Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[Rick09]

David was being crafty, but I never accused him of being a liar and deceiver or a betrayer. Being crafty means that you are prepared to use sly and inappropriate techniques in order to get one’s agenda put forward. – Excubitor

I see. Well, that’s a rather crafty answer there, excubitor. You called Palm “crafty”, but you didn’t accuse him of being a deceiver or betrayer, you only meant that he was merely being “sly” and willing to use “inappropriate techniques” in order to put his “agenda” forward. And, well, his “agenda” just happens to be sweeping under the rug a little thing called Sacred Tradition. That’s all.

You’re not exactly helping yourself with that “explanation.” I ask this seriously - is English your first language? Because either you’re rather ignorant of the English language or you believe the people here at the CAF are ignorant of it.

Definitions

Sly:

1. Having or showing a cunning and deceitful nature
2. Marked by skill in deception

Here:

Crafty:

1. Skilled in or marked by underhandedness, deviousness, deception.
2. Skilled in deception…
3. Marked by skill in deception

Here

And when you now say that Palm is “prepared to use” deception, you imply his full knowledge and free will intention to deceive - thereby accusing him of sin. Combine that with the fact that we’re talking about something as grave and serious as Sacred Tradition and you’ve effectively accused him of mortal sin. :tsktsk: Nicely done.

At least you were candid enough to admit that you did mean to accuse Palm of being “disgraceful”, paying “lip service to Sacred Tradition”, “portraying a disgraceful…attitude”, “quite happy to sweep away Sacred Tradition.” That’s fine, to you. But suggesting that true believers in geocentrism tend to be overly suspicious and paranoid is really naughty.

When I was reading [your comment] I had trouble determining whether you were being serious or whether you were using satire. – Excubitor

Exactly. And the fact that you thought my silly, paranoid and extreme comment was both serious and reasonable says something about the way you look at the world.

Take a look at how paranoid and silly that comment was again – here.

It’s telling that you thought it was serious and reasonable.

Now you seek to portray Geocentrists as madmen and maniacs. – Excubitor

As your responses become even less coherent and reasonable, I’m becoming tempted to reply, “if the tinfoil hat fits….” but your characterization of what I wrote at that time isn’t quite right and you’d know that if you slowed down and read more carefully.

Immediately before the lengthy quote of Chesterton, I wrote: “Geocentrists aren’t generally dumb and I don’t believe they’re complete lunatics either. But they do generally suffer from an unhealthy, overly negative imagination and paranoid world-view that leads them to adopt faulty assumptions and first-premises that in turn naturally lead them to silly conclusions.”

That being said, I think there’s more than sufficient applicability of Chesterton’s statements to geocentrists in general.

“I am not mad.” – Excubitor

Just a suggestion? It’s not usually a good idea to make that kind of denial. It’s a bit too much like Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” statement. Even if it’s true, it just makes people wonder all the more.

“Again, more rhetoric” – Excubitor

In all seriousness, is English your first language? If it isn’t, then I don’t want to be unfair to you. But your use of the word “rhetoric” here and other places suggests you believe there’s something intrinsically insulting or negative about it.

Definition of “rhetoric”: the art of speaking or writing effectively

Here

So, you might consider working on your own rhetorical skills if you seriously want to convince anyone here at the CAF of something as… shall we say, “unusual” as geocentrism.

By the way, when searching the 'net today, I came across this statement by geocentrism’s leading man that others have picked up on. It would be a good idea if you, Sungenis, Salza and the other geocentrists would stick to it:

Let me also speak about the issue of geocentrism. As you know, I have recently published a book with my co-author, Dr. Robert Bennett, titled, Galileo Was Wrong. CAI will continue to promote and sell this book. In our promotion, however, we will avoid all implications that Catholics are required, by force of Catholic dogma, to hold the geocentric position (something we did not make clear previously)…If you can’t accept it, then, if I can impose on you, just consider it Robert Sungenis’ quirk and that will be fine with me. I know this issue is much too shocking and controversial at present for me to expect many people to consider what I have to say." – Robert Sungenis, Here

He’s right. Geocentrism is quirky, shocking and controversial and that’s why people understandably won’t give it the time of day. Catholics are free to believe it or not believe it.

