An Irony of Atheism in a Secular, Consumerist Age.

The secular consumerist age that dominates much of the western world is an age of self-seeking, self-gratification, atheistic humanism and commercialism. Such ends of men in the secular culture are made with an assumed atheism. For if atheism is true, then there is no God to be accountable for and no God who can make men happy. Yet if God does exist, then God is the origin of all things, and thereby the cause of all gifts, such as life and men's talents. God is also then the judge and reward of all men. What then is the irony of the secular age? The irony is two-fold.

1) Men seek for self-fulfilment by firstly denying the existence of God, who is the good, but then seeking the good in creatures which cannot provide the good. The atheism assumed in secularism is affirmed but implicitly denied in all of man's seeking of the good. In other words, men firstly assume that which can make them happy does not exist, then assume pursuing that which does not make them happy will make them happy. The human pursuit of the good in creatures is an implicit affirmation of the existence of God as the good, whilst the same God is also denied in secularism.

2) Men cannot prove the non-existence of God and cannot prove the worldview of secularism. For secularism assumes materialism, agnosticism, or atheism, which are all false. Secularism also denies that God has made any revelation to mankind, whereby God has informed man of the way in which he can become fulfilled. Yet both the non-exstence of God, and secularism are assumed to be true within the secular world. Therefore theism, which assumed to be false is, in fact, true and secularism, which is assumed to be true, is in fact false within the secular culture. The secular man then seeks for happiness in every act that is always directed away from his ultimate happiness. In a certain manner the secular age is of a man who claims to be rational, whilst every act he does is at least in some manner irrational. For the secular man seeks for happiness in everything other than that good which alone can make him fulfilled. The secular man is then subject to an ironic self deception. 

The Problem of the Burden of Proof to Demonstrate the Authority of the Protestant Reformers to Legitimately Oppose the Roman Catholic Church with Many Novel Doctrines and Practices not Previously Found in Church History.

The Protestant Reformers taught the Roman Catholic Church had become corrupt and no longer taught the gospel once delivered to the saints. The Reformers made claims and demanded to be taken seriously by European Christian society. Yet the Reformers had a burden of proof to bear to demonstrate their claims that they were teaching the only true gospel of justification by faith alone that had been lost. The Reformers had to -

1) Explain how church history up until the Protestant Reformation was dominated by Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, along with the similar doctrines and practices of the Orthodox churches that can trace their origin back to Christ and the apostles through the schism that occurred in 1054. The Reformers invented new doctrines and practices in contradiction to the 1500 year Roman Catholic tradition. Such a large divergence of doctrine and practice from church history must be taken into account and shown to have a greater truth value than Church history. 

Such a burden has never been seriously undertaken by the Reformers, nor the subsequent reformed churches. For such a burden is too difficult to bear. At every stage of the Reformed defence of their burden, they are confronted with the Roman Catholic accusation of the Reformers having made a human invention of a multitude of new doctrines and practices not previously found in church history.

2) The Reformers had to explain how they had authority greater than that of the Roman Catholic church when the Reformers had no authority to invent any new doctrines and practices. Yet the Romand Catholic church and the Orthodox churches have the authority of apostolic succession to continue the traditions handed to them from Christ and the apostles, through the Popes and the bishops. The Reformers have the burden of proof to show they have more, or the only authority to change doctrines and practices found in church history, when in fact there is no authority granted to any group of men outside the church as found in scripture, or tradition. 

Such a burden has never been seriously undertaken by the Reformers, nor the subsequent reformed churches. For such a burden is too difficult to bear. At every stage of the Reformed defence of their burden, they are confronted with the Roman Catholic accusation of the Reformers having made a human invention of their own authority to teach and govern in Christ's name when no such authority exists within Protestantism. 

3) The Reformers had to explain where the principle of private interpretation came from when the Reformers had no mandate to privately interpret the scriptural texts to arrive at their novel doctrines and practices. In fact, private interpretation is against the nature of public revelation that demands a public institution be set up to teach and guard the entire deposit of faith including all practices found in tradition. 

As the principle of private interpretation is not found within divine revelation, the reformers used a method alien to divine revelation. Also because private interpretation is not found in church history as the means by which doctrines are taught and defended against heretics, the Reformers have only an invented, false principle used to arrive at new and false doctrines and practices.

4) The Reformers had to explain how the Reformers disagreed with each other on many doctrines and practices when they taught the new gospel, and yet Christendom was meant to take them seriously. After all, if the reformers and their Protestant descendants could not agree with each other over many doctrines, what confidence can anyone have that any of the so-called Reformers were, in fact, reforming anything, rather than only inventing their own doctrines and practices? There is no confidence in such a scenario, for widespread confusion and diversity of Reformation doctrines and practices is only explainable through Protestant errors and not the God of truth and infinite power.

5) The Reformers had to explain how their differences of doctrines and practices logically conclude to a practical atheism, and simultaneously hold to the claim that they were teaching the true gospel. For real differences in doctrine and practice between the Reformers and later Protestants infers God has not revealed doctrines and practices, but only men have come to diverse opinions concerning the content and meaning of divine revelation. Such a real difference means God knew those difference would occur but chose to make a revelation that would end in mass confusion, error and unbelief. 

The god of Protestant revelation is then the god of an implied agnosticism, confusion and unbelief. Such a god is a false god, which infers the Reformers and later Protestantism promotes which logically concludes to a practical atheism. Therefore the Reformers gospel is really not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of practical agnosticism, which infers atheism. The Protestant god is only a human invention as a partial imitation of the true God of church history, whilst denying the authority of the church and church history caused by the true God of history.

6) The Reformers had to explain why anyone would want to take them seriously when the early Reformers were men of deep moral flaws. For example, Martin Luther rebelled against church doctrine, church history, and removed seven biblical books from the Old and New Testaments. He also broke his vows made as an Augustinian monk, married an ex-nun, and invented at least fifty doctrines different to Catholic doctrines whilst claiming to have a scrupulous conscience. Other Reformers also had moral flaws. The deep moral flaws of the Reformers is difficult to defend when they opposed the Catholic church based upon deep morals flaws that caused corruption in the Catholic church at the time.

Conclusion - The Reformers made claims about their own authority and about their gospel which are claims they must bear. As the burden confronted by the Reformers and later Protestant churches is enormous, such a burden will never be met with any convincing arguments. Therefore there is no compelling reasons to take the Protestant Reformation seriously as a movement from God, but rather only an errant movement of men without any authority from God, made in opposition to the corruption within the Catholic Church. 

The Catholic church had corruption within it, but the solution to the corruption was not a revolt against the true church instituted by Christ, but a reform from within using the bishops and Popes given to the church and humanity by the Holy Spirit.

The Agnostic and Null Truth Value of Empirical Science Consequent to an Atheistic, Materialist Worldview.

Preliminary Definitions -

Intelligible - that which is understandable through the act of abstraction. The body of timber is intelligible when the timber is known through the act of abstraction to be timber.

Comprehensible - that which is known through its causes. A thing is fully comprehensible when all the causes of the thing are fully known. A thing is partially comprehensible when part of all the causes of the thing is fully known.

An Argument for the Agnostic and Null Value of Empirical Science-Based Knowledge when Atheistic Materialism is Assumed.

Empirical Science endeavours to attain knowledge of the universe through the inductive method. But by applying a method to attain knowledge, the method does not demonstrate, but only assumes the universe is in some manner both intelligible and comprehensible. Yet if the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe are only assumed, the inductive method rests upon the unknown truth value that may or may not be attained through the inductive method. For if the inductive method does not prove that the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, the knowledge attained through the method is of unknown veracity within the method itself. To have veracity of knowledge concerning the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, the inductive method must depend upon the truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe through deductive reasoning.

Yet the inductive method as used by atheistic scientists assumes a materialist worldview, which excludes the existence of non-bodily substances. But the exclusion of non-bodily substances infers man is only material and can only do material-based actions. Knowledge is then according to materialism, only a material act, likened to the sense knowledge of animals. But if human knowledge is sense knowledge, then knowledge is only in the singular and concrete and never in the universal. For the universal is in the abstract and thereby an immaterial act.

The lack of ability of man to do an immaterial act according to the materialist worldview excludes the existence of deductive reasoning. For deductive reasoning is made from principles to conclusions known in the abstract. Therefore, if deductive reasoning is excluded by the materialist worldview, no deductive based argument can be made to ascertain the truth value of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe assumed in the inductive method. The inductive method must proceed, based upon the presumed truth of the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe which is never known to be true.

The lack of proof assumed in the inductive method infers the materialist worldview causes science to only ever attain knowledge of the universe that may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible. The atheistic scientist who assumes knowledge of the universe is attained through the inductive method when in fact the lack of certitude of truth attained within the inductive method infers the empirical sciences must always be agnostic about scientific knowledge. If a scientist never thinks the universe is both intelligible and comprehensible, and the inductive method is impotent to provide any proof for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe, then any, or all knowledge of the universe attained through science may only be a superstition. For example, a scientist may conclude that a model has been constructed to predict the motion of the planets, but the model may in fact only be a superstition that is always unrelated to anything in the universe. For the universe may be both unintelligible and incomprehensible, when the scientist has only assumed the universe to be otherwise.

In fact, if atheistic materialism is assumed, human knowledge is always a material act which excludes the act of abstraction. If abstract thought is excluded by materialism, science knowledge becomes a series of sense acts like that of a dog barking or a bird chirping. The laws of science known through the inductive method are then the equivalent to a meaningless howl of a dog or a whinny of a horse. The material, singular sense acts of animals never enunciate universal laws because sense acts are never universal, but always singular. If atheistic materialism is presumed, science knowledge is consequently destroyed and the universe is necessarily both unintelligible and incomprehensible. For if man is only a material thing, man is only a well-developed animal with sense knowledge. And sense knowledge is not the intellective knowledge required for the universe to be intelligible.

Comment - The problem of the assumed intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe is only removed if the atheistic materialist worldview is removed and replaced by a realist worldview that permits the existence and actions of spirits in the universe. Only then can one arrive at a realist anthropology which includes the existence and act of a spiritual intellect in man, to then used deductive reasoning to make an argument for the intelligibility and comprehensibility of the universe. Once proven that the universe is both intelligible and in part, comprehensible, the truth value of the inductive method can then be assessed.

Empirical science is in reality only ever based upon a monotheistic worldview which includes the notion of man as a composite of body and soul, which is consistent with Christianity and divine revelation. The denial of Christianity and divine revelation concludes to the agnostic nature of the inductive method that opens the empirical sciences to the criticism that all knowledge attained through the inductive method may well only be of the equivalent value of superstition. The veracity of the empirical sciences is dependent upon the veracity of the worldview presumed prior to the acceptance of the value of the knowledge attained within the empirical sciences.

Some False Assumptions Contained within Dr Bart Erhman's Argument for Agnosticism.

The agnostic may argue that there is too much unjust suffering and death in the world for a truly loving Christian God to exist. Dr Bart Erhman is one such agnostic who argues that God is not loving because of the many natural disasters, suffering and death of infants. Dr Erhman proposes his argument from time 49:00 in the video below - 

Mormon Stories #904: Dr. Bart Ehrman - New Testament Scholar

The problem with such arguments is the agnostic assumes too much in the argument which must be ignored for the argument to be sound. Some of the false assumptions included in the argument are -

1) The assumption of Man's Pure Nature - The suffering of mankind, and in particular, the suffering of babies and children is an injustice caused by God which assumes those men and children should not suffer. But to assume the men and babies should not suffer without injustice being incurred, infers men and babies have a pure nature that does not have any debt owing to justice. The assumption of pure nature included in the agnostic's argument is used to conclude that God is unjust and therefore the Christian God cannot exist. But because pure nature is assumed, but not proven, the unsound premise that an injustice occurred in suffering and death does not lead to the conclusion that God is unjust, and therefore God is not the Christian God.

2) The assumption of Suffering and Death as an Injustice - If the Christian God is the real God who controls the universe, suffering and death occur for several reasons. 1) Mankind is spiritually united in the universal problem of original sin. Men and babies are subject to the consequences of original sin caused by the first parents, which causes suffering and death. The evils of suffering and death are positively caused by sin and only permitted to exist by God as a consequence of sin. It is precisely because the Christian God does love men, that God does permit men to suffer and die. If God did not love men, then men would continue to sin without any just punishment for sin. 2) Suffering is redemptive and the suffering and death that appears to be unjust is permitted as a redemptive act to save men from the consequences of actual sin. 3) God knows all the causes within the universe and knows all of the consequences of sin, suffering, and death and we men do not know all of the causes. To reduce the problem of suffering and death down to an argument from injustice is to ignore the knowledge that only the transcendent God has of the way the universe operates. 

By the agnostic ignoring the Christian revelation concerning the nature of suffering and death the agnostic has arrived at a false conclusion concerning the lack of evidence for the loving Christian God, when in fact that same God has told humanity of the reasons for suffering and death, which are ignored by the agnostic. For the agnostic to conclude that the Christian God does not exist, the agnostic must ignore the information given by the Christian God about suffering and death, and then conclude the Christian God does not exist.

