Sungenis calls Karl Keating and Catholic Answers cowardy

[PhilVaz]

Scott, Karl, Bob they’re all great in their own weird way. Now stop all this dumb bickering and go back to politely debating the anti-Catholic fundamentalists, the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Swedenborgians, Scientologists, First Church of the Doors, worshippers of Bill Gates, and all the rest.

I thought this thread was locked at one point.

Phil P

 

[Karl_Keating]

MrS:

I know Bob fairly well… he has never, never said anything about Soy Sauce

Not to you, perhaps, but Bob has written about what he calls the Soy Sauce Incident on other forums and has mentioned it repeatedly in conversation with, for example, Patrick Madrid and in private e-mail to me.

Did you really write this post yourself and say that “all of today’s physicists are wrong” which declares they all disagree with a theory the RS supports??

Is there a physicist–someone who works as one or who teaches physics–who holds to the geocentric theory and who also holds that Einstein’s theories are quite wrong? I have never heard of such a person. If you have, perhaps you could give his name and his professional affiliation. If the number of such physicists is zero or de minimis, I’ll feel justified in using “all.”

Personally, I would bet you have your own set of his books, and may even use them as reference from time to time.

We do have his books in the Catholic Answers library, but I never make use of them.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’d say there are physicists who believe in geocentrism, at least in the modern understanding of it. I don’t know of any who would disagree with the GTR though.

 

[Scout]

I’m sorry to jump in here, and maybe I shouldn’t, but I just think it’s bad enough that we, as Catholic Christians, are constantly having to defend ourselves against Protestants, Muslims, Atheists, and a whole lot of other anti-Catholics. Isn’t it enough that we have to fight people outside the Church-do we have to fight with ourselves, too? Scout :tiphat:

 

[astralis]

Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics, recently discusses Hahn’s position when he was questioned about it on a radio show. Akin said he didn’t hear what Hahn said but was familiar with it and defended how doctrine is formulated, neither saying Hahn is right nor wrong. I keep seeing this answer through CA and agree with them. There isn’t anything that smacks of heresy and many newly formulated doctrines also had the same backlash as Hahn’s from some other Catholics.

About the Sugenis issue. He and Karl need to bury the hatchet together. With two visible apologists who seem to agree on most issues, more than the Orthodox and Western Catholics, and to have personal squabbles does injustice to our cause.

Karl, what is the proper way to use soy sauce in a Japanese restaurant?

 

[Karl_Keating]

The proper way is not to pour it over the bowl of steamed rice. The rice is intended to cleanse the palate between (fairly bland) courses. To pour strong soy sauce onto the rice defeats that purpose.

The gaffe isn’t heinous and might be considered the equivalent of dining at a fine American restaurant and using the salad fork to eat your entree.

 

[PhilVaz]

Karl << To pour strong soy sauce onto the rice defeats that purpose. >>

No way, utter heresy. I would NEVER be hired by Catholic Answers then.

Phil P

 

[briankarman]

armydude12:

On Bob Sungenis’s web site, Sungenis calls Keating and C.A .cowards because thy refuse to critique other catholic apologists–namely Scott Hahn-=-(Hahn’s views on the femine nature of the Holy Spirit and his views on orginal sin(Adam Eve) are said to be in conflict to the Church’s understanding) The person who e-mailed Sungenis about this claimed Catholic Answers wont even allow it to be discussed on the forums. Sungenis further criticizes Karl Keating because, according to Sungenis, Keating has made a “pact” no to critique other apologst’s work who are “freinds” with Keating–the information is on Sungeis’s web site under the questons and answers section on the home page- does anyone have thoughts about Hahn’ views and Keating’s (Catholic Answers) apparent silence on this mater.

Repent & believe the Gospel!!!

 

[Orogeny]

Karl Keating:

The gaffe isn’t heinous and might be considered the equivalent of dining at a fine American restaurant and using the salad fork to eat your entree.

You mean, you shouldn’t use your salad fork for your steak?

Peace

Tim

 

[moochie]

Thanks to astralis for the post dated 08/3 at 8:37. I heard the same broadcast. And I’ve heard it referred to in other broadcasts in the last year or so. Same basic answer.

And the whole Scott Hahn issue was cleared up by Dr Hahn himself on numerous occasions. He’s repeatedly said (& I’m paraphrasing) that if anything he’s ever written as a Catholic turns out to be in any way refuted or comdemned by the Church, he’ll personally rip the offending pages from his books.

Pretty much closes the case for me. Humility, submission to Church authority . . . what more could one want?

 

[trth_skr]

Karl Keating:

Is there a physicist–someone who works as one or who teaches physics–who holds to the geocentric theory and who also holds that Einstein’s theories are quite wrong? I have never heard of such a person. If you have, perhaps you could give his name and his professional affiliation. If the number of such physicists is zero or de minimis, I’ll feel justified in using “all.”

Karl, I was trying to stay out of this, too, but I think your criteria are pretty demanding.

Robert does not claim that relativity is wrong. In fact he often uses it in his discussions of geocentrism. He does have isues with it, but many scientists do.

Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. In fact they they are more suportive than harmful (i am not saying Einstein supports geocentrism). Einstein did say:

Einstein:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. – Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”

And as to your issue that stars cannot move faster than the speed of light, he said:

Einstein:

“…In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature or rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light).” (Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85).

