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

Author Topic: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)  (Read 16695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aryzia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 382
  • Reputation: +120/-166
  • Gender: Female
Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2018, 11:12:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • At: http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/
    Here are the two opposing agruments:

    1. "Sir Isaac Newton, as it is generally considered, gave ultimate
    explanation of planetary motions that was in accord with Kepler’s model,
    and excluded Brahe’s one.The laws of motions and the inverse square law
    of gravity could reproduce all the observed data only with the assumption
    that the Sun (i.e. the center of mass of the system, which can be very well
    approximated by the center of the Sun) stands still, and all planets move
    around it. According to Newton’s laws, it is impossible for the small Earth
    to keep the big Sun in its orbit: the gravitational pull is just too weak. This
    argument is very strong, and it seems to settle the question for good."

    2. "Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the
    equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket”
    argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which
    results from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real
    forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the
    Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. Some
    even go further, stating that “every single physical property and behavioral
    aspect of isolated systems is determined by the whole Universe.”5
    According to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot
    point” of the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the
    Earth will create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the
    motion of the Earth."

    So, the argument is between gravity and pseudo-forces.

    Gravity we understand. Pseudo-forces?  What the heck is that? Answer:
    it is something that is created by the spinning universe.  What makes
    the universe spin?  It must be another force, call it fantasy force.  What
    make this fantasy force?  Where did it come from?  How does it work?

    How many unknown forces are required to explain Geocentrism?  The
    problem here is that these forces are unprovable and unmeasurable.
    Just because you can show mathematical formulas for the motion of
    the planets as if they were orbiting the earch, does not mean that the
    formulas accurately describe reality.  

    So, if you want to believe in fantasy forces, go ahead.  Now you believe
    in a fantasy called Geocentrism.

    Mathematics and astronomy (gravity, mass, motion) have a very simple
    explanation for the Heliocentric system.  Why believe in fantasy?  

    If you persist in the belief that the Bible proves Geocentrism, you may
    find it difficult to convert thinking people to Christianity.  Why not just say
    the Bible is not a science textbook, and on the subject of Heliocentrism,
    the Bible is not very specific.
    Sungenis is mistaken in his theory on the stationary ball. However flat earth geocentrism has not been disproved. Heliocentrism stands condemned by the Church.


    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #16 on: April 24, 2018, 11:47:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We understand gravity much better than pseudo-forces caused by a spinning universe.

    Actually, a spinning universe is part of the original hypothesis: that the earth is the
    center and the universe spins around it.  You cannot use the original hypothesis as
    part of the proof of the original hypothesis.

    The idea of a spinning universe is caused by assuming that the earth does not spin,
    and the universe spins around the earth.  Next time you take a bath, watch what
    happens when you drain the water.  You will get a spinning whirlpool.  What causes
    it to spin?  Clockwise in the Northern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the Southern
    hemisphere.  The earth is spinning !!  This also proves that the earth is not flat, or else
    you've to find some more fantasy forces to explain it.



    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #17 on: April 24, 2018, 11:57:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Earth does not "spin."

    Earth does NOT move.

    That is de fide from the Bible.

    Even Sungenis, who believes the ball, acknowledges earth does not rotate.

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #18 on: April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sungenis is mistaken in his theory on the stationary ball. However flat earth geocentrism has not been disproved. Heliocentrism stands condemned by the Church.
    Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
    The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion.  Next, someone will tell me that the
    Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so.  It's this kind of thinking that made
    me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago. 
    In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
    6.  Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos.  10, 13) an example of obvious error?
    No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms.  Even to this day,
    for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
    the Sun and not vice-versa.
    You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #19 on: April 24, 2018, 12:01:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Earth does not "spin."
    Earth does NOT move.
    That is de fide from the Bible.
    Even Sungenis, who believes the ball, acknowledges earth does not rotate.
    I'm sorry, I could not find any proofs in your post.
    I don't care what Sungenis says.


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #20 on: April 24, 2018, 12:04:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
    The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion.  Next, someone will tell me that the
    Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so.  It's this kind of thinking that made
    me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.  
    In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
    6.  Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos.  10, 13) an example of obvious error?
    No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms.  Even to this day,
    for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
    the Sun and not vice-versa.
    You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12
    Your 1997 quote from SSPX priest Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys doesn't help you: all SSPX priests are heliocentrists.
    There are several Bible verses that state de fide: earth does NOT move.

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #21 on: April 24, 2018, 12:15:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your 1997 quote from SSPX priest Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys doesn't help you: all SSPX priests are heliocentrists.
    There are several Bible verses that state de fide: earth does NOT move.
    OK, you believe the Earth does not move, you are entitled to your opinion.  

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #22 on: April 24, 2018, 12:58:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Why not search the Bible at http://drbo.org and find the verse(s)
    that prove Geocentrism.



    I. The Earth Does Not Move

    When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
    In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).
    We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.
    Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):
    1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”
    2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).
    1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.
    Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
    Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
    Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”
    Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
    Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”
    Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
    Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”
    Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”
    Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”
    Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”
    Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”
    When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.
    The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” – see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8 ). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.
    Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 – God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day? This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.
    Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.
    Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.
    Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.
    John 17:24 – Jesus says “…behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.