Still, go right on with your geocentric crusade, excubitor. As I wrote before, I’m sure you’ll have an “answer”. Conspiracy theorists always do.

 

[excubitor]

Definitions

Sly:

1. Having or showing a cunning and deceitful nature
2. Marked by skill in deception

Here:

Crafty:

1. Skilled in or marked by underhandedness, deviousness, deception.
2. Skilled in deception…
3. Marked by skill in deception

Alright, seeing you have picked me up on the English definition I will concede that David Palm has used a sly, crafty tactic which by strict dictionary definition is deceitful, to sweep away the Sacred Tradition of geocentric citations from church fathers. However this observation is not enough for me to conclude, let alone state, that David is by nature a deceiver or traitor of the faith, or any of the other adjectives and superlatives that you have accused me wrongfully of uttering.

 

[excubitor]

Here we have a classic example of the scientific content of modern geocentrism. Zero.

You ask for evidence and then dismiss it with a handwave. Again, you show the complete scientific bankruptcy of geocentrism. If the evidence is wrong then show us why it is wrong. If it is irrelevant then show us why it is irrelevant.

Is it perhaps that you cannot explain what happens to the centre of the universe when the Earth moves in an earthquake or in continental drift?

If you want some non-optical astronomical evidence, then the relative masses of the Sun and the Earth are enough to kill geocentrism. What force is keeping the Sun in its orbit around the Earth?

rossum

Please explain how continental drift is evidence that the earth is moving through the universe.

 

[rossum]

Please explain how continental drift is evidence that the earth is moving through the universe.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the sound of the goalposts being moved. Refer if you will back to post #263 where we find excubitor’s original question:

:sigh: Oh dear.

Please, anyone else?. Can we have some non-optical evidence than the earth is moving.

Observe if you please how the question has now changed. What used to read, “evidence than[sic] the earth is moving.” has now magically become “evidence that the earth is moving through the universe.” (emphasis added)

It seem obvious that excubitor has no answer to my original reply, either part of it. He attempts to avoid my correctly pointing out earthquakes and continental drift by changing his question after the event. That is an admission of his failure to have any reasonable answer to my point about the impact movements here on Earth have on the centre of the universe.

You will also notice that he used my failure to answer the question he didn’t ask to completely ignore my second point about the relative masses of the Earth and Sun.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the complete failure of geocentrism as science. Unable to answer questions, its only response is to move the goalposts by changing the question after it has been answered and to ignore half the answer anyway.

So, to repeat myself and to give excubitor a chance to answer:

1 What happens to the centre of the universe when parts of the Earth move relative to one another?

2 What force is keeping the massive Sun in its orbit around the tiny Earth?

This time please answer the questions rather than trying, and failing, to avoid them.

rossum

 

[Prophesy]

:sigh: Oh dear.

Please, anyone else?. Can we have some non-optical evidence than the earth is moving.

Earthquakes. The recent earthquake in moved part of the Earth 20m with respect to another part. The Earth is not static.

That would be non-optic evidence, as well as the closing of distances between the Earth and the moon following a large earthquake (on the matter of minor changes in distance, but changes none the less). If the distance between the Earth and the moon are changed following a large earthquake, it would be the earth moving, rather than the moon moving as a result.

 

[Rick09]

To Rossum, Palm, Granny and Moritz:

Had you seen this statement by Robert Sungenis, the lead protagonist in the geocentric micro-drama?

Let me also speak about the issue of geocentrism. As you know, I have recently published a book with my co-author, Dr. Robert Bennett, titled, Galileo Was Wrong. CAI will continue to promote and sell this book. In our promotion, however, we will avoid all implications that Catholics are required, by force of Catholic dogma, to hold the geocentric position (something we did not make clear previously)…If you can’t accept it, then, if I can impose on you, just consider it Robert Sungenis’ quirk and that will be fine with me. I know this issue is much too shocking and controversial at present for me to expect many people to consider what I have to say. – Robert Sungenis in 2006, Here

I agree with Sungenis back in 2006. Don’t you? Geocentrism is shocking and pretty “out there” and that’s exactly why people understandably don’t give it the time of day. And Sungenis was “fine” with that. According to the geocentrist leader himself, Catholics aren’t required by the Catholic Church to believe geocentrism.

