’m trying to get my head around this line of thinking. It seems as if faith prevents people from thinking about anything that may be a threat to that faith for fear of losing it.

The issue is reconciling what we observe and interpret with Revelation (what we were told). The points of intersect must be resolved. It will in time as faith and reason cannot be opposed.

I honestly don’t see how faith and reason can’t be opposed. Faith by it’s very meaning is to believe something without something that doesn’t necessarily have anything to back it up, which is unreasonable.

You must admit that methodological naturalism is an attempt to undermine Revelation.

Actually no, I don’t. When you say methodological naturalism I’m going to assume you’re talking about science in general here. If science is such an affront to Revelation then you should stop using all the devices that have been invented over the last hundred or couple hundred years or so becuase everything you have today came from science. I really don’t see why there is a conflict in the first place. Science doesn’t create the conflict. Science finds or discovers something and religion instantly reacts as if it’s an affront to long held beliefs.

I don’t see why religion is so special that it requires this wall of protection around it and for all intents and purposes make itself off limits to argument or question. All kinds of crazy people attack science because many discoveries oppose that which is found in any given religious text and no one makes a big deal out of it becuase people claim religious freedom. While at the same time if anyone says anything bad about religion then they’re suddenly anti-catholic or anti-christian or they’re waging full on war on the church and every cries about the “war on christianity”. It’s completely rediculous.

As for the NCSE I’m not sure what you mean when you say they’re trying to reconcile science and religion since there isn’t anything to reconcile. Either you believe in god or you don’t. Neither stance has any effect on whether or not science is true or not or you ability to look at the evidence that comes with science.

 

[tjm190]

Sonny, In its proper context my post makes perfect logic.

As for your use of maths, well 2+2=4 works every time for me.

Your post completely fails logic wise. The very same physics used to make sure a roller coaster doesn’t fall off the tracks or an airplane doesn’t drop out of the sky mandate the Earth’s revolution about the Sun.
Also- does the Earth rotate in geocentric theory?

 

[pickguard1]

It is good to discuss this topic with you. Thank you.

Likewise, thank you

Regarding the above, there is authority and there is authority as masaterjejdi747 describes. Historically, the Church has applied infallibility to truths in keeping with its mission of preserving Divine Revelation regarding faith and morals as contained in its Deposit of Faith.

One of the places the Church has always held itself to be infallible is in the interpretation of scripture.

Pardon me, but I see that we differ on the charism of infallibility.

I don’t think that we necessarily do.

The charism applies to the Deposit of Faith not to methods of interpreting Scripture at different points in history. The Deposit of Faith is infallible which means it can’t be interpreted in a different way in the light of new scientific theory or discovery. Divine Revelation trumps.

I didn’t mean it that way, if that’s how it came across. All I meant was that the fact that there are several “senses” in which scripture can be interpreted doesn’t mean that any given passage can only be subject to one sense period. I contend (I guess possibly incorrectly) that multiple senses of interpretation can be applied to a single passage bringing forth a fuller understanding of the multiple ways it develops the faith. I’m struggling with an exact example, but I hope you understand the point I’m trying to make.

It all depends on what you mean by it in “got it wrong” between the 1600’s and now. What is being generated by the various extremes is not necessarily fear. Rather, some of the extremism is being viewed as an attempt to discredit the current Catholic Church regarding its authority to teach Divine Revelation. The extreme case would be attacks on the current Catholic Church because of its heresy promoted by Copernicans. Part of this appears in post 598 and other posts/threads.

What I mean here was cassini’s “if/then” assertion about the church of the 1600’s…i.e. “if the got it wrong then the whole thing’s a sham” argument. I don’t think the dicussion even needs to go down that road, since of course, from a Catholic point of view, the infallible magisterium of the Church can’t “get it wrong.”

Of course, this whole thing REALLY hinges on cassini’s assertion that the decree amounted to an infallible and binding document. I think that holding it to be infallible logically would lead someone to cassini’s position, from which he is forced to jump through hoops to explain how the Church is still the Church and the whole thing (Christianity/the Catholic Church) ISN’T a sham. Whereas holding that it didn’t meet the requirements of infallibility requires no such explanation for how the Church can allow this so-called “Copernican heresy” to exist - namely because it isn’t.

(note to cassini - I am in no way saying you’re wrong or right - I have yet to figure it out myself - I’m just hashing out what I think the issues are on both sides. )

There is contradicting and contradicting. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding concerns how the Church handles both contradictings.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here.

 

[pickguard1]

Off for the weekend, hopefully there won’t be TOO many new posts here when I get back Monday - otherwise I’ll have a lot of catching up to do!

God bless all!

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by buffalo
Faith is everything. It is a choice and commitment, so when people make it they are in all the way.

This statement really got my attention.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I guess there are a good dozen or so Geocentrism threads in apologetics. They generally go nowhere and end in lack of charity. This one was a fine example so I closed it before it got any worse and ends on an up note.