winc
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by winc on Nov 23, 2012 15:07:39 GMT
believe it or not but many,many,many Catholics and other Christians alas and sadly are prepared to accept,way out,weird and wacky alternatives and reject the actual and real and original - so just in this case alone there are many accepting that God,the Church,Scriptures were and are wrong and that Galileo was and is right - so repent and return and come home now - see www.galileowaswrong.com and come home now - winc
|
|
winc
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by winc on Nov 23, 2012 18:12:38 GMT
believe it or not but many,many,many Catholics and other Christians alas and sadly are prepared to accept,way out,weird and wacky alternatives and reject the actual and real and original - so just in this case alone there are many accepting that God,the Church,Scriptures were and are wrong and that Galileo was and is right - so repent and return and come home now - see www.galileowaswrong.com and come home now - winc OK, so not only are you a young-earth creationist, but also a geocentricist as well? Here is some food for thought for you from Vatican II: "Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed." Winc, if you are going to use this board for nothing other than to push your own agenda, you're going to be banned pretty soon. Follow the Church, not Robert Sugenis. if I am going to be banned because of what the Church really teaches then so be it but first really see and know and accept what the Church really teaches for she gets her teachings directly from God and not from flesh and blood dressed in sheeps clothing as pseudo scientists and pseudo lukewarm Christians with a foot in each camp - for what God and the Church say can be found written down in the Bible and displayed and explained at www.catholicscripture.com - scroll down L/H column to Science and see and know and accept that "it does not move" and come home now - winc
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 23, 2012 19:13:06 GMT
So, according to Winc, geocentrism is not just a private opinion but a doctrine of the faith which every Catholic must believe? THis implies BTW that those Popes who for the last few hundred years have taken the opposite view (that's all of them) have been heretics? And you give as your authority a site run by a notorious anti-semite and conspiracy theorist whose use of the most dubious sources (when they suit his prejudices) is notorious, and who has been forbidden by his diocesan bishop to use the word "Catholic" in the title of his organisation?http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.ie/ Indiscriminate accusations of heresy are slander, which was a sin the last time I looked. Setting yourself up as a magisterium superior to the Pope is heresy by any standards. In case you hadn't noticed, the Irish Church is in crisis and we are facing a major push to legalise abortion in this country. Under these circumstances, we don't have time to waste on frivolous kooks. Winc is banned as of now.
|
|
|
Post by Tertium non Datur on Aug 6, 2014 1:44:34 GMT
Both my front and back garden are flat. Everywhere I have been [other than mountains or hills] the earth is generally flat. I once lived in a flat. I never met Gallileo or any of his descendents.
He was a a disobedient pup as far as I can make out.
From where I stand on this planet Galilleo was a 100% wrong.
Neill Armstrong looked at and photographed the earth from outer space . Their observations confirmed that earth is a large globe.
Who cares, indeed why did anybody ever care so much about mega geometry.?
What is truly disappointing is that senior hats in the catholic church apologized posthumously to that cheeky pup Gallileo.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 10, 2014 22:11:45 GMT
Is your head flat too?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2014 21:40:04 GMT
Mark Shea links to some useful resources on why geocentrism is bad theology as well as bad science www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/11/it-is-incredible-and-embarrassing-that-catholics-are-wasting-their-time-promoting-geocentrism.htmlincluding this one by a Catholic scientist truthandcharity.net/protecting-faith-from-pseudoscience-a-review-of-the-principle/EXTRACTS With breathtaking cinematography and intellectual one-two punches, it paints a compelling argument that geocentrism might be right and the world’s scientists are willfully blind to the evidence. Compelling, that is, if you know nothing about astrophysics. If you do, you’ll soon see that the movie is a combination of science, bogus science, and conspiracy theory, tied up in a Gordian knot that would take much more than a blog to fully unravel. The reason I’m writing about it in a Catholic blog is this: the movie has the potential to erode the scientific literacy of believers and convince nonbelievers that science and Christianity don’t mix. No doubt the movie’s creators are well intentioned. But good intentions make hell-bound paving stones. This isn’t me, a science journalist, merely ranting about the movie’s deplorable lack of fact-checking. This is me, a Catholic, worried about the error it will seed in the minds of God’s little ones. Because in watching the movie and having a dozen pages of e-mail back-and-forth with the producer and publicist, one thing became clear: the movie’s creators do not understand physics... But my biggest complaint is the movie’s underlying philosophical argument. The movie claims that moving Earth from the physical center of everything implies that “man means nothing,” that if the universe doesn’t revolve around Earth, we aren’t special. This dichotomy is a materialist lie. As Stephen Barr brilliantly lays out in his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, we need to separate scientific results from the philosophy that uses them to make its case. Too many people buy into the mantra