3) The assumption of God's Acts Adjudged by the Agnostic only in Accord with what Occurs in this Life - The argument from suffering and death assumes suffering and death is the totality of the story, when in fact the totality of the story is a priori either rejected or ignored by the agnostic. The totality of the story, which includes the reality of suffering and death, also includes the reality of sin, atonement, heaven and hell and just payment for sin. If the agnostic included the totality of the story into account when forming an argument concerning the apparent injustice of suffering and death, the agnostic may have a case for the Christian to answer. But because the agnostic, such as Dr Bart Erhman has ignored the Christian revelation concerning the meaning and relevance of suffering and death in Christianity, the agnostic argument is irrelevant to the agnostic's conclusion that the Christian God does not exist.

4) The assumption of Suffering and Death is Only Measured by Reason without Reference to the Supernatural - The agnostic uses reason to arrive at his conclusion about the consequences of suffering and death. But the agnostic has failed to include into the argument the reality that the Christian God is transcendent and can permit and act beyond human reason, for divine reasons that are beyond human comprehension. By the agnostic assuming only reason is required to account for suffering and death, the agnostic has an a-priori commitment to a rationalistic god, which is not the Christian God. In short, the agnostic assumes a rationalistic god and arrives at the conclusion that the transcendent God of Christianity cannot exist. The assumption of the rationalistic god is unsound.

5) The assumption of Suffering and Death as the Ultimate Evil - The agnostic assumes suffering and death is the ultimate evil, when in fact such evil is not ultimate. The agnostic assumes suffering and death is a reality that exists that could be prevented by an infinitely powerful God who loves man. But the assumption of suffering and death is the ultimate evil, ignores the reality of sin as the ultimate evil, which has its resolution in the mystery of suffering, death and resurrection, final judgement and glory. The agnostic assumes an unsound premise that suffering and death are the greatest evils in the universe.

6) The assumption of Suffering and Death is Only Measured by Reason without Reference to Mystery - Christianity contains many mysteries and supernatural realities that must be ignored by the agnostic. According to Christianity, creation, sin, suffering, death, resurrection and the action of the divine in the universe are all secrets that are never fully understood. The agnostic must ignore the aspect of mystery associated with suffering and death as an assumption within the argument to arrive at the false conclusion, that the Christian God does not exist.

7) The assumption of Materialism associated with the Problem of Suffering and Death - If suffering and death is an injustice, then the agnostic argues, an injustice occurs in this life without reference to the next life. But to ignore the next life is to assume a materialist anthropology of man, which is false. For man is a composite of body and soul and will continue to exist after death. 

8) The assumption of the false God who cannot make a Divine Judgement to Permit Suffering and Death -  The agnostic assumes God does not have the authority to permit suffering and death, even if suffering and death appear to be very unjust to us mere humans. Yet if the Christian god is real, He is sovereign over creation and most certainly does have the authority and power to make judgments over creation. The agnostic assumes a false god when making the argument for the falsity of the Christian God.

Because of these and several other possible false assumptions, the agnostic argument proposed by Dr Bart Erhman is false. Dr Erhman is an agnostic, in part, based upon the false presupposition that suffering and death excludes the existence of the loving Chrisitan God. Contrarily, in fact, it is because the Christian God exists, acting within a fallen universe that suffering and death also exists. suffeirng and death are strong evidences for the existence of the Christian God, when Dr Erhman mistakenly argues against said evidence.

How Protestantism Leads to Atheism

Protestantism is founded upon several false principles, such as scripture alone, faith alone, a-historicism, anti-sacramentalism, the false authority of the individual believer and the private interpretation of divine revelation as contained in the scriptural text.
Private interpretation is used to derive Christian doctrines from the text which are thought to have been revealed by God.
Yet private interpretation only ever arrives at a private understanding of the text apart from any other public authority or public tradition.
The principle of private interpretation then implies from the principle, the negation of the universality of truth contained within divine revelation.
The negation of universality of revealed truth infers revealed truth is only ever locally known.
But what is only ever locally known is not ever proven to be true.
For only local knowledge is not in accord with truth whereby truth is one and universal.
For divine revelation is only one and universally applies to all men.
Local knowledge of purportedly revealed truths is then really only purported or claimed truths known with only subjective certitude (opinion of the believer) and not objective certitude (truth taught with divine authority).
But subjective certitude excludes the divine as the author of objective truth.
For subjective certitude is only a judgement made by the believer concerning the truth value of statements made by God in divine revelation.
The believer then thinks a text means some truth, but the believer only arrives at the conclusion through private and therefore subjective means.
Therefore Protestantism's doctrine of private interpretation excludes two essential properties of divine revelation - 1) Revelation is one and universal, and 2) revelation is objective, for God is objective and not subjective.
Because private interpretation implies conclusions that contradict the divine, Protestantism is in principle against the divine.
But what is against the divine are both agnosticism and atheism.
Agnosticism claims that God cannot be known and therefore divine revelation cannot be known.
Agnosticism practically excludes the divine and divine revelation.
For even if God exists, His existence and revelation is always unknown.
And atheism denies the existence of the divine, therefore divine revelation is not possible.
Atheism absolutely excludes the divine and divine revelation.
Protestantism reduces divine revelation from universal objective truth to only a purportedly local, subjective truth.
But purportedly local, subjective truth is only human opinion and not divine.
Therefore Protestantism in practice (when the principle of private interpretation is used), excludes the divine and divine revelation.
Therefore Protestantism in principle leads to atheism.

Discussion - If we briefly examine one doctrine within Protestantism, on say the meaning and practice of baptism, we note there is a wide diversity of understandings within Protestantism. Some say baptism regenerates, others say baptism is only a sign. Some say baptism is applied only once, and others say more than once. Some say baptism saves, and others say it does not save. The multitude of positions taken on the one doctrine of baptism indicates Protestantism is only local and subjective, contrary to the universal and objective nature of divine revelation. Protestantism then in principle leads to an agnostic understanding of revelation, which in turn tends towards atheism. For Protestants must admit that God has granted only the means to obtain certitude of what was revealed via subjective opinion. And such opinion is only human. But human opinion conforms to the agnostic position that says divine revelation cannot be known. For subjective opinion is not objective and therefore not divine.

Furthermore, the agnostic nature of divine revelation of the Protestant position tends towards atheism. For if the objective truth of divine revelation cannot be known, then God has not made a revelation. For divine revelation is in fact objective, but Protestism only ever attains to subjective truth. And if all other religions of the world have the same problem as Protestantism, then God probably does not exist. For all religions are always only ever subjective and never have objective truth. For God is itself objective truth and always acts objectively. Yet Protestantism always acts as though God never existed nor gave a revelation to man. For the divine truth in Protestantism is really only the human opinion of men. Therefore Protestantism always tends towards humanism and atheism, without ever proving atheism to be true. For both Protestantism and atheism are both false.

Further Problems with Sola Scriptura.

Sola scriptura is a doctrine of the Reformation that is defined at Wikipedia as - 

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

Some problems with sola scriptura as defined above are presented below –

1)    The doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found within the biblical canon. No verse states the doctrine and not combination of verses can be used to arrive at the doctrine of SS. Hence SS is a doctrine outside the scriptures, which contradicts the doctrinal content of SS which says the doctrine must be found within the scriptures.

2)    Because the doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found, nor derived from the biblical text, SS is then defined according to the person who wants to define it. Hence the doctrine of SS is only a subjective description of what its adherents want it to mean. As SS is only subjective, SS is merely the opinion of some, who hold to the doctrine, without any mandate from revelation.

3)    SS assumes a method or methods required to interpret the text. Such methods are not specified within the text, hence SS is dependent upon methods which must be brought to the text. As such methods vary widely, methods may be used to arrive at contrary conclusions regarding the meaning of the text. Hence SS is in practice unworkable.

4)    SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. Yet the bible does not reject any infallible authority outside the bible. Hence SS rejects what the bible does not reject.

5)    SS assumes the rejection of any original infallible authority other than the Bible, yet there is no evidence within the NT that Jesus wanted only a text to be the infallible rule of faith during the apostolic age. Hence SS assumes Jesus wanted SS to be true, even though there is no evidence in the bible that Jesus wanted SS to be true. Hence SS requires its adherents to be agnostic about the divine intent behind SS.

6)    SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible, and thereby rejects any oral tradition from the apostles as being from God. Yet the apostolic age assumes the gospel was predominantly preached by the apostles to the people. Such preaching occurred without the NT. Hence if the preaching was not infallible, then the apostles may have been in error when spreading the good news. SS then concludes that during the apostolic age, the apostles may have taught false doctrines which could have led people to hell.

7)    SS is not found in church history prior to the reformation, nor in the bible. Hence SS is an invention of the reformers. Such an invention means the reformers invented their own doctrine apart from revelation. Hence SS is not revealed by God, but only a human invention.

8)    As SS is not in the bible, nor church history, then SS is an invention of the reformation. But SS says the sole infallible rule of faith is the scriptures. Hence the reformers must have had either an 1) infallible or 2) fallible knowledge that SS was true. If 1), then SS excludes such knowledge for that knowledge is only to be found in the reformers themselves apart from revelation. Hence SS infers a source of infallibility outside the confines of the doctrine, making the source of the doctrine inconsistent with the confines of infallibility as stated by SS.

If 2), then SS is a fallible doctrine that assumes the confines of infallibility to a known text. If so, to hold to SS infers nobody except God knows with certainty if the text alone is infallible.

9)    SS assumes the original documents were inspired by God, but does not have anything to say about the numerous versions of the bible translations. As we only have access to translations and not the original inspired texts we cannot know which modern texts are infallible and which are not. Hence SS assumes the infallibility of the original texts, which does not carry over into the modern translations. Hence SS is impractical and of little use with regard to modern biblical translations.

10)  SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there is more than one biblical canon in use by Christians and Jews. Hence SS assumes the unresolved problem of the biblical canon. One may argue that SS assumes the reformers had solved the canon problem, however the reformers who rejected the Catholic magisterium and assumed an authority of the individual believer, did not have the authority to resolve the canon. SS assumes a canon, where a canon cannot be found consistently among believers. Hence SS assumes to much that cannot be resolved by those who do not have the authority to determine the limits of the canon.

11)  SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there are no criteria specified within the biblical canon to determine the extent of the canon. One may derive some criteria for the canon, but such criteria are always dependent upon the believers understanding of what inspiration means and infers. The lack of objective criteria for the meaning of inspiration and the effects of inspiration infer SS is always a doctrine founded upon the error of subjectivism.

12) SS says church council's and creeds are secondary sources have authority derived from the bible, yet the bible never states the church, or creeds must be derived from the bible, nor have any authority derived from the bible, nor are secondary sources below the bible. SS is then foreign to what the bible teaches regarding the authority of the church and creeds.

13) SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet there are many moral problems which have arisen since the formation of the canon that are not included in the bible. For example the modern problems associated with medical procedures, such as IVF, cloning, and surrogacy of children are not discussed in the bible, yet the Christian must make moral decisions about such, and other matters. As there are many moral problems not included in the scriptures, Christian morality cannot ever be restricted to the bible alone as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice.

14)  SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet nowhere in the bible does the text actually define in clear terms everything that must be believed and practiced to be a Christian. Hence the doctrine of SS assumes the Christian scriptures can be defined within the confines of Christianity, when Christianity is neither formally defined in the scriptures, nor in SS. Hence everything that must be believed and practiced to be Christian must be defined by another authority outside the scriptures and SS. Hence the proper definition of Christian requires an adherent of SS to rely upon both the bible as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice, but also another source to correctly define what these so called infallible doctrines and practices are. Hence SS is an incoherent doctrine.

15) SS assumes access to the bible and the ability to read and comprehend the bible. As access to the bible was not available until after the invention of the printing press and much of the world still remains illiterate, SS is incompatible with human history and the human condition. Hence SS is false.

16) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet if this were so, the bible should be itself sufficient and no other means of understanding the bible is required. Yet the bible is taught in seminaries, where students are informed from professors of the denominational traditions which have emerged as interpretations of said text. SS assumes such traditions are subordinated to scripture, yet because those who hold to SS cannot agree on what the text means, then SS implies an agnosticism about the truth value of divine revelation. 

      SS assumes the bible is the infallible source of faith and morals, but in practice concludes that mankind really never knows the meaning of the infallible source of faith and morals. Hence SS is unworkable in practice.

17) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet SS is not in the church fathers, nor church councils, nor the bible. Hence SS is a secret doctrine invented by the reformers, like that of the Gnostics in the early church who held to a secret knowledge as the gospel. The doctrine of SS is then a novel doctrine that is fundamentally based upon the false notion of secret knowledge, whereby only the reformers of the 16th C knew the true gospel, based upon the secrets of SS and sola fide (which is another invention). Hence SS is a false doctrine.

18) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the doctrine is really only an attempt to invent a false authority in a collection of books and thereby ignore the well established authority of tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium. The three sources of authority are well sourced in church history from the time of the apostles, but must be ignored and the new, novel doctrine of SS promoted. The doctrine of SS is then at odds with the witness of church history. 

19) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, which places too much weight on the biblical documents and insufficient weight on other sources of revelation. By ignoring tradition and the magisterium, the bible must then account for all matters of faith and morals, in all ages alone. As the bible does not do this, whereas the three sources of revelation in tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium can account for all matters on faith and morals, the bible becomes like a fish out of water. As the fish cannot live without water, so too the bible cannot properly function without the proper support of the authority found in tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium. Hence the over emphasis of biblical authority at the expense of tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium infers SS is false.

20) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the bible in both the old testament and new testament was given to a faith community, which had its own traditions and priests who passed down the meaning of the scriptures to the community. The doctrine of SS attempts to ignore or at least downplay the role of the oral traditions, and priestly teaching on the biblical documents. In doing so SS must act as a doctrine that is at odds with the intent of those documents - to be read within the living tradition of the faith community. Hence SS is false, or at least deeply flawed.

JM

A modified version of Arguments Against Agnosticism

1)

Practical atheism means mans life is indifferent to the existence of god as the ultimate end of man's moral action.

Agnosticism concludes that god may or may not exist and there is not enough evidence to know either way concerning god’s existence.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to the existence of god.Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to God as the ultimate end of man's moral actions.Agnosticism is therefore practical atheism.But atheism is false (as shown in the post discussing problems with atheism).But agnosticism is a form of atheism as practical atheism.Therefore agnosticism is false.

2)

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god cannot be known.
But the human intellect is ordered to know the nature of bodies and therefore being.
God is a being.
Therefore man can know that god exists through analogy from the created order to the uncreated order through the knowledge of being.
Therefore agnosticism contradicts the nature of mans ability to know natures and being.
What contradicts man's knowledge is false.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

3)
Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god may or may not be known.
If the existence of god may be known, then man can know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.
A spirit is more unlike a body than like a body.
As man knows natures through bodies, then man knows a spirit by analogy from a body.
As god is a spirit, then god is known through analogy from a body.
As analogy is commonly used by man as a valid form of knowledge, and God can be known by analogy, then agnosticism is false.

4)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know that god exists.
Yet man knows of the existence of god as the first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore man does know of the existence of god under the character of first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.
Therefore agnosticism is false.

5)
Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know the nature of god.
Yet natural theology concludes that the nature of god is divine, whereby He is the subsistent being, which exists simply, containing all perfections either formally in the divine nature, or virtually, according to power.
As the divine nature is known through reason and by analogy from creatures, then agnosticism is false.

6)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known in God.
Yet the existence of the supernatural is demonstrated from reason as follows.
Every being is common to other beings in so far as it has actions in common to other beings
Every being is distinct from other beings in so far as it has something proper to it alone and not to other beings.
The supreme being has perfections that are both common to all other creatures, yet the supreme being is unlike all other beings which are not supreme.
As the supreme being is unlike all other beings, the supreme being must have a perfection that is unlike all other beings.
As all other beings are natural, then the supreme being has natural perfections in common with other creatures and perfections that are proper to it alone and thereby unlike creatures.
A perfection in the supreme being that is unlike natural creatures is not natural, but supernatural.
But agnosticism concludes that we cannot know that the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Yet deductive reasoning demonstrates the supreme being, nor the supernatural order exists.
Therefore agnosticism concerning supreme being, and the supernatural order is false.

7)
Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known.
Agnosticism then concludes that neither reason, nor faith has access to the supernatural in God, nor any evidence in creation for the supernatural in the supreme being (called God).
Yet God is supernatural (as shown above) and has chosen to intervene in history through supernatural actions such as prophecy, healing and other miracles (as part of Christian revelation).
As these miracles are true (such as Christ's resurrection), then the action of God in history is also true.
Those miracles have been accompanied with a divine teaching that has informed man through public revelation concerning the nature of the supernatural life in God.
This supernatural life in God is the life of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As God has told man of the nature of the supernatural life which is then known by men through faith, then agnosticism is false.

JM

Some Arguments Against Agnosticism

Practical atheism means mans life is indifferent to the existence of god as the natural end of his moral action.

Agnosticism concludes that god may or may not exist and there is not enough evidence to know either way concerning god’s existence

Agnosticism is therefore indifferent to the existence of god

Agnosticism is therefore practical atheism.

But atheism is both false and absurd as shown above

But agnosticism is a form of atheism

Therefore agnosticism is both false and absurd

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god cannot be known

But the human intellect is ordered to know the nature of bodies and therefore being

God is a being

Therefore man can know that god exists.

Therefore agnosticism contradicts the nature of mans ability to know natures and being.

Agnosticism concludes that the existence of god may or may not be known

If the existence of god may be known, then man can know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.

A spirit is more unlike a body than like a body

As man knows natures through bodies, then man knows a spirit by analogy from a body.

As god is a spirit, then god is known through analogy.

As analogy is commonly used by man as a valid form of knowledge, then agnosticism is false.

However, if the existence of god may not be known, then man cannot know a being that is not a body, but is a spirit.

But man can know by analogy, for man commonly knows things that are real, by comparison to other things that are real.

Therefore the claim that man may not know the existence of god is false.

Therefore agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know that god exists.

Yet man knows of the existence of god as the first cause, mover, perfector, necessary being and orderer.

Therefore man does know of the existence of god

Therefore agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that it is not possible to know the nature of god.

Yet natural theology concludes that the nature of god is divine, whereby He is the subsistent being, which exists simply, containing all perfections either formally in the divine nature, or virtually, according to power.

As the divine nature is known through reason, then agnosticism is false.

Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known in God.

Yet the existence of the supernatural is demonstrated from reason as follows.

Every being is common to other beings in so far as it has actions in common to other beings

Every being is distinct from other beings in so far as it has something proper to it alone and not to other beings.

The supreme being has perfections that are both common to all other creatures, yet the supreme being is unlike all other beings which are not supreme.

As the supreme being is unlike all other beings, the supreme being must have a perfection that is unlike all other beings

As all other beings are natural, then the supreme being has natural perfections in common with other creatures and supernatural perfections that are proper to it alone

As the supreme being exist, therefore the supernatural order of being exists

But agnosticism concludes that we cannot know that the supernatural order exists

Therefore supernatural monotheism is true and agnosticism is false

Agnosticism concludes that the nature of the supernatural cannot be known

Yet God is supernatural and has chosen to intervene in history through supernatural actions such as prophecy, healing and other miracles.

As these miracles are true, then the action of God in history is also true

Those miracles have been accompanied with a divine teaching that has informed man through public revelation concerning the nature of the supernatural life in God.

This supernatural life in God is the life of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As God has told man of the nature of the supernatural life, then agnosticism is false.

JM

In counter response to Dave Armstrong’s Response to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrists Robert Sungenis and "johnmartin" - part 1

