Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_Forrest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alec: There are universe models in which universe rotation is intrinsic. In particular, there is Goedel’s model universe, and Bianchi IX rotating cosmological models. Unfortunately for Bob, these are unphysical. Goedel’s model is homogeneous both in space and time, all four simple translations are represented by independent Killing vectors. Goedel’s model has the cosmological fluid in rotation, stationary, closed time-like curves (so that if one travels round the curve one returns to the spacetime point), and singularity free. Bianchi IX models also have the cosmological fluid in rotation and shear. Both cases of universe are theoretically possible but unphysical in that the compass of inertia does not align with the star field as it does in ours (furthermore, Goedel’s model allows the possibility of returning to the same spacetime point which is considered unphysical).

R. Sungenis: Yes, there are different universe-rotation models, and there are different universe-static models, and universe-expanding models, and universe-quasi-expanding models, and all kinds of theories. But we all know that only the right one, with the right ingredients, is going to work. Evidently the heliocentric model has its problems, since, if we are going by the criterion of “fitting into tight constraints,” then a universe that can’t account for the inverse square law in 95% of its field, has a real problem of “not having its compass of inertia in alignment with the star field,” to use Alec’s words.

Alec: It’s easy to create mathematical models of the universe that are unphysical. The fact that gravitomagnetics predicts Coriolis and centrifugal like forces in the interior of a rotating massive shell is a geometric equivalence. It does not mean that the universe physically rotates about the earth, or any other body, and the idea is dynamically flawed.

R. Sungenis: I never said that gravitomagnetics proves that the universe is rotating. I said that GR shows an equal possibility for both heliocentrism and geocentrism, and that Alec’s attempt to use Pavlis and Cuifolini’s findings of the Lense-Thirring frame-drag as proof that the Earth rotates is fallacious. Alec should be brave enough to admit that to this forum.

Alec: Bob mentions the cosmic microwave background. Well there are two points of significance to that taht I wish to raise now:

First the measured dipole in the CMB anisotropy (see the papers published by the WMAP team, references available) equates to a peculiar motion of the earth against the primordial universe radiation of 600km/s which is very closely matched by analyses of the mean of peculiar velocities measured against many distant galaxies. It’s an odd centre that rushes through the universe at 600km/s or even that the universe rushes past at 600km/s

R. Sungenis: This is what happens when you’ve been conditioned to think in only one way. Alec interprets the 600km/s drift as if it must be from the Earth moving into the CMBR. But unfortunately, such conditioned thinking fails to consider that it is the CMBR that is moving against an immobile Earth! In the geocentric frame, this only makes sense: if the universe is rotating, then it is carrying the CMBR with it, and if the Earth is immobile, then the 600 km/s CMBR is moving against the Earth, not vice-versa.
 
Alec: Second, observation of the CMB has put an extremely close correlation between the compass of inertia and the observable star field – see for example Collins and Hawking, ‘The rotation and distortion of the universe’, Mon Nat Roy Astron Soc 162: 307 – 320 (1973) – in this case the limit is less than 3x10^-11 arcsec per century. Other more recent observations have increased the limit to 8x10^-5 arcsec per century. In other words the compass of inertia is locked extremely closely to the primordial radiation and the star field.

R. Sungenis: This proves nothing, except the fact that the universe works on precision, but we already knew that. In fact, we have 20 constants in the universe, and if just one of them is out of whack, we don’t have a universe.

Alec: Although the Machian principle states that the compass of inertia (ie the orientation of the local inertial frame) is determined only by the distribution and flux of mass-energy, there is a range of increasingly strong interpretations:

1.The boundary conditions at infinity might be mostly responsible for determining local inertial frames

R. Sungenis: “Boundary condition at infinity”?? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Alec: 2. The universe is spatially compact (an increasingly untenable assumption), without the need for specifying boundary conditions and the local inertial frames are determined largely by the distribution of mass-energy
  1. The universe is spatially compact and closed in time and the local compass of inertia is at rest with respect to the flux of mass-energy
In any case, empirical observations confirm that the local compass of inertia is closely locked to the star-field. (‘Mass there’ determines ‘inertia here’). If being at rest, rotationally, in an FRW metric GR universe means anything, it means being at rest in a local inertial frame. The surface of the earth is very plainly not an inertial frame so it cannot have any special privilege to be at a centre or at rest.