that science disproves faith. Wrong. Materialism uses science to argue that faith isn’t true. We can just as easily do the opposite. (Read Barr’s book for more info.) The movie quotes prominent scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and the deceased Carl Sagan to set up this geocentrism-or-insignificance choice, but both of these men are infamous militant atheists. Of course they’re going to interpret scientific results as proving we aren’t special. The sad thing is, The Principle buys into this dichotomy, too. The question you should ask yourself is, Why? Why does not being in the middle of everything mean we’re not special? Who said the two have to go together? In fact, salvation history suggests the opposite is true: God picks the least and the lowly. The Jews were a tiny little people among great peoples: “It was not because you are more numerous than all the peoples that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you; for you are really the smallest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your ancestors” (Dt 7: 7-8). Jesus Himself was from a backwater town in Israel. Heck, He picked fishermen as apostles. And think of the many saints who were not at the center of anything — the children of Fatima come to mind — yet He chose them. So why on Earth should we expect our planet to be the physical center of the cosmos? Is it not more amazing that we aren’t? Doesn’t it speak to God’s providence and love and tenderness, and the fact that He’s God and we aren’t?... END OF EXTRACTS Here's another link given in the same Mark Shea post. After a very exhaustive demolition of geocentrist scientific and theological errors, the writer concludes with a statement of the blatantly obvious, which anyone tempted to play with this rubbish should bear in mind - and not just on geocentrism, either: sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.ie/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.htmlEXTRACT In this confused time, a time in which secular science holds as its principle dogma the explicitly anti-Catholic philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, a time in which the Catholic Church herself has been corrupted from within by the influence of modernism, it is only natural that traditional Catholics question much that comes out of both modern science and the modern Church. But it is possible to question too much. Rejecting modernism does not mean rejecting scientific concepts like heliocentrism. Doing so, in fact, can be very harmful to the traditional Catholic community. It is possible to take contra mundi too far, especially if we make a matter of faith out of a subject that does not have any special bearing on spiritual matters. We should remember that the real issue at stake whenever the Galileo Affair is brought up is not whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is true, but whether or not the Church is anti-scientific. Sungenis believes that by claiming that geocentrism is scientifically true he can vindicate the Church and uphold the absolute truth of scriptures. But he fails to realize that he is doing exactly what the modernists accuse the Church of doing: trying to force scientific data to fit an unyielding model of the cosmos which he obtained from a false interpretation of the scriptures. The modernists will ignore St. Thomas when he carefully explains the complementary relationship between faith and reason and addresses the question of whether or not the scriptures are trying to teach natural science. They won’t ignore Sungenis: he’s too good a source of propaganda. Already one can find papers by college professors on the internet which point to Sungenis as proof that religion is anti-scientific. Sungenis is correct in believing that much of modern science is being used as a vehicle for an anti-Catholic worldview. But anti-Catholicism is not inherent in science, but is added to it when it is interpreted by scientists hostile to religion. The Big Bang is not inherently anti-Catholic, but is made to seem so by those who incorporate it into a worldview of chance-based metaphysical naturalism. Heliocentrism is not inherently anti-Catholic, but is made to seem so by those who mock the Church’s earlier adherence to geocentrism and subscribe to the Galileo Legend. The atheists think that if they disprove physical centrality they disprove Catholicism, which is ridiculous, but by accepting these things as anti-Catholic instead of stripping the atheistic assumptions away and examining them on their own merits, Sungenis plays right into the atheist's hands and condones their interpretations and assumptions. It would not be so bad if Sungenis held geocentrism as his own eccentric, personal view. But he acts as if it is official Catholic teaching. I spoke to an African seminarian who had attended one of Sungenis’ lectures on geocentrism. He told me, a little wonderingly, “This man speaks like a theologian, as if he speaks for the Church. But where does he get that authority?” Where, indeed? Sungenis evangelizes geocentrism. Because of his strong assertion that geocentrism is a Catholic doctrine, Mr. Sungenis and the Catholics he appears to speak for will be irrevocably associated with a falsehood by those who hear him, and all the atheists who insist that religion is anti-scientific will have more ammunition to use to confuse uneducated Americans and students in colleges around the country. We must be wary of suffering a loss of credibility. If any non-Catholic hears a Catholic, especially one who, like Sungenis, presents himself as a Catholic authority, talk about geocentrism as both scientific fact and Catholic teaching, and that person later hears a Catholic talking about matters of genuine faith and morals such as abortion, homosexuality, or any of the dogmatically defined Catholic truths, they will lump these moral subjects in with the mistaken scientific subject and believe that Catholics are