Dave Armstrong has written the article Response to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrists Robert Sungenis and "johnmartin"concerning the manner in which he believes geocentrists such as Robert Sungenis and myself have engaged him concerning the matter of geocentrism. Dave has closed down the combox as of 30 December 2010 EST with 198 comments. However on 31 December 2010 EST, the combox comments have been reduced by Dave down to a mere 78 comments. Dave has done this for the following reasons – Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "Response to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrist...":
 I have decided (as part of the renewed policy of getting away from all this personal stuff) to delete any post in this combox that is mostly comprised of personal insults and calumnies (on both sides). This is where free speech collides with NT ethics. If someone doesn't like that, tough. Again, it's my blog and I am the one who may lose readers because of hosting mudfests.
 I have principles of discussion on this blog, and the highest priority is to avoid ad hominem garbage.
 So I am reinforcing that. I will be removing my own posts and those of some heliocentrists as well, if they are personal, and that includes defenses against personal attack (which most of mine were). The ones left up will deal with the issues, minus personal junk. If posts (by either side) contain a lot of personal attacks, and also substantive argument, then the latter will unfortunately be the victim of the former. I continue to engage in hopeful "talks" with Rick DeLano about mutual removal of this sort of material.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Thu Dec 30, 11:35:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dave Armstrong to me - show details 3:37 AM (6 hours ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "Response to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrist...":
 I have left Bob Sungenis' replies up, pending mutual decisions of what to remove.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Thu Dec 30, 11:37:00 AM EST
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I entered into the combox discussions on Sunday 26 December 2010 and I have posted the comments from that time onwards, as recorded in the emails automatically sent to my account as a record of what really occurred in the discussion. My position on this article and the posts made by Dave and his anti-geo friends is that they have gone out of their way to malign and calumniate me [Johnmartin] and Rick Delano. I believe I have successfully defended myself against his statements. johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave – [quoting JM] So the upshot of all this is, charity must prevail, but the church teaching on the moving earth has been condemned as heresy. This is the current position and faithful Catholics must give their assent. . . . Dave, I very much appreciate your apologetic works, but on this issue of geocentrism you are not well versed. That’s not a condemnation of your abilities in any way. . . . You are a first rate Catholic apologist who has a void in his knowledge on the matter of geo, particularly pertaining to the scientific evidence. . . . I still think you are a champion man Dave . . . a real champion. [Robert Sungenis Opts for Personal Attack Because I Refuse to Wrangle With Him Over Geocentrism and a Supposedly 10,000-Year-Old, Non-Rotating Earth ] Dave – [quoting JM] It only shows me the anti geos have nothing to say on the topic so they attack the author. {about post 433} JM - Dave has placed two of my quotes next to each other. The first quote is made in the context of the previous paragraph, which said - “I am well aware of the objective and subjective distinction concerning the proclamation of a statement by the church and the subsequent adoption of a doctrine by individual Catholics. Then again, educated Catholics now have the information at hand from church history, dogmatic theology, ecclesiology and science to delve deeply into the issue. Once all the issues are covered, the geo position is soundly vindicated. So in the end the Catholic geo accounts for the modern Catholic mind and the modern confusion, but the Catholic geo also knows the church has spoken and the faithful Catholic must submit to the church. There is only one way out of this – the Catholic helio must show the Catholic geo where the church has officially overturned the previous statements condemning the moving earth. Of course the church has not done this because it is protect by the HS. So the upshot of all this is, charity must prevail, but the church teaching on the moving earth has been condemned as heresy. This is the current position and faithful Catholics must give their assent. . . . {about post 394}
 The second quote is taken from about post 433, which was made in response to 18 sequential posts made by Mark, largely taken from the theologyweb discussion board. In these posts, Mark made statements about my character through insinuation and quoting a dialogue in theologyweb. These statements were later found to be empty or resolved within theologyweb, when I answered Dave’s questions concerning my identity, based upon the information given in Mark’s posts. Clearly the context of my first and second quote presented by Dave is different and therefore must be taken into account when attempting to associate me with Dave’s comments made in his second paragraph – “I am detesting atrocious, ridiculous, unethical personal attacks of the sort that he and his friends are now launching against those who dare to disagree with them, including yours truly. “ Dave has written these statements in sequence, probably as a psychological ploy to associate my comments with him detesting unethical personal attacks on him. Yet my comments are the exact reverse of what Dave is associating me with. My first statement clearly says “charity must prevail, but the church teaching on the moving earth has been condemned as heresy.” made in the context of the objective and subjective distinction between a church’s statement and a persons understanding of that statement. In my statements, I have nowhere attacked anyone personally.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:39:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 In my second statement “It only shows me the anti-geos have nothing to say on the topic so they attack the author.” made after Mark’s 18 posts, I was referring to the personal attacks made upon me by Mark and those in theologyweb discussion who were attacking me. This is the context of the statement made by me in Dave’s combox, where I said –
 “Whatever happened on another thread years ago is history. There's nothing that can be done about it. It only shows me the anti geos have nothing to say on the topic so they attack the author. In fact anyone who is interested in geo can read the geo threads over there. I put a lot of work into many posts and I believe I defended geo quite well over a long time period in a quite hostile environment.” Clearly I was referring predominantly to the thgeologyweb thread, when I used the words “another thread” and “geo threads over there” and “hostile environment”, all of which referred to the theolgoyweb thread. By inference I was also stating Mark was trying to malign my character, by posting an irrelevant issue that had been resolved some time ago on theologyweb. In short, it seems to me, Dave has placed two of my quotes together and then made statements of his own in the context of my quotes, inferring I had attacked his person, or somebody else’s person, when clearly I had not. If Dave has not done this, I request that he explain why he has place two of my quotes together and then said –  “What I am fighting for (as I have for years) is for normal discourse between opposing positions, and I am detesting atrocious, ridiculous, unethical personal attacks of the sort that he and his friends are now launching against those who dare to disagree with them, including yours truly.” Inferring that I am guilty of sinning against another mans character, when the context of the quotes shows it was Mark, who was acting against my character. Later Dave said this – “Sungenis associate "johnmartin" immediately put up seven fairly lengthy replies. In and of itself that was fine, but there is a history here of Sungenis cronies trying to take over my comboxes in a trolling effort to overwhelm any opposition (with frequent use of strong personal attacks, which is forbidden by the rules of my blog).”
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:40:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave has linked my name with the past actions of “Sungenis cronies” who make a “trolling effort to overwhelm any opposition”. According to Webster’s dictionary, a crony is “a close friend of someone ; especially : a friend of someone powerful (such as a politician) who is unfairly given special treatment or favors” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/crony. And troll means - “a person who tries to cause problems on an Internet message board by posting messages that cause other people to argue, become angry, etc.” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/troll. I request Dave demonstrate that Johnmartin (me) is a close friend of Robert Sungenis to vindicate his statement, whereby he associated me with the word “crony”. I also request Dave demonstrate that Johnmartin (me) was trying to cause problems on his combox and thereby I can validly be associated with the word “troll”, as derived from Dave’s words “trolling effort”. To do this, Dave must demonstrate I have repeatedly made statements to cause problems and make people angry through those problems. I insist I have not been trolling, I insist I have been engaging the argument of the anti-geo camp directly, clearly and objectively. This is in no way meant to cause problems or anger, but to show the truth of the geo position as adopted by the Catholic Church. Therefore I categorically deny I have been trolling. Dave said – “And he had made, total, by then, 167 comments out of 400, or 42% of all comments. 45 further comments were made by other geocentrists, for a total of 212 out of 400, or 53% of all comments made]” I challenge Dave to find say 10% (17 comments) of my 167 comments that are directed against the personal character of another who participated on that combox discussion. If Dave cannot find 10%, let’s see Dave find 5%, (8 posts out of 167) if not 5%, then how about 2% (3 posts out of 167). Dave - In other words, they had had their say. I allowed all that, but they were not to push the privilege too far, that I accorded to them. Nevertheless, the geocentrists started in again in the new combox for the paper, Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church. It got up to 33 before I disabled comments (which I do only extremely rarely on my blog, and I have over 2600 posts). johnmartin had made 25 out of the 33 comments (76%). I wrote: JM – 25 comments isn’t much Dave. After all, the comment box’s only allow a small amount of text, so 25 comments probably adds up to a little more than a few A4 pages. This is nothing to worry about is it. Dave - So with this background, we go back to The Folly of Geocentrism (Links Page) and its combox. johnmartin quickly put in seven comments in one day (12-17-10). I then wrote: JM – My comments were against the content found in the anti-geo links placed in Dave’s article. I thought Dave, being the truth seeking man that he is, would want my comments to be posted on his thread, so we could go through the issues one by one. In this way I hoped that both of us would come to acknowledge the pros and cons of the arguments proposed.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:41:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 - Show quoted text - johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave has linked my name with the past actions of “Sungenis cronies” who make a “trolling effort to overwhelm any opposition”. According to Webster’s dictionary, a crony is “a close friend of someone ; especially : a friend of someone powerful (such as a politician) who is unfairly given special treatment or favors” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/crony. And troll means - “a person who tries to cause problems on an Internet message board by posting messages that cause other people to argue, become angry, etc.” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/troll. I request Dave demonstrate that Johnmartin (me) is a close friend of Robert Sungenis to vindicate his statement, whereby he associated me with the word “crony”. I also request Dave demonstrate that Johnmartin (me) was trying to cause problems on his combox and thereby I can validly be associated with the word “troll”, as derived from Dave’s words “trolling effort”. To do this, Dave must demonstrate I have repeatedly made statements to cause problems and make people angry through those problems. I insist I have not been trolling, I insist I have been engaging the argument of the anti-geo camp directly, clearly and objectively. This is in no way meant to cause problems or anger, but to show the truth of the geo position as adopted by the Catholic Church. Therefore I categorically deny I have been trolling. Dave said – “And he had made, total, by then, 167 comments out of 400, or 42% of all comments. 45 further comments were made by other geocentrists, for a total of 212 out of 400, or 53% of all comments made]” I challenge Dave to find say 10% (17 comments) of my 167 comments that are directed against the personal character of another who participated on that combox discussion. If Dave cannot find 10%, let’s see Dave find 5%, (8 posts out of 167) if not 5%, then how about 2% (3 posts out of 167). Dave - In other words, they had had their say. I allowed all that, but they were not to push the privilege too far, that I accorded to them. Nevertheless, the geocentrists started in again in the new combox for the paper, Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church. It got up to 33 before I disabled comments (which I do only extremely rarely on my blog, and I have over 2600 posts). johnmartin had made 25 out of the 33 comments (76%). I wrote: JM – 25 comments isn’t much Dave. After all, the comment box’s only allow a small amount of text, so 25 comments probably adds up to a little more than a few A4 pages. This is nothing to worry about is it. Dave - So with this background, we go back to The Folly of Geocentrism (Links Page) and its combox. johnmartin quickly put in seven comments in one day (12-17-10). I then wrote: JM – My comments were against the content found in the anti-geo links placed in Dave’s article. I thought Dave, being the truth seeking man that he is, would want my comments to be posted on his thread, so we could go through the issues one by one. In this way I hoped that both of us would come to acknowledge the pros and cons of the arguments proposed.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:41:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave - I warned about not doing a geocentric dump, so I will be deleting most of johnmartin's comments. Free speech is one thing: taking over someone's blog with an opposed (and I think, quite absurd) viewpoint, with fanatical, obsessive amounts of comments is quite another. Go make your own blog to do that or do it on one of the famous geocentric sites that are up. JM – You can delete any comments anytime because it is your blog. However please do not think for one minute that geo’s such as myself believe you are deleting the posts solely for the reasons given. Geo’s such as myself believe you are deleting my posts because neither you, nor the pages you link to, nor the other anti-geos have any solid case against geocentrism.
 You are apparently very weak on the matters of physics and geocentrism. Furthermore, those with PhD’s in physics who are against geo also fair not much better either when their anti-geo arguments are so easily answered. This only confirms the anti-geo position is based upon ignorance, confusion or outright prejudice. Dave - Now the fun really began and the geocentric fangs (that we saw indications of all along) quickly came out. First, johnmartin made a complete fool of himself (my bolding): (JM quote) - Lets pull all these arguments apart and expose the anti geo camp as being anti historical, anti scientific and anti revelation. They have nothing to go on, so their position is one of prejudice. Remember we should always act with charity, yet be clear in our own argumentation and admit when we have erred. But you know what, it really doesn't matter if we make mistakes from time to time, because the bottom line is, we have the truth and the opposition does not. We can see this in the way the anti geos behave. The anti geo Catholic apologist (AGCA)is normally quite systematic in his assessment of others, who are against other Catholic doctrines, yet when it comes to the question of geo, the AGCA is anything but systematic. We have seen such examples with the behavior of others on the other recent geo thread. They make some poorly thought out arguments, then end up running away with excuses, or don't even bother to directly engage the geo arguments. Apparently anything goes with the anti geos. They can make false claims, make excuses, run away and post links to websites with rubbish arguments and then delete geo comments. Yet this doesn't seem to bother them that their anti geo position and consequent behavior betrays an anti intellectualism which is antithetical to the Catholic faith. (12-22-10) JM – I stand by these comments. After reading Robert’s book and then several anti-geo websites, and then being involved in discussions on Dave’s combox and very long discussions on theologyweb on the subject of geocentrism, I can safely say the anti-geo arguments are quite vacuous. The Catholic anti-geo has to deal with the facts of church history, including the unanimous consent of the church fathers in favor of geo, Papal decrees in favor of geo and the literal sense of the scriptural texts, which are also in favor of geo. They must also deal with the facts of science, which confirm the stationary Earth. As the anti-geo’s cannot deal with these facts head on, their position is – 1. Against the deposit of faith in regard to the truth of geo having been revealed by God,
 2. Against science, which has solid evidence in favor of a stationary Earth
 3. Against reason, because they cannot mount any reasoned argument against the geo position. 4. Against church history, because they cannot account for the church fathers unanimous consent, nor the Papal statements in favor of geo. 5. Against scripture, because they cannot account for the literal sense of the text as understood by the fathers and Popes.
 - Show quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:41:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 After my discussion on Dave’s combox, which only confirmed my experiences over at theologyweb, I have arrived at these conclusions. Yet Dave’s response to my statements made above is – “Thanks for exposing your bigoted mentality.” JM – More on this later. Dave - I condemn it wholeheartedly, and I do not return the insult at all. I detest and condemn unequivocally the lying and attacks in these latest utterances from Bob and his friend johnmartin. Since I am the target, I can say with certainty that they are lies; not true at all. I'm the recipient of the attacks, and I condemn them. I don't return them in kind at all, because they are wrong. JM – The immediate context of Dave saying I have lied and attacked Dave is “Bob's critical paper about my [Dave’s] views on Galileo”. Yet Dave has not quoted me anywhere as lying or attacking him in Bob’s paper. Nor has Dave shown anywhere that I have directly attacked him at any time. I request Dave clarify his statements concerning “the lying and attacks” of Johnmartin against Dave Armstrong. If Dave makes a case against me, I will give it due attention. If however, Dave has no evidence for his claim, why did he write such a blatant lie about me? I currently believe Dave has no evidence for his statement. Dave – “I detest and condemn unequivocally the lying and attacks in these latest utterances from Bob and his friend johnmartin. Since I am the target, I can say with certainty that they are lies; not true at all. I'm the recipient of the attacks, and I condemn them. I don't return them in kind at all, because they are wrong.” JM – Dave has clearly stated “I'm the recipient of the attacks” and “I don't return them in kind at all, because they are wrong.”, yet if Dave cannot show us clear evidence from the immediate context of Bob’s statements, that I have attacked and lied a bout him, then he has lied about me and then lied about him not returning lies to others. I’m willing to give Dave the benefit of the doubt about this matter. He should have his opportunity to defend his own statements about me. However, if he cannot defend his statements about me attacking him and stating lies about him in the immediate context of Bob’s statements, I’m willing to let him retract his false statements about me with an apology and I will leave the matter as closed. Dave – “Let them keep this up if they insist. Nothing will do more damage to their Big Cause of Geocentrism as Catholic Dogma than this kind of treatment towards those of us who disagree with them and who prefer to agree with popes and ecumenical councils. We're not Catholics, we're fundamentally dishonest, against history, science, and revelation, because we have a disagreement on this issue? And these guys wonder why we think they are fanatical about and hyper-obsessed with geocentrism, with them now going around making out that a heliocentrist can hardly be a Catholic at all?” JM – Dave has inferred as a geocentrist, I am against Popes and ecumenical Councils, where he uses the words “Let them keep this up if they insist.” Dave has therefore stated geocentrism and therefore Catholics who believe the church has taught geocentrism are actually against the church, because in fact the church is against geo as a catholic dogma. Let’s pull Dave’s argument apart logically. Dave - “Geocentrism as Catholic Dogma” Logic - Geocentrist's believe geocentrism is Catholic dogma. Dave - those of us who disagree with them Logic - Those who disagree with the Catholic geocentrist’s believe the church has not taught geocentrism is Catholic dogma. Dave - who prefer to agree with popes and ecumenical councils. Logic - Non geocentrists agree with popes and ecumenical councils that geocentrism is not Catholic Dogma.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:43:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Historical fact 1 – No Pope or Ecumenical council has ever stated geocentrism is not Catholic Dogma. Historical fact 2 – The church fathers unanimously taught a stationary earth as the correct cosmology. This understanding by the church fathers can only be derived from the deposit of the faith if the fathers are truly fathers of the church. Historical fact 3 – The scriptures state the earth is stationary and that’s the way the Popes at the time of Galileo understood those texts. Historical fact 4 – committees set up by Popes condemned the notion of a moving earth as against the faith. Historical fact 5 – Leo XIII bound Catholics to the unanimous consent of the fathers, thereby binding them to a revealed truth of a stationary earth. Historical fact 6 – the decisions of Popes, committees and the teaching of the church fathers on the matter of geocentrism has never been formally reversed, therefore the official position of the church on cosmology is the earth is stationary, as revealed by God. Conclusion – Dave’s statement that the Catholic non geocentrists are acting with Popes and Ecumenical Councils is without foundation in history. Dave - johnmartin replied to my remarks on his own blog when his comments were deleted: A partial response to Dave Armstrong's article - "The Folly of Geocentrism (Link Page)". Here are some humorous (but sad) highlights. Rather that retract the insults, he denies that he made them, and digs in and reaffirms them, and merely projects his faults onto the one who points them out: JM – There is nothing humorous or sad about my statements concerning the anti-geo position being anti-science, anti-historical, anti-intellectual and so on. These are merely conclusions I have arrived at after much discussion, reading and thought on the matter. We shall see Dave’s answers do nothing to expose my conclusions as that of a bigot. Dave1- Very lovely, johnmartin. Thanks for exposing your bigoted mentality.
 JM1 -Unless Dave establishes that I have a bigoted mentality, he has sinned against my character. Dave 1 - Henceforth I will delete all of your comments, since this is the rank bigotry and idiotic first premises that they start with, and we engage in intelligent discussions here, not mere bigoted rantings and personal attacks. [Dave: I later reversed this decision, as announced and explained further in the combox below] JM2 – Good. I assume you will not delete my posts on this thread either. JM1 -Punishment given due to the alleged bigotry not yet proven. Dave 1- You expressed it yourself and it is now documented on my blog. Thanks!
 JM2- Dave’s answer is not an answer at all. Dave has merely asserted bigotry on my behalf, and then merely asserts I have confirmed it when I make my statement above. JM1- Expressed what? That I should act with charity and clarity, then I accurately expressed the anti geo position. How is that bigoted? It is simply not bigoted at all. Dave 1 – Rarely have I seen such a transparent admission of the bigotry that underlies a person's position.
 JM1 -Take a good long hard look at yourself Dave. Who is acting as the bigot now? You merely assert I have a bigoted mentality and yet you are acting with a bigoted mentality. Dave 1- Usually it is covered up, but I guess my removal of your garbage made you angry enough to reveal your true stripes. JM 2- No I’m genuine as always Dave. My statements about anti-geos being anti intellectual, anti-science, anti-historical and so on are based upon long interactions with them. Your recent behavior only confirms my conclusion. You think you can make baseless statements against me and get away with it. Bully for you Dave. I prefer to think you must make a solid case for your slanderous comments.
 - Show quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:43:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 JM1- Poor old Dave is more exposed than ever. He is so keen on labeling me with a bigoted mentality the he fails to see his own. Dave 1- Dave - Let's summarize again for the record: to disagree with you, is to be: 1) "anti historical" It is a historical fact that the church fathers taught geo as found in the scriptures. This is the same interpretation as the Popes gave to scripture when they initiated the investigation into Galileo. Both the Popes and the committees empowered by the Popes said the same thing – the doctrine of the moving earth is against the faith. Therefore the anti geo position is anti-historical. 2) "anti scientific"
 I have answered the science papers posted on Dave’s thread, therefore the anti geo position is simply against modern science such as relativity. JM2- I notice Dave hasn’t made any comments about the anti-geo position being anti historical and anti scientific. Maybe he thinks his no show will be overlooked. Dave thinks he can call me a bigot and then have nothing to say in response to the anti-geo claims being anti-historical and anti-scientific. I’ll let the readers make up their own minds about the vacuous nature of Dave’s position. Dave 1- 3) "anti revelation" The anti geo position must ignore the unanimous consent of the fathers, Papal statements and condemnation by the church of a moving earth. So yes, the anti geo position is anti-revelation. [um, fathers, popes, and councils, are not "revelation" in the first place; that is Holy Scripture.
 JM2 – Hey Dave, I didn’t say “fathers, popes, and councils”, I said “unanimous consent of the fathers, Papal statements and condemnation by the church”. See the BIG differences Dave? Sure you do.
 Bye the way, I’m sure you know revelation comes through scripture and tradition as taught by the church magisterium. What the heck, you have plenty of articles about the three legged stool of Catholicism. You know scripture is only one source of revelation, with tradition and the magisterium being the other two sources. Even so, scripture is clear on the matter of a stationary earth and that’s the way the fathers and the Popes thought the text meant. In short, God has revealed a stationary earth cosmology through the ordinary magisterium and there’s nothing you, nor anyone else has said to overturn this historical fact. Dave 1 - Thus, johnmartin gets his fundamental categories wrong,
 JM2 - Dave, do you see the hypocrisy in your statements. You’ve switched categories and then claimed I did the switch. Dave 1 - . . . even in his wanton, wild insults,
 JM2- What wanton insults Dave. I have made a case that your claims that I have acted as a bigot are without merit. Your response is to ignore two of my responses, then make a category switch. My initial complaint against anti-geo’s included the claims that they can make just about any statement they want, then make false statements about geos. I have noticed Dave has done just that here. The statements “wild insults” is currently without merit and therefore false. Dave 1 - which is part of the problem in this debate: the geocentrists are raising the Catholic magisterium beyond even the claims that it makes for itself.
 JM2 - Dave’s statement is disconnected from what geo’s have been saying about the church statements on the stationary earth and from the immediate context of this discussion. Dave’s quote below provides no evidence for his statement that is consistent with what geo’s have been saying about church authority and revelation in regard to geocentrism.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:44:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave 1- Thus, for example, The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Revelation") states: It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly . . . from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.] JM2- I agree with the above statement from the Encyclopedia, but do you know what . . . it doesn’t matter a whit in regard to the geo position, because Dave has not made any connection between the Encyclopedia’s statement and the geo position. It’s as simple as that. Even so, the church has taught through the ordinary magisterium of the church that a stationary earth has been revealed by God. Popes have taught that a moving earth is against scripture and a Papally appointed committee has taught a moving earth is against the faith. Again, this is a historical fact. JM1 - 4) "nothing to go on, so their position is one of prejudice." Prejudice automatically follows when the anti geo position is against historical facts, science facts and the truths of the faith. What else could it be when the issues have been discussed? Dave 1- [Having denounced in no uncertain terms my assertion of his obvious bigotry
 JM 2- I sure have denounced you claims of bigotry. Dave 1- -- as seen in these ridiculously sweeping statements
 JM 2- These so called “ridiculously sweeping statements” don’t require answers by Dave as shown above and when he bothers to make a counter statement his answers are found to be fallacious.