I won’t say too much here, because I am already pushing the limits of this thread, but a rotating universe with fixed earth would require huge gravitational fields (due to the distant rotating cosmic masses).

Why not try considering geocentrism based on the facts rather than counting the number of people who hold the view?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[pnewton]

I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to sending my littles resources into a ministry or buying someones books, I would much rather help those active in evangelism and apologetics than out trying to prove crackpot scientific theories. So what if realtivity could mean that the earth could be viewed as the center of the universe (even if it is true), then the sam could be used for any other point. While we are at it, why don’t we try to come up with a curved space model that leaves the earth flat.

The bottom line is that such pursuits, as this little crusade against Dr. Hahn are a waste of money and resources, in my opinion. My opinion is the only one that counts when it comes to allocating my money.

Suffice it to say that man is the summit of God’s creation. That is miracle enough for me. As far as the center of the universe, I will go with the majority opinion of most scientists - cats.

 

[katieq]

Scott Hahn is great !

 

[JPrejean]

Why not try considering geocentrism based on the facts rather than counting the number of people who hold the view?

Because then it would look even more ridiculous!

 

[Karl_Keating]

PhilVaz:

Karl << To pour strong soy sauce onto the rice defeats that purpose. >>

No way, utter heresy. I would NEVER be hired by Catholic Answers then.

Phil P

I’m sorry you mentioned this, Phil. We were just about to mail you a generous employment contract with a gigantic hiring bonus. Oh, well.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Orogeny:

You mean, you shouldn’t use your salad fork for your steak?

Peace

Tim

Only if you are served a very small steak. This means you won’t be using your salad fork in Lebanon, Missouri, where I discovered that the smallest steak on the menu weighed 22 ounces!

 

[Karl_Keating]

trth_skr:

Why not try considering geocentrism based on the facts rather than counting the number of people who hold the view?

Mark

Mark, I actually have considered geocentrism on its merits–and have found it wanting.

I almost certainly am the only person discussing it on Catholic web sites who actually took in college a class that largely focused on geocentrism. The class was taught by Curtis Wilson, who widely is considered the country’s expert on the development of Kepler’s theories.

In the class we used Tycho Brahe’s data, plotted the courses of the planets (cycles, epicycles, and so on), worked out the equations, and saw that the data–much more accurate than earlier data–showed the untenability of the theory.

Of all the classes I took in college, the only one I kept materials from was this one. I still have squirreled away the mimeographed pages that Prof. Wilson used with us (and that later became part of a book he wrote).

I am not aware of any current proponent of geocentrism who has used Tycho’s data or, for that matter, who has the mathematical skills to use the data.

 

[trth_skr]

Karl Keating:

Mark, I actually have considered geocentrism on its merits–and have found it wanting.

I almost certainly am the only person discussing it on Catholic web sites who actually took in college a class that largely focused on geocentrism. The class was taught by Curtis Wilson, who widely is considered the country’s expert on the development of Kepler’s theories.

In the class we used Tycho Brahe’s data, plotted the courses of the planets (cycles, epicycles, and so on), worked out the equations, and saw that the data–much more accurate than earlier data–showed the untenability of the theory.

Of all the classes I took in college, the only one I kept materials from was this one. I still have squirreled away the mimeographed pages that Prof. Wilson used with us (and that later became part of a book he wrote).

I am not aware of any current proponent of geocentrism who has used Tycho’s data or, for that matter, who has the mathematical skills to use the data.

Have you considered reviving it and putting it on your web site? If it is good, you may win the $1000 from Robert Sungenis- then you could afford to send Phil Vaz to some etiquette classes, and hire him.

Do you recall what specifically made it untenable? Did you specifcally try fitting to Tycho’s original model (with circular orbits)?

Tycho Brahe was a proponent of a geocentric theory, and his data was from a fixed earth perspective. In the modern Tychonic system Keplerian orbits are added to the planets (earth not included of course), which makes the system viable. If we take the next step (like NASA, etc.) and use Fourier transforms to curve fit current observations, I believe we can make the model as perfect as any heliocentric [or barycentric solar system] model.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

trth_skr:

Have you considered reviving it and putting it on your web site? If it is good, you may win the $1000 from Robert Sungenis- then you could afford to send Phil Vaz to some etiquette classes, and hire him.

Do you recall what specifically made it untenable? Did you specifcally try fitting to Tycho’s original model (with circular orbits)?

Tycho Brahe was a proponent of a geocentric theory, and his data was from a fixed earth perspective. In the modern Tychonic system Keplerian orbits are added to the planets (earth not included of course), which makes the system viable. If we take the next step (like NASA, etc.) and use Fourier transforms to curve fit current observations, I believe we can make the model as perfect as any heliocentric [or barycentric solar system] model.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Karl:

Just after my last message, I came across this site:

pafko.com/tycho/mars.html

It includes some of Tycho’s data, including earth observations of Mars for 18 years fit with a Fourier transform (“modern methods”). I thought it may revive some memories for you (and maybe draw you openly into the discussion ).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[twiztedseraph]

I take offence to anyone who’s against CA I came across their website at a time when I was particularly disheartened by the numbers leaving the Church for evangelicalism, by the lack of Catholic Education in Schools (yes even Catholic Ones) but to know there are dedicated people out there who devote their time and energies to defending the faith is quite inspiring. Thanks Karl…