R. Sungenis: Says who? Where has Alec proven for us in this dialogue that the Earth cannot be the inertial frame at the center and at rest?? Not one thing he has said thus far proves his case. If we missed it, Alec, please show it to us.

Alec is the one who just gave us three theories for how the universe is put together, and Alec doesn’t know which one is correct; and Alec is the one who just a few paragraphs ago said that the “constraints are tight” but not closed for a rotating universe. So please tell us, Alec, how you arrive at such a dogmatic conclusion without the slightest proof to your case. Or is this just a case of Alec not liking the alternative and doing his pedantic best to silence the opposition?

Alec: Either all reference frames whether inertial or non-inertial are equivalent and all is relative, or local inertial frames have a greater claim for not being in rotation with respect to the compass of inertia. In either case there is no basis for claiming the earth is unmoving at the centre of the universe.

R. Sungenis: Notice how Alec just contradicted himself. On the one hand he says: “local inertial frames have a greater claim for not being in rotation with respect to the compass of inertia,” which means that, if we take the Earth as the “local inertial frame” it has a “greater claim for not being in rotation,” but then, out of nowhere, Alec concludes that the “local inertial frame” cannot be “the earth…unmoving at the center of the universe.” I wish Alec would tell us what bit of logic allows him to come to such a conclusion. What earth-shattering fact has he given to us in this dialogue besides a hodgepodge of theories and speculations?
 
Alec: If of course, Bob rejects GR, then he is left with Newtonian mechanics considerations, several of which I and others posted and are unanswerable. The earth cannot possibly be at rest in absolute Newtonian space.

In either case, a GR or GR-like metric universe or a Newtonian universe, there is no physical basis on which to claim that the earth is ‘at rest’ and the ‘centre’ of the universe.

Alec

R. Sungenis: Alec has made a pedantic display of theories and terms but he has said nothing that proves his case.
 
Michael Forrest said:
(refer to All4Lifetoo’s original post above…small snippet below):

All4 writes:…Your duty or Sungenis’ duty would be to convince NASA that your theory of a stationary Earth and rotating universe is plausable enough to merit a space mission to test it.

If there is a flaw in my theory of how the period of the Moon’s orbit might be directly measured in this manner, I trust someone will point it out to me. Perhaps hecd2 could comment on my purposed method. END POST

R. Sungenis: There’s no need to have a space mission to test it, because according to Mach’s principle, any calibration of the gyroscope could be measured from the vantage point of a rotating earth in a fixed universe or a rotating universe around a fixed earth, since the gyroscope will act the same in both cases.
Click to expand...

Yes the gyroscope would behave the same in both cases. That is why it is significant. The satellite the gyroscope is on would NOT be rotating unless your theory about a rotating universe is correct. If the satellite was rotating with the universe, that rotation would be detectable because the line of sight from the satellite to the Moon would not change. The tracking instrument would not register any change in azmuth to the Moon because the universe would be rotating the satellite with it, if your theory is correct. Even if the line of sight did move under the influence of two velocities, that of the universe’s rotation and that of the Moon’s revolution, the rate of change in azmuth to the Moon would be something other than 360 degrees in 24 hours or in 27.13 days. This fact too would prove your theory, but if the rate of change was 360 degrees in 27.13 days then your theory would be disproved.
 
