T
trth_skr
Guest
Good observation. When it comes to something like wives being obediant to husbands, modern exegetes distort one verse, then ignore 25-30 (in St. Paul’s writings) !
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
“Anywhereism”, unlike geocentrism (both of which are scientifically posible) is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Also, there is a lot of evidence that earth is at the center of the universe. This will expounded on in Robert Sungenis and Dr. Bennet’s upcoming book, Galileo was Wrong.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
A
Athrond
Guest
trth_skr said:
IS geocentrism protected by the “Holy Spirit” ? How would you know?
I would have you submit that evidence if you know it, you cannot just say “there is alot of evidence” and leave it at that.
And isn’t this thoeory of yours “twisting” the definition of “world” beond that of the bible just a little.
Seems to me that you are doing just that what this post was about; fitting reality into the bible, not vice versa…
Athrond
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
Della, though I agree with you for the mostpart on the relationship between scripture and science, I think that it is important to remember that Galileo was brought to the inquisition (twice) and condemned for:
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html
This is indeed an embarrasing chapter in the Church’s dealings with science and I am glad to see that they have (ever since the publication of the CE even in 1913) taken a much more moderate approach to biological evolution.
As to the “research” of Robert Sungenis, that also is another embarrasing episode, though luckily not within the confines of the Catholic magisterium (I even the Church) and merely representative of a fundamentalist fringe
M
Mijoy2
Guest
This comment will go unnoticed as seemingly all my comments do. :crying:
I say this (the following) in jest, I am neither a theological scholar nor a novice, so I think I fall in that …“so what” catagory. Which is perfectly okay.
I spent a good deal of time reading another recent thread “There is no God” I think it is entitled. NBD (No big deal). What I have come to realize in my long (3 years) and painful journey, is that we will not, are not, probably should not, get the definitive answers we crave.
For whatever reason these answers are not for us to fully obtain. We will debate until the cows come home; does God exist?; whose “God” is the God of truth?; Is the Koran from God?; Was Martin Luther a reformist of was he mistaken?.
We all do the best we can with what we have. Frankly what I turn my back on the quickest are individuals with apparently unwavering opinions. This, to me, shows not a humble attitude but an attitude of pride. Pride that they are definitively right at the expense of all others, at the expense of many many individual scholars of other faiths who have for whatever reason been enabled to devote thier lives to researching thier cause and came to other findings than us.
I find myself emotionally torn. I only watch EWTN, all other tv shows bore me. I witness the wonderful devotion of such wonderful men and women that conduct the regular programming. I admire them and am greatly greatful to them for assisting me with my faith. Yet I cannot dismiss the idea that I may be all wet. That this faith of ours has emerged, evolved if you will, out of something other then truth.
One of the reasons (if not the reason), when I found myself drawn away from the horrors of my life to trying to find something more, I eventually came back to the Catholic faith (of which I was born into) was because our faith seemed to lend itself more to my quandry. At first I began to listen to evangelicals who preach , we believe in Jesus or we burn in hell. I could not accept this. I struggled and struggled with the idea. Catholicism seemed to be more accepting, more rational, more humane (if I dare say).
Yet I may be wrong (right?). Maybe Islam is correct. Maybe athiests are more in line with reality.
Short of a private revelation I intelllectualy feel I MUST lend credence to people with other opinions. I struggle every day with such matters as; does God exist?; are the muslims correct and us wrong?; Are we all wrong?; Jews are pretty smart dudes and they totally disagree with us.
I feel alone in this struggle. I come here and find people who appear to have an unwavering faith. I wonder if it’s something they know and I do not or are they ignorant. In my private life I see people who appear to have no (or little) faith at all. I wonder if I am missing out by living, and taking advantage of the “things” they enjoy and I deny myself.
All this is neither here nor there I suppose. I just hope God understands my doubts…my rationale.
How do I sum this up? I love God; pray He exists; pray I have it right; yet doubt…
Anybody with any secrets out there…feel free to PM me.
Sorry for derailing the thread, sometimes I get a bit carried away at the keyboard.