    II. The Sun, Moon and Stars Move

    Joshua 10:12-14 – “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.” This is the most powerful passage which supports a geocentric view of the universe. This passage clearly says that both the sun and moon stopped moving. This is the literal reading of the passage, and the passage does not warrant a figurative or phenomenological interpretation. Why? First, the book of Joshua was written to record actual historical events in the history of Israel (as opposed to figurative or poetic literature found elsewhere in Scripture), and there is no compelling reason to interpret it other than literally. Second, heliocentrists believe the moon moves. Therefore, it would be contradictory for them to claim that Joshua told the moon to stand still literally, but told the sun to stand still figuratively. The most reasonable conclusion is that both the moon and sun were moving, and both the moon and sun stopped moving at Joshua’s command. Finally, Joshua records that the sun stopped over Gibeon, while the moon stopped over Aijalon. These are two distinct points on the earth which confirm the coordinates of cessation of movement of the sun and moon. There are other Scriptures which also indicate that the sun, moon and stars are moving:
    Judges 5:20 – “From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”
    Judges 5:31 – “So perish all thine enemies, O Lord! But thy friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.”
    2 Kings 20:11 – “And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz.”
    Job 9:7 – “who commands the sun, and it does not rise.”
    Psalm 19:5-6 – “In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridgegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.”
    Psalm 104:19 – “Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.”
    Eccles. 1:5 – “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”
    Wis. 13:2 – “but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.”
    Sir. 43:2 – “The sun, when it appears, making proclamation as it goes forth, is a marvelous instrument, the work of the Most High.”
    Sir. 43:5 – “Great is the Lord who made it; and at his command it hastens on its course.”
    Sir. 46:4 – “Was not the sun held back by his hand? And did not one day become as long as two?”
    Isaiah 38:7-8 – “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps. So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined.”
    Hab. 3:11 – “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation, at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of they glittering spear.”
    1 Esdras 4:34 – “The earth is vast, and heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, for it makes the circuit of the heavens and returns to its place in one day.”
    James 1:11 – “for the sun rises with its scorching heat…”
    Jude 13: – “wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.” A “wandering star” is called a “planet.” If the earth does not wander, it is not a planet.
    Mark 16:2 – the Apostle says “And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.” Mark is drawing a clear parallel between the risen sun and the risen Son at this poignant moment when the women discovered that Jesus had risen from the dead. Just as the sun rises literally, so Jesus rose literally as well. Scripture also refers to Jesus as the “Sun of Justice” (see Mal. 4:2).
    Gen. 1:14-15, 17 – God said, “let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens”; and “God set them in the firmament of the heavens.” Geocentrists generally believe that God placed the stars and planets in the “firmament” (which scientists often call the “aether”) described by Moses in Genesis. The firmament is a shell containing the heavenly bodies and rotates around a fixed earth.
    Dan. 12:3 – “And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” This demonstrates that there is a relationship between the stars and the firmament, and yet a distinction between the two as well (the stars have been placed in the firmament).
    Sir. 43:1 – “the pride of the heavenly heights is the clear firmament…” This text suggests that the firmament is clear (not visible), and that the firmament shows the “heavenly heights” (the stars, which are imbedded in the firmament).
    Gen. 15:12,17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Ex. 17:12: 22:3,26; Lev. 22:7; Num. 2:3; Deut. 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13; 24:15; Josh. 1:4; 8:29; 10:12,13,27; 12:1; Judges 9:33; 14:18; 19:14; 2 Sam. 2:24; 3:35; 23:4; 1 Kings 22:36; 2 Chron. 18:34; Psalm 50:1; 104:22; 113:3; Isa. 13:10; 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; 60:20; Jer. 15:9; Dan. 6:14; Amos 8:9; Jonah 4:8; Mic. 3:6; Nah. 3:17; Mal. 1:11; Matt. 5:45; 13:6; Mark 1:32; 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Eph. 4:26 – more examples where the sun “rises,” “sets,” “goes up,” and “goes down.”


    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1323/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #23 on: April 24, 2018, 01:45:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
    The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion.  Next, someone will tell me that the
    Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so.  It's this kind of thinking that made
    me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.  
    In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
    6.  Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos.  10, 13) an example of obvious error?
    No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms.  Even to this day,
    for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
    the Sun and not vice-versa.
    You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12
    In the book "Galileo Was Wrong" there are quotes from Church Fathers and other Church docuмents condemning Heliocentism, some of these docuмents are presented for the first time in English. So I would suggest reading through the books to see which questions are answered and those that are not answered, then you can discuss further.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #24 on: April 24, 2018, 01:49:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • I. The Earth Does Not Move

    When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
    In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).
    We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.
    Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):
    1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”
    2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).
    1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.
    Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
    Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
    Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”
    Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
    Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”
    Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
    Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”
    Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”
    Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”
    Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”
    Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”
    When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.
    The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” – see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8 ). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.
    Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 – God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day? This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.
    Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.
    Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.
    Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.
    John 17:24 – Jesus says “…behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.
    If you are to take all those quotes literally, as you insist, then you must believe in a flat Earth. For all of those quotes mention the Earth having "pillars" or "foundations", something it does NOT have in the Geocentric model. Furthermore, in the desert the devil showed Christ the whole world from the sky. That is impossible with a globe Earth.
    I'm not even a flat Earther, your argument is just self-defeating. 