If only all the geocentric crusaders believed that and acted accordingly, it might at least make them more bearable. Unfortunately, they often behave like newly converted, self-righteous Fundamentalists who want to brow-beat us into believing that we’re going to hell if we don’t accept that the universe revolves around a stationary earth.

Too bad Sungenis himself is reportedly out and about now basically saying that you’re an atheist if you’re not a geocentrist. Here I guess when he told people they could ignore him and geocentrism with his blessing, they took him up on the offer. I suppose he eventually realized that only the threat of hell-fire could get a person to listen to him again and to shell out almost a hundred bucks to read two volumes of this stuff.

 

[Rick09]

To Rossum, Palm, Granny and Moritz:

Had you seen this statement by Robert Sungenis, the leader of the geocentrists?

Let me also speak about the issue of geocentrism. As you know, I have recently published a book with my co-author, Dr. Robert Bennett, titled, Galileo Was Wrong. CAI will continue to promote and sell this book. In our promotion, however, we will avoid all implications that Catholics are required, by force of Catholic dogma, to hold the geocentric position (something we did not make clear previously)…If you can’t accept it, then, if I can impose on you, just consider it Robert Sungenis’ quirk and that will be fine with me. I know this issue is much too shocking and controversial at present for me to expect many people to consider what I have to say. – Robert Sungenis in 2006, Here

I agree with Sungenis back in 2006. Don’t you? Geocentrism is shocking and pretty “out there” and that’s exactly why people understandably don’t give it the time of day. And Sungenis was “fine” with that. According to the geocentrist leader himself, Catholics aren’t required by the Catholic Church to believe geocentrism.

If only all the geocentrists believed that and acted accordingly, it might at least make them more bearable. Unfortunately, they often behave like newly converted, self-righteous Fundamentalists who want to brow-beat us into believing that we’re going to hell if we don’t accept that the universe revolves around a stationary earth.

Too bad Sungenis has changed his tune now is reportedly out and about basically saying that you’re an atheist if you’re not a geocentrist. Here I guess when he told people they could ignore him and geocentrism with his blessing, they took him up on the offer. He probably realized eventually that only the threat of hell-fire could get anyone to listen to him again and to shell out almost a hundred bucks to read two unbelievably long volumes of this stuff.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is done so that the moderators will close down the thread. I have seen this time and again. Cassini, poor man, was driven to utter distraction by the mockers who would twist his words and manipulate the argument. In the end he reacted with frustration and sadly has been banned from the forum.

I always wondered what had happened to Cassini. I thought he just got tired of pretending to defend geocentrism.

 

[DavidPalm]

Wow, there has been a lot of water under the bridge while I was away. I have laid out some scientific arguments above and I think they’ve basically been swept under the rug. But to me the doctrinal issue is really the most important, since it can potentially do the most damage by confusing Catholics.

On the one hand excubitor seems not to consider this a matter of faith, in that he is not looking to condemn or break communion over it. But unfortunately there is an equivocation in that he pretty clearly thinks this was taught dogmatically. Consider these tragic statements:

We had a fellow here called Cassini. He and I both repeatedly gave scores of the most incontrovertible and dogmatic statements by a great multitude of Popes, church fathers, Offices of the Holy See which explicitly state that Heliocentrism is a blatant heresy, absurd and philosophically false, and injurious to the faith. And yet it does not matter how many such statements are produced, the Grannymh’s of the world still say that there is no declarative statement of the church of this fact. Sungenis has produced an entire volume of 400 pages which lists all of these statements. In fact if the church has not dogmatically declared the heresy of heliocentrism then she has not dogmatically declared anything.

I have laid out in detail elsewhere (link and link) why that is all a ridiculous exaggeration. Here I would like to focus on why it’s a particularly dangerous exaggeration.

I want everyone to notice the crafty tactic that David is using here. He wants to discount what the early church fathers stated in their writings by expecting them to preface everything that they stated with “Now I am speaking about a matter of de fide” or “Now i am talking about natural philosophy”

excubitor has accused me of deploying crafty arguments to try and skirt what he considers to be a doctrine of the Church and a clear teaching of Tradition. On the contrary, I am following the lead of the Holy See and how the Church herself views these matters.