Merry Christmas
I say this (the following) in jest, I am neither a theological scholar nor a novice, so I think I fall in that …“so what” catagory. Which is perfectly okay.
I spent a good deal of time reading another recent thread “There is no God” I think it is entitled. NBD (No big deal). What I have come to realize in my long (3 years) and painful journey, is that we will not, are not, probably should not, get the definitive answers we crave.
For whatever reason these answers are not for us to fully obtain. We will debate until the cows come home; does God exist?; whose “God” is the God of truth?; Is the Koran from God?; Was Martin Luther a reformist of was he mistaken?.
We all do the best we can with what we have. Frankly what I turn my back on the quickest are individuals with apparently unwavering opinions. This, to me, shows not a humble attitude but an attitude of pride. Pride that they are definitively right at the expense of all others, at the expense of many many individual scholars of other faiths who have for whatever reason been enabled to devote thier lives to researching thier cause and came to other findings than us.
I find myself emotionally torn. I only watch EWTN, all other tv shows bore me. I witness the wonderful devotion of such wonderful men and women that conduct the regular programming. I admire them and am greatly greatful to them for assisting me with my faith. Yet I cannot dismiss the idea that I may be all wet. That this faith of ours has emerged, evolved if you will, out of something other then truth.
One of the reasons (if not the reason), when I found myself drawn away from the horrors of my life to trying to find something more, I eventually came back to the Catholic faith (of which I was born into) was because our faith seemed to lend itself more to my quandry. At first I began to listen to evangelicals who preach , we believe in Jesus or we burn in hell. I could not accept this. I struggled and struggled with the idea. Catholicism seemed to be more accepting, more rational, more humane (if I dare say).
Yet I may be wrong (right?). Maybe Islam is correct. Maybe athiests are more in line with reality.
Short of a private revelation I intelllectualy feel I MUST lend credence to people with other opinions. I struggle every day with such matters as; does God exist?; are the muslims correct and us wrong?; Are we all wrong?; Jews are pretty smart dudes and they totally disagree with us.
I feel alone in this struggle. I come here and find people who appear to have an unwavering faith. I wonder if it’s something they know and I do not or are they ignorant. In my private life I see people who appear to have no (or little) faith at all. I wonder if I am missing out by living, and taking advantage of the “things” they enjoy and I deny myself.
All this is neither here nor there I suppose. I just hope God understands my doubts…my rationale.
How do I sum this up? I love God; pray He exists; pray I have it right; yet doubt…
Anybody with any secrets out there…feel free to PM me.
Sorry for derailing the thread, sometimes I get a bit carried away at the keyboard.
Merry Christmas
T
trth_skr
Guest
Read parts III and IV of Geocentrism 101.
That is basically what current science does, also. Most “evidence” for their theories are equally applicable to geocentrism.
No, world = universe. Earth = sphere of earth.
Which is ultimately what modern cosmology does, only using different philosophical positions.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
M
miguel
Guest
I scanned the Geocentricism 101. I won’t try to master what you’re saying. But I did take a graduate engineering course in orbit mechanics. So I know how engineers use the term. Some random comments:
- Engineers pick coordinates out of convenience. If we’re designing a rocket, we don’t put the origin at the center of the earth. We could. But it would be silly. We try to find an axis of symmetry (of the rocket) and locate the origin (x=0, y=z, z=0) somewhere along it. That way, if we move the rocket, the xyz coordinates of its components (i.e., component locations) remain fixed. Obviously, that would not be the case if we used the center of the earth. We could do that, but we’d have to recalculate all the xyz’s every time we’d move the rocket. Then we’d have to update all the drawings etc…very inefficient. Likewise, if we want to study the motion of the planets, we pick the center of the sun as the origin. It’s easier to work with (equation-wise) and to visualize elliptical planetary motion around the sun. We could pick the center of the earth, and try to model the relative motions of all the planets with respect to the earth, but it would be a mess mathematically and impossible to visualize. So from a practical standpoint, all coordinate systems are not equal.