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #25 on: April 24, 2018, 02:10:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”
    Three things I don't understand:
    1. How "shall not be moved" means "shall not be in orbit around the Sun (or anything)".
    The word "moved" is not a word people use when talking about astronomy and planetary
    motion (celestial mechanics).  In astronomy, we don't say that someone or some force is
    moving a planet.  We talk about the planet having a speed (velocity) and a mass.  The
    only force on the planet is the pull of gravity, keeping it in orbit.
    2. How Heliocentrism is a novelty.  It just makes a lot of sense and it's provable.
    3. How Heliocentrism poses a danger to a Catholic.  So what if the earth orbits around
    the sun?  How does that affect the 10 commandments or "love they enemies". 
    Your post looks very good, but the word "moved" is just not conclusive enough for me.
    And where is the teaching of the Church on this, which condemns Heliocentrism
    And which pope did that ? 


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #26 on: April 24, 2018, 02:14:32 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • If you are to take all those quotes literally, as you insist, then you must believe in a flat Earth. For all of those quotes mention the Earth having "pillars" or "foundations", something it does NOT have in the Geocentric model. Furthermore, in the desert the devil showed Christ the whole world from the sky. That is impossible with a globe Earth.
    I'm not even a flat Earther, your argument is just self-defeating.
    Wow!  I am really glad to hear you are not a "flat Earther."
    As for the rest of your post, let me just say this and it is rather a key and distinguishing point.  Whereas all the Fathers of the Church agreed on a geocentric interpretation of SS, they did not agree on a flat Earth interpretation.  Frankly, I am not aware of even a single one that believed in a flat Earth interpretation, although it you know of any I'd be happy to view your source docuмentation for same.
    P.S. God is God and Christ could see the whole Earth from whenever and wherever.  As a matter of fact he could see the whole Earth even if He was blindfolded  After all he was (and is and always will be) God!

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #27 on: April 24, 2018, 02:28:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Three things I don't understand:
    1. How "shall not be moved" means "shall not be in orbit around the Sun (or anything)".
    The word "moved" is not a word people use when talking about astronomy and planetary
    motion (celestial mechanics).  In astronomy, we don't say that someone or some force is
    moving a planet.  We talk about the planet having a speed (velocity) and a mass.  The
    only force on the planet is the pull of gravity, keeping it in orbit.
    2. How Heliocentrism is a novelty.  It just makes a lot of sense and it's provable.
    3. How Heliocentrism poses a danger to a Catholic.  So what if the earth orbits around
    the sun?  How does that affect the 10 commandments or "love they enemies".  
    Your post looks very good, but the word "moved" is just not conclusive enough for me.
    And where is the teaching of the Church on this, which condemns Heliocentrism ?  
    And which pope did that ?
    I hope these questions are of enough importance for you to do your own research.  My goodness, entire books -- many, many, of them -- have been written in answering these very questions.  You might want to start with an astounding work by Dr. Robert Sungenis -- Galileo Was Wrong -- The Church Was Right.  Sorry, if my answer sounds a bit abrupt, but I've only got so much time.  Best wishes in your search for the truth.  cf. http://galileowaswrong.com/

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #28 on: April 24, 2018, 02:41:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow!  I am really glad to hear you are not a "flat Earther."
    As for the rest of your post, let me just say this and it is rather a key and distinguishing point.  Whereas all the Fathers of the Church agreed on a geocentric interpretation of SS, they did not agree on a flat Earth interpretation.  Frankly, I am not aware of even a single one that believed in a flat Earth interpretation, although it you know of any I'd be happy to view your source docuмentation for same.
    P.S. God is God and Christ could see the whole Earth from whenever and wherever.  As a matter of fact he could see the whole Earth even if He was blindfolded  After all he was (and is and always will be) God!
    Indeed the Geocentric model was the predominant one held by the Church throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but in the first centuries there was plenty of disagreement regarding it. Some Church fathers were flat-earthers, St. Athanasius included. And while yes, the Geocentric consensus was a very strong one held for a very long time, Heliocentrism has also been believed by the vast majority of the Church(including Cardinals and Popes) for a couple hundred years now. So a strong consensus does not necessarily mean it's true. 

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
    « Reply #29 on: April 24, 2018, 02:52:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • I'm sorry, I could not find any proofs in your post.
    I don't care what Sungenis says.
    I don't care that Fr. Jaime Pazat at Our Lady Of Sorrows in Phoenix believes heliocentrism.
    He is WRONG!
    The Bible is without error.
    Earth does not move.
    But at least you admit that some Church Fathers knew earth to be flat.
    You said you "want" to believe it is flat.
    Why is that?
    Why do you not believe the Bible?
    Why be a Doubting Thomas?
    Our Lord is going to tell you bring your finger hither, and the He is going to smack you upside the head with it!