 Dave 1- he now reaffirms what ha had already asserted: that the "anti geo" {sic} position is "prejudice"; indeed "automatically" so; thus compounding his own hypocrisy and viciously inconsistent thought] JM2- My position is logical. If the arguments of the anti-geo camp are found to be without merit scientifically, logically, historically and theologically, then if the anti-geos continue in their position, it is based only on prejudice. This is simple 101 logic. Bye the way, Dave’s answer is not logical. Dave states “he now reaffirms”, inferring I am reaffirming my position without having made any case for such a conclusion. Yet my position as reaffirmed was made only after a long dialogue on Dave’s combox, much reading, a long dialogue on theologyweb and then an explanation for my conclusion. Evidently Dave has ignored or doesn’t believe I have adequately defended this conclusion of the anti-geo position.
 JM 1- 5) "anti intellectualism which is antithetical to the Catholic faith" consequently the anti geo position must be anti-intellectual. The real reason Dave is so hostile to me is probably because I have demonstrated he has a double standard when it comes to criticism of geocentrism. I placed a post on his thread on 22 December, 2010, which has been deleted by Dave.
 Dave 1- [sorry to disappoint jm, but I did not delete it; it was placed automatically in the spam folder by Blogger. When I found it in there I restored it, hence it is now back in the thread, as anyone can see. If I had deleted it, I wouldn't have been able to post it with its original author and date and time with it. Some other comments I did indeed delete (with full justification), and they cannot be restored, because they aren't stored anywhere, having been deleted]
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:47:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 JM2- Good for you Dave. But I note my criticism stills stands. You have posted a picture of geocentrism which is not consistent with the modified Tychonian model. You were told about this some time ago and you have persisted in keeping the false picture on your thread. Again, it is your thread, but I am duty bound to inform you of your straw man position on geocentrism. Why do you persist in showing a false picture of what modern geo’s hold to? Modern Geos do NOT hold to planets orbiting in epicycles around nothing but empty space. To show a picture on your thread which is not held by modern geo’s is not from the man I’ve known. This is not the Dave Armstrong who is known for his intelligence and integrity.
 I suggest you have a look at the modified Tychonian model and then either remove the picture or explain your position on the matter. JM1- In that post I made a clear case for his double standards – Dave 1 - [Me] Free speech is one thing: taking over someone's blog with an opposed (and I think, quite absurd) viewpoint, with fanatical, obsessive amounts of comments is quite another. JM2- I was merely responding to those who took the opposite view point. Why not call those who hold to the opposite view fanatical Dave? Your statements seem to be somewhat arbitrary. JM1- You can do what you want on your blog Dave. It’s ok by me.
 Dave 1 - [it ain't okay for Bob Sungenis. He has convinced that I prove I am dishonest or perhaps not a Catholic at all when I delete any comments by geocentrists: no matter how outrageous, insulting, or ridiculous] JM 2- Again, I have been careful not to attack anyone in person. JM1- Dave could have been man enough to answer the serious flaw in his method, yet he chose the low path of ad hominem attack and censoring my posts. It’s his blog, but then again, as a matter of integrity I have to expose his attitude on geocentrism as anti-intellectual and now without integrity. It’s a sad day for Dave Armstrong when he has chosen to take such action against legitimate opposition to his anti-geo claims.
 However, on other matters concerning Catholic apologetics, I highly recommend him to anyone investigating the truth claims of the Catholic faith. I’ve bought his books and read most of them. The one’s I’ve read are intellectually solid. If Dave wants to retract his comments about me and allow me to freely post on his combox, then we can negotiate a truce about this current situation. Until then, my comments stay on the net for all to see. Dave 1- [Your bigotry and misguided, wrongheaded dogmatism in this matter and ready willingness to misrepresent and lie about the positions of other Catholics JM2- Dave hasn’t provided any evidence for any of his assertions above.
 - Hide quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:47:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave 1- (as Bob Sungenis is doing as well in his personal attacks, seen in the combox below), also remains for all to see, and now again on my blog. I will not retract my comments about your bigotry and ad hominem tactics until you renounce and retract the bigoted statements above that provided full justification and warrant for the charge.
 JM 2- I believe I have shown the conclusions I have stated concerning the anti-geo position is intellectually solid. I have also established your statements about me being a bigot and liar are without foundation. Dave 1- And even then it would not be a case of my having misrepresented anything, but of you changing your mind, in which case, I would acknowledge that and thank you for doing the right thing and denouncing the bigotry and sheer stupidity of description of those who disagree with you, that you are now foolishly asserting] JM2- I have established that the anti-geo arguments as stated in your combox are without merit. I have also shown that the stationary earth was revealed by God through the ordinary magisterium, therefore the matter of a stationary earth is not merely my opinion, as you claim, but the teaching of the church. I will not change my mind on the matter of a stationary earth being revealed by God until convincing arguments are forthcoming from the anti-geos to demonstrate the scriptural statements, church father’s statements, Papal statements and scientific evidence are against the stationary earth. From my reading and dialogues on the matter, the evidence is thoroughly in favor of a stationary earth. Finally I note that Dave has entitled this article as “How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Cronies Question My Catholic Faith Because I Objected to My Blog Being Overrun By Geocentrist Fanaticism”. This title is clearly at odds with the subject matter discussed in the article. The content of the article in no way makes any solid link to me or anyone else other than Robert Sungenis concerning the questioning of your Catholic faith. It is simply a false title to group geos such as Rick and myself into the category of cronies, without any solid evidence.
 I find this to be the work of a man who has lost touch with the goals of his apologetic ministry. Your ministry is to seek the truth wherever it exists and to rigorously investigate arguments on both sides of issues. By placing this heading at the start of your article demonstrates you are not interested in the truth in this instance. You simply have made geos out to be cronies, who think you may not have the catholic faith because of your position on the matter of geocentrism.
 Summary points – 1. I have demonstrated Dave’s statements about me being a bigot and a liar are clearly without foundation. 2. I have shown Dave has not made a serious attempt to answer my conclusions concerning the anti-geo position as being anti-scientific, anti-historical and anti-intellectual.
 3. I have shown Dave has repeatedly associated me with claims of lying and personal attacks, without any clear evidence to establish such claims. 4. I have highlighted several problems with Daves statements in response to my statements. 5. I have highlighted a case of a straw man position concerning the geocentric picture shown on one of his threads, that does not accurately represent the modified Tycho Brehe model. 6. I have highlighted a case of Dave making a statement in his article title, which is not consistent with the content of his article. JM
 - Show quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:49:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave, I've noticed the posts are not loading sequentially in your combox, so I will post my entire response to Dave on my blog here http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/2010/12/partial-resposne-to-dave-armstrongs-how.html JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 09:56:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 The comments of Bob Sungenis are very revealing, though not in a way he intends -- it's pretty much all there in his choice of screen name. John Martin's comments also have been very revealing, and not in a way he intends. It was already pretty clear that he is obsessive about his faith in geocentrism (and that he has way too much free time and apparently can't think of anything to do with it but engage in geocentrism debates on the internet). But he has also, as Dave said, exposed his bigotry: he's right and everybody who disagrees with him on this topic is wrong, wrong, wrong, end of story. Thus there is absolutely no reason to engage in any kind of exchange on this subject. The websites compiled by Dave showing that geocentrism is bad science are helpful. Unfortunately, for the geocentrists posting those links was like the fragrant bouquet of wine to an alcoholic. They yearn intensely to suck non-specialists and non-scientists into unending and fruitless debates on the purported scientific proof of geocentrism, because most people are (like almost all geocentrists, including Sungenis, Martin, and DeLano) not degreed physicists -- and thus aren't the best equipped to critique and take apart their pseudoscience the way credentialed and accomplished physicists have (the few times, that is, that real physicists have even bothered to give them the time of day). So, it's helpful to have handy reference to legitimate science showing why geocentrism is nonsense, even if it is only like spraying gasoline on the geocentrist burn pile. Some time ago I wasted a good deal of time in a science-based debate with Rick DeLano. I don't make it a habit to engage Catholic geocentrists at all, but on the occasions when I do, I ignore their pseudoscience -- because all their talk of science is a distraction, is static. They're not geocentrists because of scientific evidence: the tail is wagging the dog here, for they are convinced that God has revealed geocentrism to be true, and therefore there can be no evidence or argument capable of overthrowing their faith in geocentrism. They didn't do the hard work of studying to become physicists, earning legitimate physics degrees from serious institutions of higher learning, and then after years of painstaking investigation collected and propounded scientific evidence for their hypothesis. Rather, they are interpreting the Bible and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, and then they are plugging in the evidences and proofs to fit what they believe. That's why in that 400+ post monstrosity I focused solely on the theological aspect of this debate, showing that the Catholic Church does not propose physical geocentrism as a revealed article of the Catholic faith. What science says or doesn't say on the subject is irrelevant, not only because it makes no real difference to geocentric faith, but also because Christ Jesus came to save our souls, not to teach us physics, and thus (though Catholic geocentrists find this impossible to accept) the Church grants full liberty to her children on this scientific question. Even if the earth were the stationary point around which everything else in the material universe orbits once every 24 hours, knowing that would have absolutely no bearing on salvation, which is why the Holy Spirit revealed not a word to us on that question. Hence there is incredible irony in Sungenis and his associates questioning whether or not Dave is really a Catholic, or John Martin asserting that Catholics who don't believe in geocentrism are anti-revelation. We know by revelation that Jesus is the Savior, not astrophysics.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 11:21:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 John Martin said: The real reason Dave is so hostile to me is probably because I have demonstrated he has a double standard when it comes to criticism of geocentrism. Speaking of double standards: "But you know what, it really doesn't matter if [geocentrists] make mistakes from time to time, because the bottom line is, [geocentrists] have the truth and the opposition does not." So, according to John Martin, if those who don't believe in geocentrism ever botch their facts or arguments or proofs, geocentrists should get as much mileage out of those mistakes as possible -- but it doesn't matter at all if geocentrists ever make mistakes in their arguments. Why doesn't it matter? Because geocentrists are right, regardless of any facts, evidences, or arguments to the contrary. Truth is error, John Martin in effect says, because geocentrists are right and geocentrism can't be wrong. And thus there is, as I said above, no reason to engage in any kind of discussion with him on this topic.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 11:47:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 johnmartin wrote: However please do not think for one minute that geo’s such as myself believe you are deleting the posts solely for the reasons given. Right. This is what we can expect now. In light of the continuing vapid boorishness and rudeness of yours and Bob's posts, you can have your blasted say on my blog, but it will be allowed in this combox only.
 If other posts about geocentrism are put up, the comments will be closed. This is the only place where your fanaticism will be allowed.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 11:53:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 And be informed that if you continue to throw out insults, I may change my mind again about allowing these comments. In any case, my decisions have no relation whatever to what the "geos" think of me or my positions, but are based solely on what I deem to be best for my blog and my apostolate and the goals I have for them. I'm generally a patient man, but I don't have infinite patience, and I have never suffered fools easily.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Sun Dec 26, 11:58:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 You've suffered me pretty easily. :-)
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 01:59:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Jordanes echoed my point, though a bit more eloquently, I should say: What science says or doesn't say on the subject is irrelevant, not only because it makes no real difference to geocentric faith, but also because Christ Jesus came to save our souls, not to teach us physics... It's possible to take analogies too far; that is, the earth is the physical center of the universe because it's the historical/redemptive center of mankind. It makes more sense to me that the macro universe mirrors the micro to a high degree; electrons, protons and neutrons revolving around the central nucleus of an atom seems to me to be the pattern for life. I suppose the geocentrist would say that the nucleus is the earth, and that answers that. But is the nucleus stationary? We real non-scientists want to know...
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 02:08:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Pilgrimsharbour: The analogy can only take us so far. That the Earth is in the center of the Universe is a conclusion to which we are compelled by extremely persuasive scientific evidence. The intelligent observer can discern just how persuasive by examining the recent literature. The question of geostatism is now front and center, since the demise of the Copernican principle deprives mainstream science of its explanation for the failure of all terrestrial experiments to show the expected motion of the Earth in its purported orbit around the Sun. That explanation was promulgated in the Theory of Relativity, of which the Copernican Principle is a logical consequence. Since we now know the Copernican Principle to be false (it has been scientifically falsified by observational evidence), we have the right to demand of the mainstream an explanation for the Michelson Morley experiment that does not involve shrinking rods or time dilation. They don't have one. Here is an example of what the cosmologists at Stanford U are actually thinking about, as of June 21, 2010: Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem
 Excerpt: "In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region, and the search for the correct measure is replaced by a search for a 3D Lagrangian yet to be discovered.
 There are two ways to look for the correct Lagrangian. One could either try to perform direct phenomenological searches or one could try to derive it from first principles.
 For the phenomenological approach one has to reinterpret the existing cosmological data from the geocentric view point." Needless to say, Dave and Jordanes are simply out of their league here.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 02:26:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 27 (4 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave and Jordanes: Gentlemen, this has become actually grotesque. Unable to understand, much less refute, the scientific evidence presented by Drs. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett in "Galileo Was Wrong", you have descended to a truly appalling episode of character assassination, since you are losing the debate badly. Jordanes: I hereby challenge you to a public debate on the scientific aspects of the case for geocentrism as outlined in "Galileo Was Wrong", and in the even more recent scientific literature referenced in my presentation at GeoCathCon I. This challenge will be repeated often. It will appear in many locations. I will be deeply satisfied should it be accepted, and if it is not accepted then that fact will be widely disseminated as well. Dave, you will have your own challenge soon enough and I have to tell you that you have a very large problem on your hands, since you will not be challenged by a mere tenth grade dropout like me, but instead by the author of the world's most exhaustive compendium on the subject of geocentrism. Gentlemen, bone up, is my solemn advice to both of you.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 02:43:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 J- But he has also, as Dave said, exposed his bigotry: he's right and everybody who disagrees with him on this topic is wrong, wrong, wrong, end of story. Thus there is absolutely no reason to engage in any kind of exchange on this subject. JM – Actually I’m only a thorough defender of geo. I use counter arguments to show how false the anti-geo arguments are. This is all I have ever aimed at doing and the reponses to my efforts have sometimes been interesting and other times, well shall I say, something less than honest. J - The websites compiled by Dave showing that geocentrism is bad science are helpful.
 JM – Helpful to the geo’s who pull the arguments apart. J - Unfortunately, for the geocentrists posting those links was like the fragrant bouquet of wine to an alcoholic. They yearn intensely to suck non-specialists and non-scientists into unending and fruitless debates on the purported scientific proof of geocentrism, because most people are (like almost all geocentrists, including Sungenis, Martin, and DeLano) not degreed physicists -- and thus aren't the best equipped to critique and take apart their pseudoscience the way credentialed and accomplished physicists have (the few times, that is, that real physicists have even bothered to give them the time of day). So, it's helpful to have handy reference to legitimate science showing why geocentrism is nonsense, even if it is only like spraying gasoline on the geocentrist burn pile. JM – Robert has engaged a PhD in physics and I have also responded to the same article. There really isn’t that much in opposition to geo. Really man, if there was something of substance, it would have come up already. So far there’s been little to make a fuss about in the science. J- Some time ago I wasted a good deal of time in a science-based debate with Rick DeLano. I don't make it a habit to engage Catholic geocentrists at all, but on the occasions when I do, I ignore their pseudoscience -- because all their talk of science is a distraction, is static. They're not geocentrists because of scientific evidence: the tail is wagging the dog here, for they are convinced that God has revealed geocentrism to be true, and therefore there can be no evidence or argument capable of overthrowing their faith in geocentrism.
 JM – Ok, so lets see you answer the many experiments which have all failed to find the required fringe shifts predicted by the moving earth model.
 J- They didn't do the hard work of studying to become physicists, earning legitimate physics degrees from serious institutions of higher learning, and then after years of painstaking investigation collected and propounded scientific evidence for their hypothesis. JM- That’s right, we don’t need to either. Actually most of the phsics involved is understandable by the layman and that’s what really bothers the anti-geos.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 07:53:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 J- Rather, they are interpreting the Bible and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, and then they are plugging in the evidences and proofs to fit what they believe.
 JM – To be sure, scripture is part of geo, no doubt about it. J- That's why in that 400+ post monstrosity I focused solely on the theological aspect of this debate, showing that the Catholic Church does not propose physical geocentrism as a revealed article of the Catholic faith.
 JM – And that’s why I substantially answered your points. Popes and the church fathers taught geo, therefore it is part of the ordinary magisterium and therefore part of the faith. J -What science says or doesn't say on the subject is irrelevant, not only because it makes no real difference to geocentric faith, but also because Christ Jesus came to save our souls, not to teach us physics, and thus (though Catholic geocentrists find this impossible to accept) the Church grants full liberty to her children on this scientific question.
 JM – Geo’s say the science is relevant and that’s why Geos such as Rick, Robert and others are interested in dialogue on the matter of the science. J -Even if the earth were the stationary point around which everything else in the material universe orbits once every 24 hours, knowing that would have absolutely no bearing on salvation, which is why the Holy Spirit revealed not a word to us on that question.
 JM – It would lead men more surely to the knowledge of a designer of the universe. Men would then look for where God has revealed that geo universe and probably find the catholic church more easily. J - Hence there is incredible irony in Sungenis and his associates questioning whether or not Dave is really a Catholic, or John Martin asserting that Catholics who don't believe in geocentrism are anti-revelation.
 JM – The problem is your arguments about geo not being part of the faith were substantially answered. J -We know by revelation that Jesus is the Savior, not astrophysics. JM – Irrelevant. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 07:54:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 27 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 J- John Martin said: The real reason Dave is so hostile to me is probably because I have demonstrated he has a double standard when it comes to criticism of geocentrism. Speaking of double standards: JM – No double standard will be shown. J – [quoting JM]"But you know what, it really doesn't matter if [geocentrists] make mistakes from time to time, because the bottom line is, [geocentrists] have the truth and the opposition does not." So, according to John Martin, if those who don't believe in geocentrism ever botch their facts or arguments or proofs, geocentrists should get as much mileage out of those mistakes as possible JM – there is nothing in my statement with which Jordanes can arrive at this conclusion. Jordanes is merely inventing a conclusion. J- -- but it doesn't matter at all if geocentrists ever make mistakes in their arguments.
 JM – Another false conclusion not found in my statements. J- Why doesn't it matter? Because geocentrists are right, regardless of any facts, evidences, or arguments to the contrary.
 JM – Another false statement not derived from anything I have said. J- Truth is error, John Martin in effect says, because geocentrists are right and geocentrism can't be wrong. JM – JM is only saying geos can afford to make mistakes from time to time. This is like saying a Catholic apologist can make mistakes from time to time, because in the end the catholic faith is the true faith, so any correction will lead to the catholic faith anyway. In a similar way, any real correction made to a geo apologist, will not hurt the geo case, because geo has been revealed by God. J -And thus there is, as I said above, no reason to engage in any kind of discussion with him on this topic. JM – And I’m still waiting for you apology for the calumny you perpetrated on me in the last thread.
 JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 07:59:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 D- And be informed that if you continue to throw out insults, I may change my mind again about allowing these comments. In any case, my decisions have no relation whatever to what the "geos" think of me or my positions, but are based solely on what I deem to be best for my blog and my apostolate and the goals I have for them. I'm generally a patient man, but I don't have infinite patience, and I have never suffered fools easily.
 JM - Where's the insults Dave? I was merely giving my opinion on one of your statements. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 08:01:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 It will be intereting to see if Dave responds to my posts which answered his claims about my alleged bigotry and lying. We shall see what he does. He is welcome to take the entire response from my blog and go through it line by line to show us all how he intends to answer the problems I found in his article. Dave? JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 08:02:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Rick, Thank you for your comments. I myself am completely out of touch with the science involved in these issues, as you probably have discerned. My concern is more practical theologically as befits the behaviour of Christians while discussing these matters. I'm hoping that things will settle down a bit and that the sniping will cease so that a real dialogue can ensue. I'm quite interested in this issue now, not having given it any thought previously. Sadly, there's an awful lot of griping to wade through while trying to find any useful information. Blessings in Christ, Pilgrimsarbour
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 08:57:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Pilgrimsharbour: You and I both share your above stated hope. I have noticed that a number of theological disputes- including great and weighty ones involving saints on both sides of the question- have brought about circumstances under which the participants began to discover their inner St. Jerome, so to speak. But the day is certainly coming when the heat will, please God, give way to the light, and your new interest indicated above is evidence that this day is not far off. For an initial orientation there is simply nothing better than the new, 2nd edition of "Galileo Was Wrong". Christus est natus!
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 09:25:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Jordanes: I hereby challenge you to a public debate on the scientific aspects of the case for geocentrism as outlined in "Galileo Was Wrong", and in the even more recent scientific literature referenced in my presentation at GeoCathCon I. This challenge will be repeated often. There is no need to repeat the challenge. I will never publicly debate you or any other geocentrist on these pseudoscientific aspects you mention. Even if I had the scientific qualifications that would make it rational for you to challenge me to such a debate (you and I probably are roughly comparable in our scientific qualifications and background, i.e., both of us are rank amateurs at best), as I have already explained, I think debating those questions is an exercise in futility, since geocentrism is based on erroneous theology and biblical interpretation, not on science. The purported science is just a sideshow. If geocentrism is divinely revealed, it doesn't matter what science says or doesn't say on the question, because God cannot lie and cannot be mistaken about anything -- so there's no point in arguing about the purported science. Furthermore, as I said, believing or disbelieving in geocentrism has no bearing whatsoever on salvation, so it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not people disbelieve in geocentrism. No soul can be saved by knowledge of astrophysics, nor can any soul be damned by a lack of knowledge of astrophysics. The movements of heavenly bodies does not affect our eternal destinies.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 12:07:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Jordanes says: There is no need to repeat the challenge. I will never publicly debate you or any other geocentrist on these pseudoscientific aspects you mention.
 >> Please be advised that your refusal to debate the scientific issues is to be understood as an admission on your part that you are not capable of addressing or refuting the scientific evidence posted here and on other threads. I accept this admission, because everything you have written on the scientific side of this question since I have known you has substantiated that you are not presently capable of understanding, much less refuting, the geocentric arguments. ********************* J: Even if I had the scientific qualifications that would make it rational for you to challenge me to such a debate (you and I probably are roughly comparable in our scientific qualifications and background, i.e., both of us are rank amateurs at best), as I have already explained, I think debating those questions is an exercise in futility >> The primary qualification for any debate is the knowledge of the subject being debated. My posts stand here, on many other sites across the internet, and my presentation at the Catholic Conference on Geocentrism is available for purchase. I have placed my evidence in the public domain and I have, therefore, established my qualifications to enter the debate. It is irrelevant to mewl on about qualifications, when what is required is that one address the science. You have wisely admitted your inability to do this, and I would certainly advise Mr. Armstrong to follow suit in this regard. *********************** since geocentrism is based on erroneous theology and biblical interpretation, not on science. >> In this you are quite wrong. All science is based, of course, upon the interpretation of observations according to philosophical assumptions. Since the geocentrists posting on these threads have accounted for each and every observation advanced as a scientific argument against geocentrism, your claim above is completely falsified. Since you admit to lacking the background in science to address our arguments, it should not surprise us to find that you lack even the most basic understanding of what science is. **************** J:The purported science is just a sideshow. >> Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain......... *************************
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 01:09:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Jordanes says: If geocentrism is divinely revealed, it doesn't matter what science says or doesn't say on the question,