- It seems that you are going to great lengths to defend the infallibility of the Church in the scientific realm. Why? It doesn’t claim infallibility in that realm. We don’t say “we believe in geocentrism” in the creed. It is not an article of faith. It is an article (or not) of science. If the Church is foolish enough to make pronouncements outside of its authority, and suffers embarrassment over it, well hopefully she learns something from it and moves on. But my faith in her proper authority (over faith and morals) is not challenged by that in the least.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Good points, but we are not talking about practicality, we are talking about truth.
As an aside, when NASA launches earth orbiting satellites, the do use a geocentric coordinate system.
I am defending the Church, period. Also, I have not claimed infallibility.
Obviously there is going to be some overlap between “science” and Church. Who decides where the overlap occurs? Stephen Hawkings?
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
M
miguel
Guest
Doesn’t truth have some beauty that goes along with it? If you pick the wrong coordinate system, you end up working with a dog’s breakfast mathematically. And the truth (and mathematical elegance), of periodic elliptical planetary motion around the sun, is obscured.
And they are being practical when they do so. The elliptical motion of a satellite around the earth is analogous to the elliptical motion of a planet around the sun. The same basic equations are used. Only the constants are changed. BTW, in elliptical motion, the central body (sun or earth) is not really at the center of the ellipse, it is at one of the foci. The central body is the dominant gravitational force. If a satellite orbits earth, the dominant gravitational force is from the earth. Likewise with the planets, the dominant gravitational force is the sun. When NASA sends these satellites out of earth orbit on an interplanetary trajectory, the dominant force (i.e., the central body of gravitational attraction) transitions along the way from earth, to the sun, to the target planet. NASA does not maintain a geocentric coordinate system the whole way on these types of missions. The coordinate system shifts as the central body shifts.
I don’t expect the Church to be right about everything under the sun, just faith and morals. If she wants to make statements outside of that, fine. But I don’t feel any obligation to defend it.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Actually, the eight planets beautifully orbit the sun in the sun’s solar system, while we observe this beauty from the vantage point of the stable center of the universe.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Just another comment on your simple beauty and truth.
In the current acentric system, the planets AND sun orbit the barycenter of the solar system (I believe the barycenter is within the sun’s envelope). This barycenter is revolving around the center of the milky way at 500 km/s. The milky way is revolving around the center of its local cluster, which revolves in its super cluster… In this current scenario we are sitting atop a condensed blob in a pimordial ballistic event.
Where is the simplicity here? There is no truth in the picture you set-up. It is a complete fantasy.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Modernism had well taken root by then. CE is not official Church teaching.
Aren’t we judgemental tonight. :tsktsk:
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
If I come across any, I will post them on my blog for sure!
Merry Christmas to you, too.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
S
steveandersen
Guest
The simplicity there is that is all follows a very basic set of rules and conforms to all the data (not just the visible data)
Simplicity and robustness…that seems to be the very definition of elegance
M
miguel
Guest
I did not say the sun was fixed. I said it was the dominant force of gravitational attraction in the solar system. And, like the other eight planets, the earth goes around it. That fact and the fact that the earth’s axis is tilted relative to the ecliptic plane (the plane of the earth’s motion around the sun) accounts for the seasons, and for why it’s winter in the northern hemisphere when it’s summer in the southern hemisphere. When the earth is on one side of the sun, the north pole’s maximum tilt toward the sun occurs on the first day of summer (i.e., summer begins in the northern hemisphere, winter begins in the southern hemisphere - the south pole’s maximum tilt away from the sun). On the other side of the sun (6 months later), it’s the opposite. The first day of spring and autumn occur when the north and south pole have no tilt toward the sun. But as you say, the solar system is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, etc. Engineers try to understand things by breaking them down into subsystems, systems, etc. If you model a subsystem correctly, you can take that understanding and plug it in to understanding the larger system, etc. Jesus said the truth sets us free. That simple statement is probably one of the most profound things ever said by anyone. It applies to moral and religious truth, certainly. But it also applies to natural truth. One measure of truth, is the freedom it obtains. If biologists discover some truth about biochemistry, and that truth is used successfully to fight disease, I think that illustrates what Jesus said. Likewise, if engineers use their understanding of Newtonian mechanics to navigate satellites around the solar system, that demonstrates the truth of their model. Is the truth complete? No. Only God knows the complete truth. But it is adequate to do what we want to do in our corner of the solar system.