First, consider yet again that the Popes have made it clear that the Holy Spirit “did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science” (Providentissimus Deus 18, cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu 3). excubitor’s buddy “Cassini” agreed with what is obvious, namely, that geocentrism was the primary example covered in this part of the encyclical: “.” Indeed.

With his position openly undermined by a papal encyclical, not too surprisingly “Cassini” chalks up that part of the encyclical to a Masonic plot: “We think it may have been written by Cardinal Campolla a Freemason . . . “

Ahem….

[to be continued…]

 

[DavidPalm]

In that same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII teaches that the dictum of Trent and Vatican I concerning the unanimous consent of the Fathers pertains to matters of faith and morals (section 14). If the Holy Spirit did not even put details of the physical universe into sacred Scripture, then those details certainly cannot be a matter of faith and morals. And therefore, even if the the Fathers were unanimous on a matter of natural philosophy, it would not bind as Catholic doctrine. Their testimony is binding on matters of faith and morals.

I am not just manufacturing this distinction.

Fr. William A. Most, theology professor at the Notre Dame Apostolic Catechetical Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, draws attention to two separate items. First of all, he claims, there are at least three conditions that need to be filled before one can claim something in the Patristic writings is authoritative. First, the Fathers must be nearly unanimous on the subject in question at least one time in history. Second, they must admit to be relating something they themselves have received from the beginning; that is, from Christ and the Apostles. Finally, the Church must check the proposed finding against the entire deposit of faith, of which she is the custodian and judge (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15, 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14) (ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm).

And here is Fr. Ludwig Ott, focusing more specifically on matters of natural philosophy:

The data [in sacred Scripture] inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger the faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 92.)

Even Sungenis seems to understand this principle and indeed pushes it even further (at least when it comes to dismissing doctrines about The Jews that he doesn’t like):

It is the divine origin of a particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medievals or theologians and prelates of today (Enoch and Elijah, p. 3).

[N]ot one of the [patristic] witnesses ever provide exegesis of the passages, nor cited early patristic support for their interpretation, nor showed that the apostolic tradition demanded their interpretation." (“Intense Dialogue” – Question).

. . . no Catholic is under any compulsion whatsoever to abide by whatever was predicted about Israel among even a majority of patristic writers … even if the Fathers are in consensus on a given topic, we are still permitted to add information that has been gleaned from fresh studies of Scripture (Never Revoked, p. 12).

He tends not to apply those same principles to his pet topic, geocentrism.

As I have pointed out elsewhere here on CAF, the Holy See has given every possible indication that this is not a matter of faith.

[to be continued…]

 

[DavidPalm]

As I said in another thread to “Cassini”:

. . . what does siding with the pronouncements against Galileo do? For almost three hundred years now, not one word has been said by any bishop or any Pope in condemnation of this “formal heresy”. This includes even the sainted Pius X and the beatified Pius IX and John XXIII. More than that, this “formal heresy” has been openly taught in Catholic grade schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and pontifical institutions. This “formal heresy” has been presented as established fact in numerous articles and books written by Catholics and for Catholics, many of which bear the Church’s imprimatur and nihil obstat. It is believed by the vast majority of the Catholics of the world—that includes the world’s bishops and priests, not to mention the Pope. The Magisterium has given the faithful not one hint that there is any problem whatsoever in believing this “formal heresy”, let alone actively and repeatedly warn them away from it. . . . . Now there are very good reasons not to hold that the motion of the earth is a “formal heresy”. But the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is without a doubt a dogma of the faith. I see no way your position can be held in light of that dogma and thus, to be blunt, it seems to me that it is you who are flirting with heresy.

The Holy Office even issued positive permission for non-geocentric views to be presented as fact in the Church and this was approved by the Pope.

11 September 1822 The Congregation of the Holy Office decides to allow in general the publication of books treating of the earth’s motion in accordance with modern astronomy. . . .