 >> False. It is also divinely revealed that the entire human race descends from Adam and Eve. I have recently been given an extensive lecture by a newly ordained priest who explained to me how his reading of a science book by the apostate Francisco J. Ayala had "proven" that it were impossible, as a simple matter of genetics, for the human race to have descended from any single original pair. This heretic is a priest, sir. He was educated and ordained by an Order, the superiors of which are likewise convinced that the "scientific evidence" has a great deal indeed to do with what God has revealed. Therefore it is a matter of some urgency that the scientific evidence concerning this issue be very thoroughly and forcefully addressed, before we wake up to find out that the Church's interpretation of Scripture on Adam and Eve, like that on geocentrism, has "evolved". The great contribution of Dr. Sungenis has been to correctly identify the strange and anomalous case of Galileo as the defining point in the decline of Catholic confidence and vigor in defense of the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by the Fathers. The astonishing new scientific evidence in favor of geocentrism is highly relevant, and will continue to show the way forward for those unwilling to surrender their children's formation to heretics who have no problem at all adopting whatever flavor of the month science might adopt in opposition to Scripture and Tradition. ******************************* J:because God cannot lie and cannot be mistaken about anything -- so there's no point in arguing about the purported science. >> The question is not whether God can be mistaken. The question is whether Jordanes can be mistaken.
 ***************** Furthermore, as I said, believing or disbelieving in geocentrism has no bearing whatsoever on salvation, >> The Catholic Church decided differently, when She formally condemned the propositions in 1633. It was determined to be a matter of Faith. This determination has never been officially retracted or reversed. ********************** so it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not people disbelieve in geocentrism.
 >> The Catholic Church decided differently, when She formally condemned the propositions in 1633. It was determined to be a matter of Faith. This determination has never been retracted or reversed. ******************* No soul can be saved by knowledge of astrophysics, nor can any soul be damned by a lack of knowledge of astrophysics. The movements of heavenly bodies does not affect our eternal destinies. >> But our eternal destinies depend absolutely upon whether we uphold the Truths of our Faith, including the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and the impermissibility of allowing any interpretation thereof against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 01:11:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Hi Rick, Dave, you will have your own challenge soon enough and I have to tell you that you have a very large problem on your hands, since you will not be challenged by a mere tenth grade dropout like me, but instead by the author of the world's most exhaustive compendium on the subject of geocentrism. I'm trembling in my boots. I have less than no interest in any such debate, as I have stated many times, and it should be undertaken (if at all) by someone who has infinitely more knowledge of and interest in the topic (and patience) than I do.
 You can huff and puff all you like. I don't decide to spend my time on anything based on challenges that entail name-calling and lying should I decline (I'm a coward, a dummy, not a Catholic, a lousy apologist, etc.). YAWN I've made my opinion on this clear all along. The very reactions that refusal brings about (that we have already seen) provide abundant further confirmation that it is a waste of my time, since I don't engage people who are given to personal insult and invective and who accuse others of dishonesty and heterodoxy at the drop of a hat.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 05:17:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 It will be intereting to see if Dave responds to my posts which answered his claims about my alleged bigotry and lying. We shall see what he does.
 There is no need to, as you have already demonstrated your bigotry and misplaced dogmatism against those who honestly disagree with you. There is nothing further to talk about. It's self-evident, in my opinion. You say our opinion is pure "prejudice" and I say you have bigotry in your opinion. You say it; I say it. I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 05:20:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 It will be interesting to see if Dave responds to my posts which answered his claims about my alleged bigotry and lying. We shall see what he does.
 D - There is no need to, as you have already demonstrated your bigotry and misplaced dogmatism against those who honestly disagree with you. There is nothing further to talk about. It's self-evident, in my opinion. JM – You failed to demonstrate anything Dave, other than your rather naïve ability to think you have demonstrated something when you haven’t. Your article was pure invention concerning the allegations of bigotry and lying. Actually, your article was probably one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read from you. There were many logical holes in your claims and several of those have been brought to your attention, which you currently refuse to address. Your preferred rhetorical method of guilt by association concerning my alleged lies was laughable, not to mention sinful.
 Your article was almost as laughable as the anti-geo position that thinks Newton’s physics doesn’t have any logical problems in it. Try this problem for modern physics – Newton’s gravity laws assume instantaneous action at a distance. But Einstein believes gravity is caused the bending of a mathematical space time continuum and the fastest travel velocity for a force is the speed of light, c. So Newton says the fastest a force can travel has no limit, but Einstein says the fastest is c and both of these theories are thought to be legitimate and are routinely used in physics. Yet somehow we geos are to take modern physics and the anti-geo camp seriously when they make objections to geo based upon the flawed system of Newtonian mechanics. So once again, it’s a case of anything goes with the anti-geos, yet its not anything goes for the anti-geos, when it comes to the theory of geo. The anti-geos think they can embrace contradictions in science, history, church authority, the scriptures, Papal documents, the church fathers and their own illogical arguments. Therefore, the anti-geo position is inherently schizophrenic in the extreme. I see that schizophrenia in the way Jordanes responds to Rick concerning the recently made science challenge. Jordanes is an avid anti-geo, so you would think he would take up the challenge. But then again, Jordanes knows the anti-geo position is untenable, so he invents reasons not to engage the science. For Jordanes, one needs to be qualified to speak about science in public, yet Jordanes is openly speaking against a science position in public for some time now. Jordanes approach sounds schizophrenic, because the anti-geo position is schizophrenic.
 I also see the same schizophrenia in your recent posts Dave. Normally you have intellectual integrity in matters of faith, history and argument, when engaging non Catholics. Yet when it comes to the matter of geo, the intellectual gloves come off and it’s another case of the anti-geo, anything goes mentality. For you, posting pictures that misrepresent the geo model means nothing. For you, making false statements about me means nothing. For you, thinking you can overturn the 1633 Papal statement, when the church has not chosen to do so, is somehow consistent with church authority, which forbids such practices. For you, posting several articles against geo and then refusing to engage anything of substance in the dialogue is acceptable behavior for a noted Catholic apologist. Again and again, your behavior, like that of other anti-geos, betrays the anti-intellectualism of the anti-geo position. And when you stoop to repeated false allegations against me concerning lying, then the anti-geo position is not only anti-intellectual, it is blatantly immoral and therefore sinful.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 06:21:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 - Show quoted text - johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 It will be interesting to see if Dave responds to my posts which answered his claims about my alleged bigotry and lying. We shall see what he does.
 D - There is no need to, as you have already demonstrated your bigotry and misplaced dogmatism against those who honestly disagree with you. There is nothing further to talk about. It's self-evident, in my opinion. JM – You failed to demonstrate anything Dave, other than your rather naïve ability to think you have demonstrated something when you haven’t. Your article was pure invention concerning the allegations of bigotry and lying. Actually, your article was probably one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read from you. There were many logical holes in your claims and several of those have been brought to your attention, which you currently refuse to address. Your preferred rhetorical method of guilt by association concerning my alleged lies was laughable, not to mention sinful.
 Your article was almost as laughable as the anti-geo position that thinks Newton’s physics doesn’t have any logical problems in it. Try this problem for modern physics – Newton’s gravity laws assume instantaneous action at a distance. But Einstein believes gravity is caused the bending of a mathematical space time continuum and the fastest travel velocity for a force is the speed of light, c. So Newton says the fastest a force can travel has no limit, but Einstein says the fastest is c and both of these theories are thought to be legitimate and are routinely used in physics. Yet somehow we geos are to take modern physics and the anti-geo camp seriously when they make objections to geo based upon the flawed system of Newtonian mechanics. So once again, it’s a case of anything goes with the anti-geos, yet its not anything goes for the anti-geos, when it comes to the theory of geo. The anti-geos think they can embrace contradictions in science, history, church authority, the scriptures, Papal documents, the church fathers and their own illogical arguments. Therefore, the anti-geo position is inherently schizophrenic in the extreme. I see that schizophrenia in the way Jordanes responds to Rick concerning the recently made science challenge. Jordanes is an avid anti-geo, so you would think he would take up the challenge. But then again, Jordanes knows the anti-geo position is untenable, so he invents reasons not to engage the science. For Jordanes, one needs to be qualified to speak about science in public, yet Jordanes is openly speaking against a science position in public for some time now. Jordanes approach sounds schizophrenic, because the anti-geo position is schizophrenic.
 I also see the same schizophrenia in your recent posts Dave. Normally you have intellectual integrity in matters of faith, history and argument, when engaging non Catholics. Yet when it comes to the matter of geo, the intellectual gloves come off and it’s another case of the anti-geo, anything goes mentality. For you, posting pictures that misrepresent the geo model means nothing. For you, making false statements about me means nothing. For you, thinking you can overturn the 1633 Papal statement, when the church has not chosen to do so, is somehow consistent with church authority, which forbids such practices. For you, posting several articles against geo and then refusing to engage anything of substance in the dialogue is acceptable behavior for a noted Catholic apologist. Again and again, your behavior, like that of other anti-geos, betrays the anti-intellectualism of the anti-geo position. And when you stoop to repeated false allegations against me concerning lying, then the anti-geo position is not only anti-intellectual, it is blatantly immoral and therefore sinful.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 06:21:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave, you and your friends have simply been out gunned on all fronts on the matter of geocentrism. It’s time for you to take stock and re-evaluate your position on the matter. If you persist in ignoring Roberts book, ignoring the many rebuttals to the anti-geo arguments, ignoring questions in your own combox’s and then perpetuating calumny against me, you must seriously consider dropping the entire matter of geocentrism for the sake of your own soul. Really man, if you are not interested in engaging the arguments, but you are willing to post articles with links, then please do not expect we anti-geos to take your position and your statements against us seriously. Dave - You say our opinion is pure "prejudice" and I say you have bigotry in your opinion. You say it; I say it. I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
 JM – No Dave, you are not entitled to your opinion when your opinion is based on nothing more than ignorance and baseless slander. Nobody is entitled to legitimately hold an opinion of another person, when there is no evidence to hold that opinion. You are simply equating two positions that are at odds with each other.
 You have made false claims about my character several times now and each time those claims were found to be baseless. Therefore you have repeatedly lied about me and therefore it is I alone who have come to the legitimate conclusion that it is you who has acted in a bigoted manner. In short, you have repeatedly sinned against my character. Furthermore, I have demonstrated the anti-geo position is nothing more than prejudice mixed in with ignorance and confusion. When you refuse to engage us geos and your friends do the same, then the anti-geo position is no longer intellectually credible. If you think you have the authority to reverse the 1633 statement by a Pope, when the church has chosen not to do so, then you have demonstrated that you are not only ignorant of the sciences, but also very ignorant of catholic authority. This is the logical position of the anti-geo camp. They end up destroying the Catholic authority they think they are defending. Therefore the anti-geo position is logically untenable. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 06:22:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 - Show quoted text - It will be interesting to see if Dave responds to my posts which answered his claims about my alleged bigotry and lying. We shall see what he does.
 D - There is no need to, as you have already demonstrated your bigotry and misplaced dogmatism against those who honestly disagree with you. There is nothing further to talk about. It's self-evident, in my opinion. JM – You failed to demonstrate anything Dave, other than your rather naïve ability to think you have demonstrated something when you haven’t. Your article was pure invention concerning the allegations of bigotry and lying. Actually, your article was probably one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read from you. There were many logical holes in your claims and several of those have been brought to your attention, which you currently refuse to address. Your preferred rhetorical method of guilt by association concerning my alleged lies was laughable, not to mention sinful.
 Your article was almost as laughable as the anti-geo position that thinks Newton’s physics doesn’t have any logical problems in it. Try this problem for modern physics – Newton’s gravity laws assume instantaneous action at a distance. But Einstein believes gravity is caused the bending of a mathematical space time continuum and the fastest travel velocity for a force is the speed of light, c. So Newton says the fastest a force can travel has no limit, but Einstein says the fastest is c and both of these theories are thought to be legitimate and are routinely used in physics. Yet somehow we geos are to take modern physics and the anti-geo camp seriously when they make objections to geo based upon the flawed system of Newtonian mechanics. So once again, it’s a case of anything goes with the anti-geos, yet its not anything goes for the anti-geos, when it comes to the theory of geo. The anti-geos think they can embrace contradictions in science, history, church authority, the scriptures, Papal documents, the church fathers and their own illogical arguments. Therefore, the anti-geo position is inherently schizophrenic in the extreme. I see that schizophrenia in the way Jordanes responds to Rick concerning the recently made science challenge. Jordanes is an avid anti-geo, so you would think he would take up the challenge. But then again, Jordanes knows the anti-geo position is untenable, so he invents reasons not to engage the science. For Jordanes, one needs to be qualified to speak about science in public, yet Jordanes is openly speaking against a science position in public for some time now. Jordanes approach sounds schizophrenic, because the anti-geo position is schizophrenic.
 I also see the same schizophrenia in your recent posts Dave. Normally you have intellectual integrity in matters of faith, history and argument, when engaging non Catholics. Yet when it comes to the matter of geo, the intellectual gloves come off and it’s another case of the anti-geo, anything goes mentality. For you, posting pictures that misrepresent the geo model means nothing. For you, making false statements about me means nothing. For you, thinking you can overturn the 1633 Papal statement, when the church has not chosen to do so, is somehow consistent with church authority, which forbids such practices. For you, posting several articles against geo and then refusing to engage anything of substance in the dialogue is acceptable behavior for a noted Catholic apologist. Again and again, your behavior, like that of other anti-geos, betrays the anti-intellectualism of the anti-geo position. And when you stoop to repeated false allegations against me concerning lying, then the anti-geo position is not only anti-intellectual, it is blatantly immoral and therefore sinful.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 06:23:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave: I understand your decision to decline to participate in a formal debate examining the scientific issues involved in geocentrism. I would encourage the fair minded observer to draw from this decision the logical conclusion concerning the merits of your above-posted links attempting to scientifically refute geocentrism. They have all failed, completely. I sincerely thank you for your response. Anyone interested in continuing the conversation in an environment where all relevant scientific and theological evidence will be fully and honestly examined, can visit: http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/ In future any posts on this blog dealing with geocentrism will be examined in detail and answered there.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 06:55:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Excellent. So I assume that means the quixotic crusade and traveling three-ring circus for geocentrism is over on my blog. How can I face tomorrow in light of such a drastic disappointment?
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 10:54:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 When your apostolate degenerates to accusing others of lying and bigotry, (without any evidence), then sarcasm . . . well it's time to give up the apostolate and move onto something more productive. Dave's behavior on this combox is not something to emulate. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 11:27:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Dave - You say our opinion is pure "prejudice" and I say you have bigotry in your opinion. You say it; I say it. I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
 JM – No Dave, you are not entitled to your opinion when your opinion is based on nothing more than ignorance and baseless slander. Nobody is entitled to legitimately hold an opinion of another person, when there is no evidence to hold that opinion. You are simply equating two positions that are at odds with each other.
 You have made false claims about my character several times now and each time those claims were found to be baseless. Therefore you have repeatedly lied about me and therefore it is I alone who have come to the legitimate conclusion that it is you who has acted in a bigoted manner. In short, you have repeatedly sinned against my character. Furthermore, I have demonstrated the anti-geo position is nothing more than prejudice mixed in with ignorance and confusion. When you refuse to engage us geos and your friends do the same, then the anti-geo position is no longer intellectually credible. If you think you have the authority to reverse the 1633 statement by a Pope, when the church has chosen not to do so, then you have demonstrated that you are not only ignorant of the sciences, but also very ignorant of catholic authority. This is the logical position of the anti-geo camp. They end up destroying the Catholic authority they think they are defending. Therefore the anti-geo position is logically untenable. JM
 - Hide quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Mon Dec 27, 11:31:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & His Croni...":
 Any repeated comments by me were unintentional due to the spam filter removing some of my posts and leaving others. If Dave could check his filter, it would be appreciated. JM
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Please be advised that your refusal to debate the scientific issues is to be understood as an admission on your part that you are not capable of addressing or refuting the scientific evidence posted here and on other threads. No thanks. I don't see any need to be advised of things that may or may not be true, and that are in any event unimportant. I didn't say I am not capable of addressing the pseudoscience of geocentrism. I accept this admission, because everything you have written on the scientific side of this question since I have known you has substantiated that you are not presently capable of understanding, much less refuting, the geocentric arguments. Interesting expression, "since I have known you," since we've never met or spoken in real life, only had a few internet encounters. Anyway, though I, like you, have no background in physics, and thus am not especially adept at refuting geocentrists' invalid and purportedly scientific arguments (much as you are not capable of understanding physics), nevertheless I still was able to identify a few crucial errors of yours. But that's neither here nor there, since the "science" aspect of this debate is not something I will waste my time on. For those who want or need that sort of thing, I elect to leave that to the experts, rather focusing on the real foundation of the geocentrist error, which is a religious belief, not a hypothesis of the natural sciences. You have wisely admitted your inability to do this, and I would certainly advise Mr. Armstrong to follow suit in this regard. If only you could see your own inability to do it . . . . Since you admit to lacking the background in science to address our arguments, it should not surprise us to find that you lack even the most basic understanding of what science is. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that, Mr. DeLano. "If geocentrism is divinely revealed, it doesn't matter what science says or doesn't say on the question," >> False. You're mistaken again, as usual. The natural sciences are incapable of disproving what God divinely reveals to be true, and incapable of making divinely revealed truths even more true. If God had revealed that the earth is the stationary center of the material universe around which all other celestial bodies orbit, then no Christian would need a scientist to prove it to be true on his behalf for him to know it is true, and no scientist would be able to construct a valid and true alternative explanation of the shape and form of the heavens. It is also divinely revealed that the entire human race descends from Adam and Eve. I have recently been given an extensive lecture by a newly ordained priest who explained to me how his reading of a science book by the apostate Francisco J. Ayala had "proven" that it were impossible, as a simple matter of genetics, for the human race to have descended from any single original pair. You're proving my point. Since God has revealed that all men are descended from the single original pair of humans Adam and Eve (as repeatedly taught through the centuries, reaffirmed by Pius XII in Humani Generis and explicitly upheld in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church), therefore we know that the natural sciences will not be capable of disproving monogenism, any more than they could disprove Christ's resurrection or His viriginal conception and birth, or Our Lady's immaculate conception, or the existence and immortality of the soul. We do not need scientists to find Adam and Eve's bones for us to know they existed and that they are our parents, just as (assuming geocentrism is divinely revealed, which it is not) we would not need physicists to tell us anything about cosmology for us to know geocentrism is true.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:17:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Therefore it is a matter of some urgency that the scientific evidence concerning this issue be very thoroughly and forcefully addressed, before we wake up to find out that the Church's interpretation of Scripture on Adam and Eve, like that on geocentrism, has "evolved". Apples and oranges. Monogenism, unlike geocentrism, has been authoritatively reaffirmed right down to our own day. Again, unlike geocentrism, the Church has never granted her children liberty to believe or disbelieve monogenism (nor can she, since it would be fatal to the doctrine of original sin and so many other doctrines were she to abandon her doctrine of monogenism). Therefore it is necessary to explain and defend the Church's faith in monogenism in the face of confusion and error such as you describe in this newly ordained priest. But there is no need to do that for geocentrism, because the Church does not propose geocentrism as an article of faith -- and because she does not, it is in fact necessary that we not attempt to argue that it is a teaching of the Church binding on the faithful, as that confuses people and scandalises unbelievers. The question is not whether God can be mistaken. The question is whether Jordanes can be mistaken. If you don't even know the answer to an easy question like that, how could we make any headway on difficult questions? The Catholic Church decided differently, when She formally condemned the propositions in 1633. It was determined to be a matter of Faith. It was asserted to be, not "determined" to be -- and neither infallibly nor irreformably. Furthermore, the condemnation of which you speak came in 1616 -- what happened in 1633 was a condemnation of Galileo. And even then the Church permitted her children to correctly affirm that the pope had not issued an anti-Copernican definition. This is why the popes later reversed the acts of 1616. This determination has never been officially retracted or reversed. On the contrary, the 1616 decree of the Index was mitigated in 1741 and nullified during the Canon Settele affair in 1820.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:18:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 But our eternal destinies depend absolutely upon whether we uphold the Truths of our Faith, including the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and the impermissibility of allowing any interpretation thereof against the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. That's all true -- but disbelief in geocentrism does not raise any problems for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith. "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4) "The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. For 'in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,' according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: 'When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.' The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19)
 - Show quoted text - Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:18:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 At 12:15 AM EST 12-28-10, I added to the end of the post another blistering letter from Bob Sungenis, where he again questions my Catholic status, says ridiculous things about Bishop James White and his view of me, grossly misunderstands a humorous remark I made, and comes up with an imaginary meeting between us in a city in California (I live in Michigan) that I have never been to. From this meeting, and a "face" I supposedly made, he concluded that I had a deep character flaw, that he sees again now in my demeanor.
 This is amazing stuff (entertaining in a perverse way -- I confess to being a lover of farce -- , but at bottom tragic). Bob is severely damaging his credibility yet again with this.
 Sad to say, it will probably only get worse. Maybe he'll have me an atheist or devil-worshiper before he is done with his ridiculous attacks.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:28:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 JORDANES: I didn't say I am not capable of addressing the pseudoscience of geocentrism. >> Your refusal to accept my challenge to debate the scientific issues says that for you.
 ************************* J: Anyway, though I, like you, have no background in physics, and thus am not especially adept at refuting geocentrists' invalid and purportedly scientific arguments (much as you are not capable of understanding physics), nevertheless I still was able to identify a few crucial errors of yours.
 >>You have identified none, including in the memorable debate over on Rorate Coeli where your ill-advised recourse to the threadbare "epicycles" argument so memorably blew up in your face. **************** But that's neither here nor there, since the "science" aspect of this debate is not something I will waste my time on. >> You have wasted a great deal of your time on it already, but chin up! It was not a waste. It allowed us to demolish several typical straw man arguments of the "epicycles" type. All such opportunities are helpful in allowing the casual observer a chance to work through these issues. The rapid growth of interest and defense of geocentrism in these debates is quite obvious, and I have made it a point to sincerely thank Mr. Armstrong for what he has done to assist this. I wish now to extend similar thanks to you in this regard. *****************************
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:31:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 J: For those who want or need that sort of thing, I elect to leave that to the experts, rather focusing on the real foundation of the geocentrist error, which is a religious belief, not a hypothesis of the natural sciences. >> The experts are already way ahead of you, Jordanes. For example, experts in cosmology at Stanford University on June 21, 2010, published yet another paper exhibiting the actual impact among cosmologists of the astonishingly geocentric observations obtained by, for example, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe: Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem Excerpt: 