Michael Forrest:
And which scientists, Alec? The ones that tell me there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer? The ones that tell me that there is no problem with my wife taking hormones to stop ovulation? The ones that tell me that homosexuality is not really a psychological illness anymore, and should not be dealt with as something negative? The kind that derided the idea that germs could cause infection? The kind that still put fraudulent drawings of human embryonic development in science text books? The kind that gave us Piltdown Man?
Alec writes:
Click to expand...
Rather than displaying religiously motivated prejudices against areas of medicine and science outside the topics of gravity and inertia, it seems you have nothing to offer. >>

This is interesting. So, then, you are in agreement with the AMA on abortion? Contraception? The abortion-breast-cancer link? The APA on homosexuality? The population control “researchers”? They are all just honest information seekers without an agenda?

I think the problem is precisely the reverse of what you imply of me. It is THESE groups of “scientists” who have the agenda, the prejudices. And I see it first-hand in my pro-life work. The fact is, science is simply not the pristine, honest environment you seem to think. Anti-God and Anti-Catholic views abound in modern science. Perhaps it is you who must decide which religion you want to follow…that of the scientists or that of the Fathers, the Saints and the Popes
Click to expand...
Since this is your only statement of any substance in over three posts (the rest being content-free complaints about my factual characterisation of geocentrism as buffoonery and Sungenis as a scientific crank), this is all I plan to reply to.

As far as the abortion breast cancer link goes, the consensus of the epidemiology indicates either no link or an extremely weak link. It seems to me that not only is the case against abortion, which is a moral one, weakened by cooking up data to attempt to show a stronger link than exists in practice, which is a form of lying (would you consider abortion to be less wrong if this link were to be weak or non-existent?), but it is also extremely uncharitable to those women who have had abortions at some time in the past to instil in them an unjustified fear of an excessive risk of breast cancer.

There is strong evidence for there being both genetic and embryonic environmental factors in predisposition to homosexuality, and strong evidence that homosexuality in at least some people is innate.

I know little about modern research into adverse effects of hormonal contraception, but I have no reason to think that there cannot be medical researchers on this subject who are objective. If you are worried about using hormonal contraceptives, I suggest you resort to barrier methods which have no such endocrinal dangers.

The reproduction of Haeckel’s drawings of embryos in textbooks is not a scientific but a historical and pedagogical issue. It has no bearing on the overwhelmingly strong evidence that homologies in ontogeny arise from common descent, and illuminate phylogenetic relationships - a concept that has been immensely reinforced by comparative gene expression data. There is very good correlation between physiological, genetic and developmental phylogenies.

As for, Piltdown, it was a deliberate hoax, debunked by scientists not apologists. Most people who try to make hay with Piltdown, like you, fail to mention that its validity remained controversial throughout the entire period from its discovery to its debunking.

Finally, denials of the germ-theory of disease belong to the same period and have the same validity as geocentrism and have been abandoned by all scientists for precisely the same reason.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I haven’t read the posts in this thread so maybe this has been mentioned, but Foucault pendulums prove the earth is rotating. Has Mr. Sungenis responded to this question? There have also been quantum physics experiments regarding the relativity of time that demonstrate the earth is rotating (not that this demonstration is the motivating factor, just a by-product of sorts.)
  • JP
 
Yeah the Pendulum thing has been mentioned a couple times. I forget the geocentrist response, maybe angels, demons, or ghosts move it instead as they also move the satellites. 😃

Here is what you learn in your typical university astronomy class:

Rotation and Revolution of the Earth

Demonstrations of the Earth’s Rotation about its axis: Coriolis Effect and Foucault Pendulum

Demonstration of the Earth’s Revolution around the Sun: Stellar Parallaxes

Now without even studying or understanding the physics involved, what are the chances that all of physics and astronomy has been wrong the past 300 or more years? Answer: ZERO. We know how to launch satellites, we know how to put people on the moon. Case Closed. :cool:

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Yeah the Pendulum thing has been mentioned a couple times. I forget the geocentrist response, maybe angels, demons, or ghosts move it instead as they also move the satellites. 😃

Here is what you learn in your typical university astronomy class:

Rotation and Revolution of the Earth

Demonstrations of the Earth’s Rotation about its axis: Coriolis Effect and Foucault Pendulum

