Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 340532 times)

happenby · « **Reply #370 on:** March 13, 2017, 06:01:33 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.

So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?

No, Bumph. Can you not keep track of what you are saying? You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #371 on:** March 13, 2017, 06:07:52 PM »

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.

So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?

No, Bumph. Can you not keep track of what you are saying? You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's

What kind of a liar are you? I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.

happenby · « **Reply #372 on:** March 13, 2017, 06:09:35 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.

So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?

No, Bumph. Can you not keep track of what you are saying? You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's

What kind of a liar are you? I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.

Remind me what it was...

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #373 on:** March 13, 2017, 06:13:35 PM »

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief. The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.

The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.

See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.

So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?

No, Bumph. Can you not keep track of what you are saying? You said it... when you suggested that the Church reversed the infallible teachings of 1616 in the 1800's

What kind of a liar are you? I never said the Church reversed infallible teaching.

Now, I asked this of Cassini, so don't speak for him.

But, why don't you answer it yourself as well? Yes, or No, to my question.

Remind me what it was...

Duh. Just look at the history text in your own message! It's right there.

happenby · « **Reply #374 on:** March 13, 2017, 06:15:21 PM »

Modern Geocentrism, (MG) with its stationary globe hanging in space is a theory incompatible with scripture and historical Geocentric cosmology. How can earth be a foundation as scripture describes, when it is a ball hanging mid-air? MG actually turns out to be the fraternal twin of Heliocentrism (Copernican/Pythagorean doctrines) and an intermediate catch-all that rescues many pagan notions. Other than position and movement of earth, MG is virtually identical to the Heliocentric lies that spawned bloody revolutions, evolution, millions-year-old-earth, global warming, alien life, space indoctrination, Godless origins, and all notions inherent to the atheistic Big Bang theory. In MG the water above the earth and the firmament is denied or dismissed, along with the firmament itself. Some think the firmament encompasses our sun 100 million miles away…but then, how is it visible? And where’s the water? How can they explain stars and planets? Are they in or out of the ‘globe’ firmament? Distance from earth to the sun, moon and stars remains identical in MG as Heliocentric theory, yet both are contrary to scripture. In 'outer space', stars are said to be enormous and Venus and Mars are said to be planets with terrain, a ridiculous notion that is easily proven false. Back on earth, contradictory global terrain and relativity remain, demanding outrageous explanations like gravity, dark matter, string theory, antimatter and evolution, teaching that the horizon is no longer horizontal, let alone true or level, directions and measurements quickly become contradictory, explained away or outright denied. Casuistry, imprecision, equivocation and therefore perfidious belief, remain empowered in MG.