wrong about both. Will anyone’s opinion that the Church’s teaching against contraception has no validity in modern times be changed when they know that the person trying to convince them believes the genuinely outdated notion that the sun revolves around the earth? It is doubtful. Or consider a hypothetical case that is closer to home: if we teach our own children that geocentrism is Catholic teaching, what will happen when these children then grow up, enter college, and take a basic astronomy class in which they see that geocentrism is scientifically untenable? There is great danger that they will then doubt the Church in matters of genuine faith and morals, such as what they ought and ought not to do with their girlfriends. The crux of the matter is this: whether one is geocentrist or heliocentrist simply does not matter. We should be wary of making what is already difficult for non-Catholics to accept even more difficult than is necessary. We should not let traditional Catholicism become cult-like. Rather than trying to convince the world that an obscure psuedo-scientific model that is only incidentally related to the Faith is correct, we traditional Catholics should instead expend our energy trying to convince the world that the doctrines and teachings of the Church on faith and morals are true. Not only are these teachings rationally tenable, they also have immediate relevance to virtuous living, a quality which geocentrism can never claim. We have our work cut out for us already without wasting time and attention on cosmological models. Let’s not make converting the world more difficult than it already is. END
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 6, 2014 22:31:52 GMT
If I recall correctly, one of the directors of that film, Robert Sungenis, has recently recanted of his anti-Semitic writings (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/October/Film-Shocker-Does-the-Universe-Revolve-Around-Earth-/), which I certainly hope is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 19:36:58 GMT
One thing I would say for future knowledge is that usually when you are trying to make someone see your point, you should do so somewhat generously. I realise this is quite old, and perhaps winc said some other things no longer readable, but it seems like banning him for what he said was a harsh sentence. Perhaps Hibernicus didn't want to risk members of Atheist Ireland coming here and thinking he was too lenient, but I can tell from experience that seeing fellow Catholics talk to one the way you (both) did, or accusing one of pushing an agenda, tends to seem like one is being thrown under the bus in order for his fellow Catholics/Christians to improve their standing in the eyes of others. I'm not saying this out of anger, nor am I suggesting anything about either of you, but I am letting you know how it comes across.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Dec 7, 2014 20:34:46 GMT
One thing I would say for future knowledge is that usually when you are trying to make someone see your point, you should do so somewhat generously. I realise this is quite old, and perhaps winc said some other things no longer readable, but it seems like banning him for what he said was a harsh sentence. Perhaps Hibernicus didn't want to risk members of Atheist Ireland coming here and thinking he was too lenient, but I can tell from experience that seeing fellow Catholics talk to one the way you (both) did, or accusing one of pushing an agenda, tends to seem like one is being thrown under the bus in order for his fellow Catholics/Christians to improve their standing in the eyes of others. I'm not saying this out of anger, nor am I suggesting anything about either of you, but I am letting you know how it comes across. Antiane, I can see the point you are trying to make, and perhaps I could have expressed myself more charitably, but I should add that Winc's posts seemed to accuse anybody who didn't agree with his own opinion (which is what it was) of being heretics. At the time, they reminded me of bishops back in the 1950s asking children receiving their confirmation their Catechism. When I gave my honest opinion to my questions, I was accused of acting in bad faith, and my appeals to the encyclicals of both Pius XII and St. John Paul II, which both claimed that theistic evolution was compatiable with Catholicism, were ignored, and I was accused of being a heretic anyway. So while I accept that I could have been more charitable, there was aggression on the other side as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 13:46:16 GMT
Young Ireland, you do have a fair point. I guess it passed over my head the first time around, but I see what you mean now. The only reason I stood up for them is that I sometimes notice when religious arguments break out, some Christians will trample their brothers or sisters in order to save their own pride. I don't mean to suggest anything like that in this case. I suppose since there was a time when I was a literal believer of everything Biblical, and since I tended to be a lot for assertive about my Faith at first, I do tend to sympathise with people like Winc, even though I may not necessarily agree with what they're saying. I suppose what I'm trying to say is: while a lot of Christians might tend to see people like Winc as someone to be avoided or even brought down a level in order to avoid association with his/her type, I tend to see the good intentions in the hearts of people like Winc, despite how they might go about trying to put their intentions into action.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2014 14:03:26 GMT
I think Antaine makes a good point. There IS a bit of a tendency for our reaction towards some Catholics to be, "What will Atheist Ireland say?". I'm not talking about this particular interaction or targeting this at any particular person, I'm talking about Catholics (and indeed Christians) in general.