"In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region, and the search for the correct measure is replaced by a search for a 3D Lagrangian yet to be discovered. 
There are two ways to look for the correct Lagrangian. One could either try to perform direct phenomenological searches or one could try to derive it from first principles. 
For the phenomenological approach one has to reinterpret the existing cosmological data from the geocentric view point."
 Here is another, from Oxford University's Timothy Clifton, published in 2008: "A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle; that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican Principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy’, to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”---Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land 2008 Oxford Astrophysics, Physics, DWB, Keble Road, Oxford, OX13RH, UK http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1443v2 There are many many others, including several dozen which I cite and quote in my presentation at the Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. Your problem, Jordanes, is that you simply aren''t up to speed with the latest developments in cosmological observations. Actually, on second thought, that is not your problem. We have solved that problem for you. Your problem is a willful refusal to address these findings. It is almost as if your pride demands of you the reprehensible tactic of burying your head in the sand and simply ignoring the evidence when presented to you. What an awful thing. I hope you can escape from this awful habit of mind. We certainly intend to see to it that as many Catholics as possible are given the opportunity not to develop such a terrible habit.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:33:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 J: For those who want or need that sort of thing, I elect to leave that to the experts, rather focusing on the real foundation of the geocentrist error, which is a religious belief, not a hypothesis of the natural sciences. >> The experts are already way ahead of you, Jordanes. For example, experts in cosmology at Stanford University on June 21, 2010, published yet another paper exhibiting the actual impact among cosmologists of the astonishingly geocentric observations obtained by, for example, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe: Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem Excerpt: 