25 September 1822 Pope Pius VII ratifies this decision. . . . (from Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p. 307)

So the neo-geocentrists would seem to be snuggling close to, if not already in bed with, a proposition that actually was declared heretical. From the first proposition of the bull Auctorem Fidei (my emphasis):

Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]

1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”—heretical.

excubitor’s view is that “if the church has not dogmatically declared the heresy of heliocentrism then she has not dogmatically declared anything”. It’s a nonsensical statement in light of the facts (please see this and this), but it would appear that to him this is definitely one of “the more important truths” taught by the Church. It would appear that Sungenis thinks so too, given Rick09’s post above.

Another neo-geocentrist “johnmartin” tried to cover for this by asserting over on Dave Armstrong’s blog that all sorts of doctrines were now obscured in the Church. Strange how in every instance he cited, we find those things still explicitly taught:

The Church does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith. She never has. On the contrary, she has given us the direct principle—taught by the great Doctors Augustine and Thomas—that on matters of scientific inquiry, on “how the heavens go”, we are free to pursue these matters and come to varying conclusions. THAT is the teaching of the Church, as has been demonstrated here.

You admit that the Church has stopped teaching geocentrism as a part of the Faith. Good, I’m glad you admit that openly. Now, let’s look at the specific instances you cited. Let’s ask ourselves, has the Church stopped teaching THOSE things as part of the Faith?

• The evil of contraception. Still explicitly taught.
• The indissolubility of marriage. Still explicitly taught.
• The nature of and need for the Sacrament of Confession. Still explicitly taught.
• The grave sin of homosexual behavior. Still explicitly taught.
• Scriptural inerrancy. Still explicitly taught.
• The Virgin Birth. Still explicitly taught.
• The establishment of the Sacrament of Holy Orders by Christ Himself. Still explicitly taught.

*** Geocentrism. Not taught. Not even implicitly. Not only not taught, but every indication given that this is no part of the deposit of Faith, that Catholics are perfectly free to hold divergent views.

How do these neo-geocentrists harmonize their view with the actual dogma of the Catholic Faith, the indefectibility of the Church? How do they account for Pope after Pope allowing and indeed openly promoting views to be spread throughout the Church which they claim are contrary to a declared dogma? If this is not an “obscuring” of important truths of our faith, what would you call it?

So who is really flirting with heresy and undermining the Faith?

 

[excubitor]

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear in the background is the sound of the goalposts being moved. Refer if you will back to post #263 where we find excubitor’s original question:
Observe if you please how the question has now changed. What used to read, “evidence than[sic] the earth is moving.” has now magically become “evidence that the earth is moving through the universe.” (emphasis added)

No. I asked two questions, neither of which have been answered. Please provide evidence that the earth is moving, and please provide evidence that the earth is moving through the universe. Actually these are the same question, framed slightly differently.

It seem obvious that excubitor has no answer to my original reply, either part of it.

Your argument is banal and I am struggling to understand how you think it is relevant to the debate. Which is why I asked to clarify how you believed that continental drift provides evidence that the earth is moving. I have never heard this advanced as an evidence for the earth moving, for the simple reason (which is obvious to me and most people) that it has no bearing on the argument whatsoever.

I He attempts to avoid my correctly pointing out earthquakes and continental drift by changing his question after the event. That is an admission of his failure to have any reasonable answer to my point about the impact movements here on Earth have on the centre of the universe.

The centre of the earth is not moving, therefore the centre of the universe is not moving. How you can regard this clear statement as being in any way threatened by continental shift is beyond me. Parts of the earth might move. In fact the earth might even shake upon its foundation, but that is not the same thing as saying that the earth is rotating or orbitting the sun.

IYou will also notice that he used my failure to answer the question he didn’t ask to completely ignore my second point about the relative masses of the Earth and Sun.

I have no need or desire to avoid any issue or any point. I simply lacked time to answer every single point which is raised. The problem that you are getting into is that you are attempting to explain the How before you accept the What. Let me give an illustration. Primitive man would not have understood the chemical reactions that occur in fire which transfer wood into heat, light and ash. (In fact I doubt we fully understand them today). Did this stop them cooking their food on it? No. They understood what fire can do. How it does it is a quite separate question.