Demonstration of the Earth’s Revolution around the Sun: Stellar Parallaxes

Now without even studying or understanding the physics involved, what are the chances that all of physics and astronomy has been wrong the past 300 or more years? Answer: ZERO. We know how to launch satellites, we know how to put people on the moon. Case Closed. :cool:

Phil P
Click to expand...
Some guys pick the rotation rate of the Earth on its axis using Foucault’s pendulum as 24 hours through 360 deg exactly or 15 deg per hour -

phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/students/baker/SouthPoleFoucault.html

others pick the sidereal value

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218d.html

No wonder geocentrism which was killed off centuries ago through the spectacular insight of Copernicus is making a comeback along with creationism.

There is a very good reason why some say one thing and others say something else with respect to the correct value for axial rotation using clocks.Unfortunately it takes only a small bit of bluffing and blustering to downplay the 3 min 56 sec difference.

Pity,without the correct value for axiakl rotation and why it is that way,natural investigation of celestial and terrestial phenomena involving the Earth’s motion becomes a pointless endeavor.It has been that way for a long,long tiime.
 
Thumb down on this!!!
**Are Spouses to be “Mutually Submissive” to One Another? **A Critical Analysis of Ephesians 5:21-22

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/submission.jpgRobert Sungenis gives you a detailed analysis of one of the most controversial passages today – Ephesians 5:21: “and be subject to one another in the fear of Chirst. Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Today, liberal theology teaches that there is a “new” way to interpret these passages, i.e., that husbands are to submit to wives as wives submit to husbands, and they have turned our households upside down. Allow Robert to take you through Scripture and Tradition to show you that “Mutual Submission” was never taught by the Fathers, previous popes, or even Scripture itself. Two audio tapes. ($12.00 postpaid)"

Yeah, right, in never-never land! You obviously are living in a daydream of non-realities. Mr. King of the Throne, Roberta Sungenis, are you afraid of being beaten into submission for fabricating a world of factious lies? Is that why you don’t want to present yourself on this message board? Oh, I get it. We are your servants. Listen and obey.:bowdown: Got it. :mad: Well, step into the real world before a million women show up at your door. As far as I’m concerned anyone who tries to peddle your nonsense will live in “La La Land” when they pass over to the other side where the Son of God will revolve around your long lost earthen pleasures.
 
Michael,

I know you said you’d ignore me, but looking back I notice that what you said you wanted was to foster discussion. You really didn’t make it clear that because you were in Sungenis’ organization, you were looking to suck people into a debate with him and if they didn’t bite you’d disregard them.

Be that as it may, all right, I’ll bite, at least to a degree. He’s said that the challenge isn’t for him to prove geocentrism, but for someone else to prove heliocentrism. His assertion seems to be that neither can be proven scientifically, but that the authority of the Church has proved geocentrism.

However, he does spend a lot of time talking about the math, so he surely must be prepared to provide a good explanation of how the math works out. As far as I can tell he’s got no formal training in math (correct me if I’m wrong), and with his schedule I can hardly believe that he’s been able to independently study his way to a postgraduate degree in theoretical astrophysics. So as far as I can tell he’s either repeating something that he thinks is plausible but really understands it only as well as the average reader of Scientific American, or else the math can be made understandable to a layman. Given the highly unorthodox nature of his claims it’s not unreasonable to expect him to spoon-feed the explanation to his audience. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to hear him out, if he’d like to answer a few more questions. Then I can wander off and think about it for a while.
  1. Can he demonstrate that the Church has made an infallible declaration that the earth is the physical center of the universe, and that the universe physically rotates about it? If not then he’s really making much ado about nothing. I know you disagree but as I see it the problem of helping people understand what the limits of infallibility are best solves explaining past decisions of the Bishops.
Continued below.
 
  1. If I understand correctly, he agrees that the common assessments of the size of the universe are accurate (billions of light years across), and claims that matter is evenly distributed in all directions around us (most of it at cosmic distances but there are some stars very close to us).
Bob said that, unlike others, he’s been able to account for the gravitational effects of the far-field mass in calculating the interaction between the earth and the sun, and the results show that solar system is geocentric. Great, let’s see the numbers.