I think we should bear in mind what Newman said: "I do not shrink from uttering my firm conviction that it would be a gain to the country were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion than at present it shows itself to be." (Though he also said that: "it would be an absurdity to suppose such tempers of mind desirable in themselves.")
I personally feel more affinity with a shiny-suited Bible belt holy-roller than I do with a temporizing Guardian-reading Church of England vicar.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 9, 2014 21:29:46 GMT
We know pretty well what Atheist Ireland will say, and I couldn't care less. The question ought to be "what will a reasonably unbiased enquirer say?" I might add that grand conspiracy theories tend to be harmful to those who espouse them, not just because they are (usually, not always) false but because they blind people to the real problems which need to be addressed. I expelled Winc not because he espoused geocentrism, but because of the arrogant and supercilious way he espoused it and insulted anyone who disagreed. Tolerating a reasonable Feeneyite or atheist is one thing, tolerating somebody who is only out to shout down and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him is another. Trying to argue with such people is a waste of time and effort (and I have tried).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 9, 2014 21:31:29 GMT
BTW your point about the holy roller and the vicar has some force, but it only applies if the holy roller is not a deliberate charlatan (quite a few are) and if the Guardian-reading vicar is simply a complacent conformist rather than a genuine seeker after righteousness (which some of them are).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 9, 2014 21:54:20 GMT
We know pretty well what Atheist Ireland will say, and I couldn't care less. The question ought to be "what will a reasonably unbiased enquirer say?" That's a good point.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Mar 4, 2015 22:20:42 GMT
We know pretty well what Atheist Ireland will say, and I couldn't care less. The question ought to be "what will a reasonably unbiased enquirer say?" I might add that grand conspiracy theories tend to be harmful to those who espouse them, not just because they are (usually, not always) false but because they blind people to the real problems which need to be addressed. I expelled Winc not because he espoused geocentrism, but because of the arrogant and supercilious way he espoused it and insulted anyone who disagreed. Tolerating a reasonable Feeneyite or atheist is one thing, tolerating somebody who is only out to shout down and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him is another. Trying to argue with such people is a waste of time and effort (and I have tried). Hibernicus. Are you aware that what you accuse Winc of - and have banned him for - is actually the stock and trade tactics of those who defend and protect a heliocentric reading of the Bible. Here is an extract out of a book called THE EARTHMOVERS written ten years ago: As a consequent of the above, new readers will first endeavour to ignore this [geocentric] synthesis, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs. The credibility of four hundred years of Copernicanism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like the Catholic faith, reasoning, facts, data, demonstrations, logic, records, etc., and, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in Copernicanism is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically and empirically founded. Accordingly they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject of this book to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of this book is outrageous, imbecilic according to science as well as an unwarranted criticism of the post-1741 Church authorities, of Vatican Council II and the opinions of Pope John Paul II. They will then claim the author is this or that, not a trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian or theologian like they are, so what could he know? It must be answered that if one were a coached professional in any such institution of Church or State around today, one could never have written this exposé in the first place, for, quite simply, one would have been fired for it, as many today are dismissed from their educational institutions because they place doubt on old-age evolutionism. It was of course freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.' For example Hibernicus, here is what you yourself said above: 'And you give as your authority a site run by a notorious anti-semite and conspiracy theorist whose use of the most dubious sources (when they suit his prejudices) is notorious, and who has been forbidden by his diocesan bishop to use the word "Catholic" in the title of his organisation?http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.ie/ Robert Sungenis, as far as I know, has explained, clarified, withdrawn, repented or whatever, his position as regards his position on the jews. But what has that got to do with the question of geocentrism? As for Winc, well some guys are like that, unable to debate in a neutral way. But you may know him better than I and must do what you feel is correct. It is a pity he came in with all guns blazing. But to reply to his positiopn with an atomic bomb shows that this subject needs to be debated properly. That I will do if allowed, for things are not as they seem. For example, you said: 'So, according to Winc, geocentrism is not just a private opinion but a doctrine of the faith which every Catholic must believe? THis implies BTW that those Popes who for the last few hundred years have taken the opposite view (that's all of them) have been heretics? I answer, no not according to Winc, but according to Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII. Yes, these are the 'troublemakers' condemned in Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II. Perhaps you would like to take it from here Hibernicus?
|
|