In the same way, the fact that the sun orbits the earth is quite clear and plainly observed, but we do not know how this happens. I know that there are various theories about gravity and mass, but again these are just theories. Today, the notion of the electric universe, also called plasma cosmology, is threatening to turn the conventional gravitational model on its head. Sungenis I know supports the conventional model and argues that the earth is at the centre of the mass of the universe and that all the motions of the universe offset the mass of the sun so that the earth is at the very centre of gravitational mass of the universe. I hope you will read his book because I doubt that I have given a full and adequate explanation of his theory. I don’t agree with him incidentally. I believe that it is a supernatural force which holds the earth in place upon its foundation. I also believe that gravity is a supernatural force and that the motions of all the planets follow a uniform path through the heavens is made possible by a supernatural force.

I know that many people will ridicule me, but what if this is true? What if gravity really is a daily miracle? Will science ever find or discover such a truth, if it so happens to be true? No because Science is utterly outside the realm of the supernatural and can never come to know the things of God.

So remember Rossum. You first have to be clear on what actually happens, before you start trying to understand how it happens. Would you wait till you could understand the chemical reactions of fire before you used it to cook your food? Of course not. So before we try to understand mysteries, let’s accept what is plainly observed and plainly taught in the scriptures and in the Sacred Tradition of the church.

IThere you have it ladies and gentlemen, the complete failure of geocentrism as science. Unable to answer questions, its only response is to move the goalposts by changing the question after it has been answered and to ignore half the answer anyway.

So, to repeat myself and to give excubitor a chance to answer:

1 What happens to the centre of the universe when parts of the Earth move relative to one another?

2 What force is keeping the massive Sun in its orbit around the tiny Earth?

This time please answer the questions rather than trying, and failing, to avoid them.

rossum

I hope the entire science of geocentrism does not hang upon the capabilities of one geocentrist of dubious ability on one obscure forum on the Internet. I hope also that geocentrism is not rejected out of hand because of the powerful (or otherwise) arguments of one rossum.

Please open your minds and look into this a bit more carefully. Try to get through the barrage or rhetoric and ridicule of my opponents. This is a very important issue because the reputation of the scriptures and the church took an absolute hammering over this issue over the last 200- 300 years.

 

[grannymh]

Please open your minds and look into this a bit more carefully. Try to get through the barrage or rhetoric and ridicule of my opponents. This is a very important issue because the reputation of the scriptures and the church took an absolute hammering over this issue over the last 200- 300 years.

Please stick to the issue of science.

 

[rossum]

No. I asked two questions, neither of which have been answered. Please provide evidence that the earth is moving, and please provide evidence that the earth is moving through the universe. Actually these are the same question, framed slightly differently.

I have answered both.

Your argument is banal and I am struggling to understand how you think it is relevant to the debate. Which is why I asked to clarify how you believed that continental drift provides evidence that the earth is moving. I have never heard this advanced as an evidence for the earth moving, for the simple reason (which is obvious to me and most people) that it has no bearing on the argument whatsoever.

Continental drift moves millions of tons of rock around. That moves the centre of mass of the Earth around. How does the movement of the centre of mass of the Earth affect, or not, the centre of the Universe. One is definitely moving. What happens to the other? Please show your working.

The centre of the earth is not moving

False; the centre of mass of the Earth is moving. The geometrical centre of the Earth is moving. Do you have a different definition of the “centre of the earth”? If so then please define it and justify its use.

I have no need or desire to avoid any issue or any point. I simply lacked time to answer every single point which is raised.

How, erm…, convenient. Yes, convenient. That’s a good word.

I believe that it is a supernatural force which holds the earth in place upon its foundation. I also believe that gravity is a supernatural force and that the motions of all the planets follow a uniform path through the heavens is made possible by a supernatural force.

Your belief is well outside the limits of science. The Dover decision means that it cannot be taught in a science classroom. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it should be taught in a theology classroom. Would you say that this supernatural force is mediated by gandharvas or by kinnaras?

rossum

 

[Rick09]

I think this thread has run its course, but I wanted to make one last comment:

I believe that it is a supernatural force which holds the earth in place upon its foundation. I also believe that gravity is a supernatural force and that the motions of all the planets follow a uniform path through the heavens is made possible by a supernatural force.

