Quote from: Anthem

To my knowledge, there has been no dogmatic or ex cathedra pronouncement, nor is there any explict, defined-literal language in the Bible to the effect that Earth does not revolve around the Sun, nor that the Sun revolves around Earth, nor that either is the center of the universe, in a scientific sense.

so, then, the answer is open! geocentrism or heliocentrism...now, we need to look at the Bible, Fathers,etc...for a better understanding.....

The choice is not geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, unless we are speaking only of the solar system.  Heliocentrism can describe our solar system only.  Geocentrism (Earth is the center of the universe) and heliocentrism (the Sun is the center of the universe) are both wrong, based on scientific evidence.  

There is no reason to look to the Bible for explanations about how celestial bodies move with relation to each other, because that information simply is not in the Bible.  Similarly, the periodic table of elements is not in the Bible.  

Could we be interpreting the scientific evidence wrongly?  Certainly.  However, even if the science is wrong about whether Earth is stationary or not, what does this have to do with religion, particularly Catholicism?  We know from Faith that the Son of God walked on the face of the Earth.  That alone makes Earth the figurative center of Creation, regardless of the position/motion/acceleration of Earth with relation to the rest of the universe.

The choice is not geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, unless we are speaking only of the solar system.  Heliocentrism can describe our solar system only.  Geocentrism (Earth is the center of the universe) and heliocentrism (the Sun is the center of the universe) are both wrong, based on scientific evidence.  

There is no reason to look to the Bible for explanations about how celestial bodies move with relation to each other, because that information simply is not in the Bible.  Similarly, the periodic table of elements is not in the Bible.  

Could we be interpreting the scientific evidence wrongly?  Certainly.  However, even if the science is wrong about whether Earth is stationary or not, what does this have to do with religion, particularly Catholicism?  We know from Faith that the Son of God walked on the face of the Earth.  That alone makes Earth the figurative center of Creation, regardless of the position/motion/acceleration of Earth with relation to the rest of the universe.

Very well, said.  I usually avoid these type conversations because my ignorance on such matters becomes quickly apparent.   :stare:  I only respond now because I have just finished a Chapter Lesson on Space with our 4th grader.  Our text really attempts to move beyond the discussion of just our universe.  There are many things in the universe and beyond that are unknown to us at this time.  These things are known only to God because He created them for His purpose.  For reasons unclear, He created the Earth at this particular time to be the only place where human life could survive and thrive.  It is completely significant because it was on Earth that He chose to reveal Himself to us.  He became a man, not a giraffe or Martian, if you will.  He came to us here, not on Jupiter, or Alpha Centauri.  

As humans, we can go our entire lives and never understand the intricacies of the universe.  As a matter of faith, all that really concerns us is that God created the Earth and he use the forces of the universe to make that happen.  In other words, He uses the pressure and forces of volcanoes and earthquakes to make mountains and valleys.  Likewise He has used the laws of physics to create the environment in which we live.  In the scheme of things, it is knowledge that isn't necessary for our salvation.  

FWIW, though, it is highly possible and not beyond reason to imagine that as a star, the sun is not stationary, and has some  sort of orbit of it's own.  So the sun could appear to be orbiting the earth, so to speak.  It's also plausible to consider that, if humankind is to continue living in a physical capacity, that God could and might prepare another place for that to happen.

This earth, just like all things, will cease to exist.  Eventually so will the sun.  Humans can't live here for eternity.  Looking at the photos of planets and space, gazing at the stars these past few weeks, and charting the moons phases has all helped me and our young children really appreciate the wonder of God's work.  

I think it's fair to leave the "how it all works" to the scientists.  I don't believe there is some conspiracy to convince us to believe one over the other.  Does it really matter, anyway?  

As far as these things not being included in the Bible...it's heresy to suggest that the Bible is the source of all Truth.  The Bible has been used throughout history to lead men astray.  Putting one's faith solely in the Scripture is quite dangerous.  

I have just received another email from Mr Sun. He is denying my allegation that he is implying Copernicus was a homo. He is now saying that the reference in his prev email to the perfidious nature of Copernicus is that he was an aduterer.

His prev email says nothing re:adultery and subversively does indeed leave the impression that the man was a homo. At any rate, I don't even believe the adultery story.

I hope the Forum will keep in mind that the very first thing Mr Sun says to me in his email is the sleaze allegation-- this w/o even bothering to answer the substance of my Real Galileo research at http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com

My request of Mr Sun to provide the names of even a small minority( or even one) of scientists that have data showing S rev around E has been met with silence so far.

Mr Sun has also been asked to join me here at cathinfo for a debate.

There are 2 things Mr Sun will not be able to escape.

1== Galileo is a primarily a physicist and only an amateur astonomer. He did indeed hold atomist/Epicurian doctrines in this his main occupation. These doctrines are at odds with the Real Presence.

2== No scientific data that S rev around E has been produced. If this were true there would at least be a small minority of researchers who would attempt to prove it from that perspective.

Why does Mr Sun feel it necessary to attack the character of Copernicus b4 responding to my research?

I am now in possession of another email from him that goes into the details of the alleged nature of the nefarious character of Copernicus-- slander and libel imo

mr. roscoe the flying loose wing nut case and his 6-day nonsense thread