The classical understanding is as follows:

The gravitational attraction between two bodies is a function of their mass and the distance between them. If two identical bodies are at a distance from each other, the field strength at a point midway between them is zero. Given that the deep space matter is evenly distributed in all directions, the resultant field strength due to it is zero in the vicinity of the earth.

If the bulk of the mass of the universe is effectively contained in a hollow shell or shells, then the field strength anywhere within the shell will be zero. This is exactly the same as the fact that the gravitational effect of the earth’s mass is zero at its center, as well as the fact that the electromagnetic field strength is zero inside a hollow sphere of electrically conductive material. Furthermore, because of the size of the universe, the region of zero field strength is at least the size of our galaxy.

Therefore, the gravitational effect of the deep space mass can be neglected when calculating the orbital mechanics of the solar system. Bob has said that he doesn’t like this, but neglecting cancelled forces is standard practice, it doesn’t mean that they’ve not been accounted for, and the onus is on Bob to clearly explain why we cannot do it here. I’d like for him to do so.

Neglecting the deep space mass, we are left with the component due to the galaxy. Because we are not at the center of it, the sum of the gravitational field components due to each element of mass in the galaxy will have a resultant that points roughly toward the center of the galaxy. Because the distributed mass lying closer to the center that the solar system can be modeled as a single point mass, and since that mass dominates the system, we can validly model the system as a two-body mass. Basic orbital mechanics calculations will find that one focus of the orbit will lie close to the center of the galaxy, and that the galaxy (observed from an outside reference frame) will move far less than the solar system. Thus the conclusion that the galaxy does not orbit the earth, but that the earth orbits the galaxy.

The effects of the mass farther from the center than the solar system, as well as stars in our near vicinity, can be validly modeled as small perturbations on top of this, but the overall conclusion would not change.

This understanding was developed based on observation of real events, is consistent with observation and is used to make accurate predictions. Bob seems to be claiming that he has a model that conflicts with observed reality, and yet agrees with reality more than our observations. I’d like him to explain this as well (not by appealing to the Magesterium - that’s question 1).
  1. Bob claims that field dragging is what makes satellites drift. Since such an effect acts equally on every element of mass in the field, I’d expect that the mass of the earth would be dragged along as well. How is it, then, that the earth is immune to the dragging, and objects are dragged only after they are not in contact with the earth?
Pressure gradients in fluids result in flow, and if there is no pressure gradient there should be no fluid flow. If frame dragging is a reality in the way Bob proposes, then we should be able to measure fluid flow in a fluid in the absense of any pressure gradient, and the experiment can be done anywhere. Based on the magnitude of orbital drift, the effect should be well within the limitations of common laboratory instrumentation. We observe no such effect. Why?
 
Phil,

You have said publicly and privately that you are getting off of these boards. Were you lying? Or are you really addicted, as you’ve said? You’ve acknowledged that you get too excited on these forums. You’ve apologized personally to Mr. Sungenis for being unnecessarily insulting, sarcastic, etc. Were you also lying then as well? I’ve even written to you privately to avoid embarrassing you, but you continue to be little more than an incendiary nuisance, inciting people and covering over/excusing insults with all manner of logical gyrations and gymnastics. As such, you force me to write this. I am not happy about it. But neither will I sit idly by while you engage in such behavior. You have told me you consider this essentially harmless fun. It is not.

You have candidly admitted that you are not particularly knowledgeable in scientific matters, especially geocentrism. Yet, you continue to act as if you are expert enough to make absolute judgments and insults. Your critiques are largely to do with something other than the immediate issue. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with some articles on science you wrote a while ago, wherein you challenged people to respond? Did Mr. Sungenis response get you excited to the point where you are doing this now?