I know that many people will ridicule me, but what if this is true? What if gravity really is a daily miracle? Will science ever find or discover such a truth, if it so happens to be true? No because Science is utterly outside the realm of the supernatural and can never come to know the things of God. – excubitor

I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Once you decide that something is a miracle (supernatural), then you have necessarily left the realm of science because science can only deal with the natural. By definition, supernatural phenomena are inherently inexplicable in natural (scientific) terms.

But geocentrists regularly cross and blur these lines, which leaves people of science irked and people of faith confused. At the very least, geocentrists need to decide if geocentrism is fundamentally a matter of faith or fundamentally a matter of science and then make the case accordingly.

That being said, I just don’t buy that The Church teaches geocentrism. IMO, the theory flounders scientifically and is unnecessary theologically.

But, again, I do genuinely appreciate what seems to be behind your thinking on this issue (as expressed above), excubitor. It would help if you and the rest of the geocentrists could tread a bit more lightly and humbly, though.

Peace.

 

[Rick09]

I think this thread has run its course, but I wanted to make one last comment:

I believe that it is a supernatural force which holds the earth in place upon its foundation. I also believe that gravity is a supernatural force and that the motions of all the planets follow a uniform path through the heavens is made possible by a supernatural force.

I know that many people will ridicule me, but what if this is true? What if gravity really is a daily miracle? Will science ever find or discover such a truth, if it so happens to be true? No because Science is utterly outside the realm of the supernatural and can never come to know the things of God. – excubitor

I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Once you decide that something is a miracle (supernatural), then you have necessarily left the realm of science because science can only deal with the natural. By definition, supernatural phenomena are inherently inexplicable in natural (scientific) terms.

But geocentrists regularly cross and blur these lines, which leaves people of science irked and people of faith confused. At the very least, geocentrists need to decide if geocentrism is fundamentally a matter of faith or fundamentally a matter of science and then make the case accordingly.

That being said, I just don’t buy that The Church teaches geocentrism. IMO, the theory flounders scientifically and is unnecessary theologically.

But, again, I do genuinely appreciate what seems to be behind your thinking on this issue (as expressed above), excubitor. It would help if you and the rest of the geocentrists could tread a bit more lightly and humbly, though.

Peace.

 

[gentle_atheist]

This is a very important issue because the reputation of the scriptures and the church took an absolute hammering over this issue over the last 200- 300 years.

Exactly.

One question for Catholic critics of geocentrism:

Did the trial of Galileo take God by surprise?

In other words, didn’t God know that certain verses of Scripture would be used to support geocentrism? And yet He goes ahead and inspires men to write those verses anyway? What possible explanation could there be other than that geocentrism is true?

Either that or the Bible is not the word of God after all.

 

[excubitor]

I think this thread has run its course, but I wanted to make one last comment:

I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

Obviously you are having a little dig at my quaint and childlike faith. But to me it a virtue and I am not offended. Jesus himself said. *“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” *and the apostles said “1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you” and *“Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”. *Therefore, be a little child. Believe the scriptures with a childlike faith. Believe the pronouncements of the mediaeval church with a childlike faith. Do you really think that you will find revelation from the “wise” of this world? *“1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” *

But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

I agree with this, but the problem you are failing to grasp is that science is dabbling into philosophy which is their equivalent of our faith. Their philosophy is a vain philosophy of the world which is constantly changing, which is why they now teach acentrism where they formerly taught heliocentrism.

Once you decide that something is a miracle (supernatural), then you have necessarily left the realm of science because science can only deal with the natural. By definition, supernatural phenomena are inherently inexplicable in natural (scientific) terms.

But geocentrists regularly cross and blur these lines, which leaves people of science irked and people of faith confused. At the very least, geocentrists need to decide if geocentrism is fundamentally a matter of faith or fundamentally a matter of science and then make the case accordingly.

No I disagree with this. What I have been arguing is that the reason that scientists adopt a heliocentrist/acentric view of the universe is primarily for philosophical reasons. I illustrated that with numerous quotes from scientists which affirmed quite strongly that this is the case. The science supports both models depending on how you interpret the data. Modern science (which is science-falsely-so-called 1 Timothy 6:20) is not really science either. It uses scientific techniques as (name removed by moderator)ut to support its various philosophies, but it is not pure science at all. I even gave you the reason why it is impossible to prove what is the absolute position of any point in the universe. Go back and read my posts.

