Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.  (Read 11194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« on: October 03, 2015, 05:26:57 PM »
From here:
Quote from: Kaesekopf
Cassini has been issued a 14 day ban for agenda pushing on the falsehood that is geocentrism.

The geocentric argument relies on a number of errors, two of which are as follows.

First, it relies on just a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge and the knowledge/ability to perform basic physics, the kind of stuff college freshmen are taught.  The absurdity that the universe tears at break-neck speed around the Earth in 24 hours is ridiculous - a bullet will rip to pieces if its speed is too high, why would we not expect the same out of rocks and stardust?

Second, it relies on an inappropriate interpretation of magisterial powers.  Not everything that comes out of Rome is binding on the faithful, nor is it always right.  The Church has the long-standing tradition that canonical condemnations are to be interpreted strictly, not loosely.  Geocentrists apparently love to aggregate power to the 1616 and 1633 decrees, yet no one believes what is contained in those docuмents, as such those long-dead decrees are just that, dead.  Besides that, the Magisterium has already ruled on the 1616 and 1633 decrees - they were overturned in 1820.  Unless Sungenis bought a position in the Holy Office like he did his PhD, the point is moot.

And the errors go on.  However, there's something to be said for not re-inventing the wheel, and tomes have already been written enough.

There is also a temporary ban on geocentrism discussions for the time being.  All threads will be locked if they discuss or being to devolve into a discussion of geocentrism.

If you would like to read more about why geocentrism is wrong, please see the following blog, but in particular these articles [from it].

[He lists several articles from http://geocentrismdebunked.org/ .]
Anti-geocentrism is, as far as I know, not a truth Catholics must believe.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2015, 05:34:23 PM »
Everyone should watch that "Galileo Was Wrong" DVD by Sungenis. Unlike the (in)famous "The Principle" movie, this DVD is actually available!

I watched it, and found it very informative. There is a lot of incontrovertible evidence for Geocentrism.

Long story short, those who know what they're talking about realize that "earth movers" are as desperate for explanations as the Godless Evolutionists. That is a fact.

Educate yourselves!

http://gwwdvd.com/?wpam_refkey=4


SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2015, 05:36:42 PM »
I guess next they will ban those posters who like me (although I don't post there I sometimes lurk) do not believe in evolution.

From my reading there I have come to the conclusion that the forum is somewhat liberal. I cannot compare it to fisheaters because I never joined or even lurked there because of its reputation.

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2015, 10:53:56 PM »
Quote from: Matto
I guess next they will ban those posters who like me (although I don't post there I sometimes lurk) do not believe in evolution.


That does not seem likely. Many posters have taken the position that they do not believe in evoltion.  The moderators have not shown any signs of objecting.  

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2015, 11:21:58 PM »
Quote from: Jaynek
Quote from: Matto
I guess next they will ban those posters who like me (although I don't post there I sometimes lurk) do not believe in evolution.


That does not seem likely. Many posters have taken the position that they do not believe in evoltion.  The moderators have not shown any signs of objecting.  
What's so different about the "geocentrism affair," then?