**Frankly, you are behaving like the kid who hides behind the bully and who says “YEAH! TAKE THAT!” You have said repeatedly that you will let Alec answer and get out of the way, that you will stop the juvenile comments/incitement like “Go Alec! Go!” You are exhibiting no common sense, nor the will to stop yourself, either. **
**If you cannot stop your admitted compulsion, I will not bother to respond further. But we will both know what is going on here, and so will everyone else. **
I am sorry, genuinely, to have to write this. But enough is enough. I have gone back and forth privately with you, but to no avail.

There are a few individuals who have shown at least some restraint and I will pass on what they have written to Mr.Sungenis. Even the latter portions of Alec’s posts have been less acidic. This is good for those of us who are interested in trying to understand, rather than to merely posture.

I admit that some of this is over my head, but I have already learned some things that I did not formerly know. I hope others, including Mr. Sungenis, can benefit from the dialogue as well. But your additions are so laced with insult, demagoguery and sarcasm that they do more harm than good…and they only invite others to get off track as well.

In Christ,

Michael Forrest
 
ISABUS said:
Thumb down on this!!!

**Are Spouses to be “Mutually Submissive” to One Another? **A Critical Analysis of Ephesians 5:21-22

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/submission.jpg

Yeah, right, in never-never land! You obviously are living in a daydream of non-realities. Mr. King of the Throne, Roberta Sungenis, are you afraid of being beaten into submission for fabricating a world of factious lies? Is that why you don’t want to present yourself on this message board? Oh, I get it. We are your servants. Listen and obey.:bowdown: Got it. :mad: Well, step into the real world before a million women show up at your door. As far as I’m concerned anyone who tries to peddle your nonsense will live in “La La Land” when they pass over to the other side where the Son of God will revolve around your long lost earthen pleasures.
Click to expand...

Try this:

PONTIFICIO ATENEO DELLA SANTA CROCE FACOLTA DI TEOLOGIA

Rev. Paul N. Check

"WIVES, BE SUBJECT TO YOUR HUSBANDS":
THE AUTHORITY OF THE HUSBAND ACCORDING TO THE MAGISTERIUM
Code: 
		 		 		 		 		 [by  **Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, The Respect He Desperately Needs **](http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4742&pid=0&sid=0)[Emerson, Dr. Eggerichs](http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4742&pid=0&sid=0)
**Focus on the Family - buy it here

**Discover the Single Greatest Secret to a Successful Marriage Psychological studies affirm it, and the Bible has been saying it for ages. Cracking the communication code between husband and wife involves understanding one thing: that unconditional respect is as powerful for him as unconditional love is for her. It’s the secret to marriage that every couple seeks, and yet few couples ever find.

Today, you and your mate can start fresh with the ground-breaking guidance that Dr. Emerson Eggerichs provides in this book. His revolutionary message, featured on Focus on the Family, is for anyone: in marital crisis…wanting to stay happily married…who’s feeling lonely. It’s for engaged couples…victims of affairs…pastors and counselors seeking material that can save a marriage.

Using Dr. Eggerich’s breakthrough techniques, couples nationwide are achieving a brand-new level of intimacy and learning how to: - stop the Crazy Cycle of conflict - initiate the Energizing Cycle of change - enjoy the Rewarded Cycle of new passion

And if you’ll take this biblically based counsel to heart, your marriage could be next!

Product Description:
A Marriage Book with a Difference!

A Revolutionary Message

“I’ve been married 35 years and have not heard this taught.” “This is the key that I have been missing.” “A lightbulb moment.” “You connected all the dots for me.” “As a counselor, I have never been so excited about any material.” “You’re on to something huge here.”

A Simple Message

A wife has one driving need – to feel loved. When that need is met, she is happy. A husband has one driving need – to feel respected. When that need is met, he is happy.

When either of these needs isn’t met, things get crazy. “Love and Respect” reveals why spouses react negatively to each other, and how they can deal with such conflict quickly, easily and biblically.

A Message That Works

Based on over three decades of counseling, as well as scientific and biblical research, Dr. Emerson Eggerichs and his wife, Sarah, have already taken the “Love and Respect” message across America and are changing the way couples talk to, think about, and treat each other.

