Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: klasG4e

OHCA said:

Quote

So what's your point?

You do know that if you insinuate an argument implicitly based on flawed logic that it's just as flawed as if you came out and said what you're getting at instead of beating around the bush, don't you?

Sorry for any confusion; none intended.

Soooooo....OK.  What don't you get?

Do you believe that a traditional reading of Genesis allows for the Big Bang with Light being created before Earth?  If yes, how so?  If no, you agree with me.

If you can provide a link to any geocentrists who are on record as supporting the Big Bang please provide me with same.  (I'd certainly like to see their reasoning.)  Perhaps, you have run across some.  As of yet, I have not.  

Here is what I don't get:

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: klasG4e

On the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.

So what's your point?

You do know that if you insinuate an argument implicitly based on flawed logic that it's just as flawed as if you came out and said what you're getting at instead of beating around the bush, don't you?

It appears that you are trying to discredit heliocentrists because some of them are also Big Bangers.  These are two questions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  For what it's worth, I am not a Big Banger nor an evolutionist.

All heliocentrists are Big Bangers or they don't know the philosophy behind heliocentrism and think they can marry good and evil.

This is the type of intellectual inferiority and/or dishonesty that turns me off to the flat-earthers' rants.  Even if I do become convinced that the earth is flat, which I don't altogether rule out that possibility, the method of discourse of the flat-earthers that I have encountered comes across as intellectually inferior as protestants that I have heard arguing amongst themselves about whether Christ had a belly button or not, and just as protestant to boot.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: mw2016

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.  

Really? Name one. I can't.

I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."

Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists.  Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.

Agreed.

You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe."  If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe.  You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."

OHCA

Quote

I won't suffer listening or reading anymore of his [John Salza's] self promotions.

Well, can't you at least humor me then by listening to the talk.  I guarantee you he is not promoting himself in the talk, but rather the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  I hereby grant you an exemption from my previously assigned homework and you can listen to the talk for fun, not for penance if you want to see it that way.  Pleeeeez!  

If it helps just remember the old saying of "principles before personalities."  Even if you remain convinced he's trying to promote himself keep in mind that he is still giving a well versed talk on the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

I am a little over 18 minutes into it and Salza is competing with some heavy hitters for laying down the heaviest barrage of protestant private interpretation--he is competing with my heretical co-workers debating Christ's belly button status and maybe even some televangelists.

But he wasn't slick enough to get past perhaps the Church has not infallibly proclaimed geocentrism and he didn't get the geocentrist memo that the moon emits its own light rather than reflect light.  Doesn't that make him some sort of heretic by geocentrist standards?  But Salza is a work in progress--he probably wouldn't draw attention to the potential non-infallibility of the alleged pronouncement and would have the moon running on its own rather than reflecting these days.

I am not impressed with Salza.  I am convinced that he is some sort of a shill--probably still for the masons.

I do not believe the earth is flat, but by no means rule out the possibility.  I didn't get in this fray to convince folks that heliocentrism is undoubtedly correct.  I jumped in because the assertion is being made that geocentrism is dogma, but I do not believe that it has been taught dogmatically.  And I jumped in for the additional reason that the nature/method of argumentation being advanced is protestant--protestant in its reliance on private interpretation and protestant in its intellectual sloppiness, inferiority, and dishonesty.

When there is this much confusion and dissent among what I believe to be true Catholics, that makes me think the Church has not spoken dogmatically as to the issue.  The notion that the Church speaks ambiguously and/or with lack of clarity is a phenomenon of new church and not of the Church prior the reign of "Saint" "Pope" Fat Dunce.  Thus, I do not believe that there would be as many true Catholics who didn't know that it is dogma if it really was.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: Arvinger

Some time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.

They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:

"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."

Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that something else than geocentrism might be true. Also, the heliocentric work were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV, and Pope Pius VII approved printing books on movement of earth in Rome.

While I'm not opposed to geocentrism (I simply don't know, I have not studied the topic and evidence properly), it seems that the Church has not settled the matter yet. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.

The Church has settled the matter.  In 1633 when She said: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[51]


And infallibly the Church declared:

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;

Heliocentrism is condemned.

Source?

Also included in this Church statement:
This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Funny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:

I guess there'll always be trend followers...

Sorry, this subject isn't new but has been a hotly debated discussion for centuries.  The only reason it fell away and seemingly ended is because everyone believed we went to the moon.  Clever devils. Now we know nobody went to the moon. Their little fakery only worked for a while since people have been exposing that lie since the 70's.  Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.  So, the geocentric movie had nothing to do with the resurgence of the discussion. Even Augustine talked about way back it in the 300's.  Flat earth is no "trend".  

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: Arvinger

Some time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.

They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:

"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."

Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that something else than geocentrism might be true. Also, the heliocentric work were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV, and Pope Pius VII approved printing books on movement of earth in Rome.

While I'm not opposed to geocentrism (I simply don't know, I have not studied the topic and evidence properly), it seems that the Church has not settled the matter yet. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.

The Church has settled the matter.  In 1633 when She said: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[51]


And infallibly the Church declared:

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;

Heliocentrism is condemned.

Source?

The decree of 1616 defined a fixed sun/moving earth as formal heresy. Vatican records; First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644.

The above confirmation of heresy also taken from the Inquisitions docuмents recording Pope Urban VIII's personal instruction at the trial of Galileo.

In 1867, the French scholar Henri de L’Epinois gained access to many of the docuмents in the Vatican archives and he published several of the most important ones in his Revue des Questions Historiques and again in his Les Piéces du Procés de Galilée. It was however, not until Pope Leo XIII finally opened the secret (private) Vatican’s archives and those of the Holy Office that the most comprehensive transcriptions of the affair were made, the first of these was by Antonio Favaro in his Works of Galileo Galilei (national edition 1890-1909 and 1929-1939). Further books edited by Domenico Berti (1876), the Protestant Karl von Gebler (1879), and others, all amounted to a vast compilation of facts pertaining to Galileo’s clash with the Church. Since then other docuмents pertaining to the Galileo case were unearthed, including records of the arguments made by the Holy Office when dropping the ban on heliocentric books in 1758 and 1835.

I'm watching the Salza talk now too.

I just thought of another proof of why a geocentric earth CANNOT be a ball: seasons!

The Bible (which we are obligated to take literally) says that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

The ball-earth model says seasons are caused by the earth tilting on its axis. It can't. It cannot tilt - it cannot move.

The heliocentric version of seasons is that the earth has a permanent tilt of 23.5 degrees as it orbits the earth. The heliocentric version ironically says the earth does not move its tilt.

The geocentric version of seasons is that the sun YEARLY orbits the earth with a motion that takes it up to 23.5 degrees from the equator in the northern hemisphere, and back past the equator down to 23.5 degrees in the Southern hemisphere.

In both models the earth is motionless in its position with the sun.

Ah, but for anyone interested there is a further puzzle, where does precession come into play with the heliocentric tilt?

Quote from: s2srea

Funny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:

I guess there'll always be trend followers...

Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.

How old are you?  How long have you been a traditional Catholic?  Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive.  In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it.  It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that.  And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.

What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008?  I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.