What I am saying however is that what is directly observeable and verifiable by science and natural reason can quite readily be resolved to a geocentric universe. Now Sungenis argues that the earth is at the same place where the gravitational mass of the universe is centred. Nobody can prove him wrong. They can only argue against him for philosophical reasons. I argue against his proposal of gravitation as the centre of the universe for a number of theological reasons.

I also absolutely confirm that my belief in Geocentrism is primarily driven by faith and my catholic religion. I confirm that belief in Geocentrism is a matter of faith and that belief in acentrism is injurious to the faith of Christians. The mediaeval church said so in its papal condemnation of Galileo and the proof of it can be seen to this day where the faith of many is scuttled by the oppositions of science falsely so-called.

Now this does not mean that I must give up my natural sense of reason. No, far from it. I have done probably 1000 hours of research into this subject and have satisfied myself that the observable evidence actually far better supports geocentrism that it does acentrism.

Also, from my research, I now know more about the motions of the heavens than 95% of people, most of which (like Rossum) have an incredibly fragile grasp of the reasons why scientists tell us that the earth is orbitting the sun. They have just bought it without any personal investigation, because “clever” men say so. How could so many “clever” men be wrong. But this thought pattern enabled the trade of the augerers to continue for hundreds of years. They constructed an entire science, incredibly intricate, on the patterns of the flights of the birds, and the motions of geese entrails as they splat into a bowl, to determine the future. And the whole world followed after these “experts”. They gave them priviledged positions in the houses of wealthy men and rulers. Do we really think that anything has changed?

I’m here to alert you that nothing has changed. These scientists are merely the modern day augerers, feathering their nests in the houses of education and scientific research.

 

[excubitor]

That being said, I just don’t buy that The Church teaches geocentrism. IMO, the theory flounders scientifically and is unnecessary theologically.

Take it on faith then.

But, again, I do genuinely appreciate what seems to be behind your thinking on this issue (as expressed above), excubitor.

Thanks Rick

It would help if you and the rest of the geocentrists could tread a bit more lightly and humbly, though.

Peace.

I really don’t think I have treaded proudly or roughly. But to be fair to myself, I do regard myself as a watchman (hence my nickname). I am proclaiming “Wake Up”. “You are being deceived by a monumental world system which is set directly against God, the scriptures and the church”. Does a watchman sing a lullaby? No he blows on his trumpet with blaring sound, grating upon the ears of those who would prefer to continue on in their slumber.

 

[excubitor]

Please stick to the issue of science.

Yes you would like that granny. Actually the issue is a matter of faith. The church declared it as heresy which was injurious to the faith. This was affirmed by a series of Popes who placed books, pamphlets and glosses treating heliocentrism upon the Index of Prohibited books. This was enforced by the Sacred Congregation of the Index. Galileo confessed and recanted from his heresy in the most flowery and absolute terms emphatically affirming that he had uttered heresy, and today all scientists affirm that he had inadequate evidence to support his theory.

To suggest that the church made such a colossal error as to regard this issue as a matter of faith when actually it was a matter of science is utterly prepostorous. It is a matter of faith, and the church has as much right, if not more, to comment or rule upon that matter than do the natural sciences.

I will repeat my rationale. Because we are in the moving frame of reference of the universe, it is not possible for us to determine the absolute motion of any object within the universe. The only way to determine the absolute motion of any object within the moving frame of reference is to be standing in a static position outside the moving frame of reference. This is a basic principle of physics. And the only person who has ever been outside the universe is God. This makes it a matter of divine revelation, and not of natural science. And God has revealed through the scriptures, through the sacred tradition, and through the rulings of the church, that the earth IS NOT MOVING and is at the centre of the universe with all the heavens going about it.

Now either you believe God, or you don’t, and that is what makes it clearly a matter of faith, and not of science. But as the church has very clearly stated, there is no conflict with faith and reason. So where there appears to be a conflict, we can for sure that our reason is faulty, because the divine revelation cannot lie. It is an unwavering truth *“cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”. *
James 1:17