What do you want for your marriage? Want some peace? Want to feel close? Want to feel valued? Want to experience marriage the way God intended? Then why not try some “Love and Respect.”

Read the Amazon Reviews Here
 
Michael Forrest said:
**Phil, ****You have said publicly and privately that you are getting off of these boards. Were you lying? Or are you really addicted, as you’ve said? You’ve acknowledged that you get too excited on these forums. You’ve apologized personally to Mr. Sungenis for being unnecessarily insulting, sarcastic, etc. Were you also lying then as well? I’ve even written to you privately to avoid embarrassing you, but you continue to be little more than an incendiary nuisance, inciting people and covering over/excusing insults with all manner of logical gyrations and gymnastics. **
Click to expand...

Michael,

As a member of Catholic Answers Forums, Phil has proven to be an extremely valuable asset to many a message board over the months. He is intelligent and goes beyond the call of duty when it comes to helping other members better understand the Catholic Church’s position today not yesteryear. He spends an enormous amount of time and energy in research prior to posting. I always look forward to his (name removed by moderator)ut and appreciate the information he brings forth. He has a great sense of humor as well.

Did you ever consider asking yourself if you may be the cause of agitation? Simple question. Why doesn’t Mr. Sungenis join this message board? Ask him that for me. And Michael why are you allowing Mr. Sungenis to make into a “delivery” boy?
 
<< Phil has proven to be an extremely valuable asset to many a message board over the months… Why doesn’t Mr. Sungenis join this message board? Ask him that for me. >>

Well I do have a slight advantage since I’m not married and currently not working full time, so I can spend all day at the library if I want to. 😃

I’m actually extremely surprised at all this over the last two or three years with Bob. There’s no question that his Not By books are very well researched and documented. Now if he could just do the same thing with geology, biology, astronomy, physics (a little harder no doubt) I’m sure he would come around. For example, I just found a book at my local public library called Measuring the Universe: Our Historic Quest to Chart the Horizons of Space and Time and they talk about things such as this

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HUBBLE1.jpg

Spiral Galaxy NGC 4603 photographed by the Hubble telescope which is approximately 108 million light-years from earth. You can’t tell me the universe is 10,000 to 15,000 years old or that all these very very far away critters being photographed are flying around the earth. I don’t know the physics but I have common sense.

Michael Forrest’s main complaint is this board is too insulting and demeaning, but this is mild compared to most religious discussion boards. 😛 :eek:
 
40.png
buffalo:
Try this:**PONTIFICIO ATENEO DELLA SANTA CROCE FACOLTA DI TEOLOGIA **
Rev. Paul N. Check

"WIVES, BE SUBJECT TO YOUR HUSBANDS":
THE AUTHORITY OF THE HUSBAND ACCORDING TO THE MAGISTERIUM
Click to expand...
Oh, it figures it would be ultra creationalist Buffalo the fundalmentalist. 😃 We already know you don’t like our current Pope John Paul II because he believes in the evolution of man.

Read this: Mutual subordination of spouses is a Gospel “Innovation.”

According to Mulieris Dignitatem:

…“Husbands, love your wives,” love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31) In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be " in splendor, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole “style” of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives…

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words:“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church: he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up his own life.

"However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

"In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel…

"The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption.

"However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,” and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behavior, and customs.

"This is a call which people have to accept ever anew. St. Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus…there is no more man or woman,” but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman.” Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

“But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ.” The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.” - Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, Pope John Paul II, 1988, 24. (posted by Charity)

Please read Theology of the Body by Pope JP II. 😃
 
Michael Forrest << You have candidly admitted that you are not particularly knowledgeable in scientific matters, especially geocentrism. >>

Okay, I missed this note directed at me. I’ll get off the boards soon enough. And the more I learn about geocentrism, the worse it gets. :rolleyes: Just got an old book called The Copernican Revolution, don’t worry I’ll learn enough to include a bit on that.

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top