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
Really, the CE is modernist…lol. if the CE is modernist than so is Aquinas
Neither Mr. Sungenis’s books, nor your blo-site are official Church teaching either. However, one of the three is a much more credible source of Catholic teaching that the other two.
I am sorry but firstly, Robert Sungenis is not even a member of the Catholic Church in good standing given his traditionalist beliefs. Secondly, he definitly is not a member of the Magisterium and I cannot think of one member of the magisterium who has ever supported or even noticed his work.
And what is your relationship to Robert? I must admit that you seem to be his internet defender everywhere his name pops up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Sungenis
As to Galileo, why all the focus on geocentrism when he was also brought before the inquisition for the discovery of sun-spots? Does Robert Sungenis also hold the patristic belief that the sun is pure and unblemished?
And I find it a little backhanded your article which quotes the CE in one section, but not the conclusion of the Galileo article:
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
I will close with a quote from F. C. Copleston, another “modernist” according to you if you want to maintain consistancy, “To his contemporaries he appeared as an innovator, partyl because he treated problems in a fresh way and introduced new lines of argument, partly because on some matters he rejected traditional positions…to the more conservatively minded theologians, Thomas [Aquinas] appeared as an innovator, and a dangerous one at that.” (A History of Medieval Philosophy, 181-198)
T
trth_skr
Guest
Aquinas did not write the 1913 CE. I am basically saying that throughout the 19th century modernism spread- and was fought against by the popes. By 1913, it was pervasive and touched many aspects of life, including Church thinkers.
Really? And which beliefs are those (specifically)? The belief that Vat. II is valid? The belief that the NO mass is valid (and attended by him and his family)? The belief that the SSPX is schismatic? Are those the traditionalist beliefs that make him outside the Church? How about his rebuttal of Gerry Matatics recent move?
Please, just because you disagree with him does not make him outside the Church.
Do you know them all?
I stick up for him when he is unfairly attacked- as others do on this and other forums. I followed Phil Porvaznik from this forum to Wikipedia, and helped with the article.
As for sun spots, I do not see this as a significant issue. Geocentrism goes far beyond Galileo.
The CE is used pretty sparingly in my articles. I am not obligated to quote the conclusion of every source I cite. I am interested in factual information, not opinions I feel are wrong. To be fair, in the case of the Church, I let the popes do most of the talking.
I will not disagree with that. Galileo was liked, even by Urban the VIII, who ultimately condemned him. Lucifer is an attractive deceiver. Also, please note that Galileo himself even reconsidered his position against geocentrism, reforming himself close to his death.
Aquinas was accepted after 150 yrears or so, and explicitly accepted by the Church. Geocentrism has not been explicitly overturned by the Church in almost 400 years. Science has not disproven it. This makes it a powerful issue.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
A modern Tychonian system is just as accurate, and scientists would end up doing the same manuevering around the solar system in the modern Tychonian system as they would in the current model. The relative motions are the same. Things move towards one another and away at the same velocities and accelerations requiring the same navigation and thrusts. Sorry, though both systems are accurate, the fact that NASA uses one and not the other does not prove the one “truth”.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Actually, it does not follow a simple set of rules. If it did, NASA would not need Fourier transforms (i.e., many, many epicyclets) to describe the motions.
General Relativity says there are a set of “rules” to consistently describe the geocentric case. See Part II of Geocentricity 101.
I find a motionless earth, the seat of God’s creation, revolved about by the stars, sun, planets, etc. pretty elegant, thank you.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
M
miguel
Guest
If NASA’s approach was false, it wouldn’t work.
- Status