"In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region, and the search for the correct measure is replaced by a search for a 3D Lagrangian yet to be discovered. 
There are two ways to look for the correct Lagrangian. One could either try to perform direct phenomenological searches or one could try to derive it from first principles. 
For the phenomenological approach one has to reinterpret the existing cosmological data from the geocentric view point."

 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:35:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Here is another, from Oxford University's Timothy Clifton, published in 2008: "A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle; that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican Principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy’, to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”---Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land 2008 Oxford Astrophysics, Physics, DWB, Keble Road, Oxford, OX13RH, UK http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1443v2 There are many many others, including several dozen which I cite and quote in my presentation at the Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. Your problem, Jordanes, is that you simply aren''t up to speed with the latest developments in cosmological observations. Actually, on second thought, that is not your problem. We have solved that problem for you. Your problem is a willful refusal to address these findings. It is almost as if your pride demands of you the reprehensible tactic of burying your head in the sand and simply ignoring the evidence when presented to you. What an awful thing. I hope you can escape from this awful habit of mind. We certainly intend to see to it that as many Catholics as possible are given the opportunity not to develop such a terrible habit.
 - Show quoted text - Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:35:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Here is another, from Oxford University's Timothy Clifton, published in 2008: "A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle; that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. .............Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”---Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land 2008 Oxford Astrophysics, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1443v2 There are many many others, including several dozen which I cite and quote in my presentation at the Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. Your problem, Jordanes, is that you simply aren''t up to speed with the latest developments in cosmological observations. Actually, on second thought, that is not your problem. We have solved that problem for you. Your problem is a willful refusal to address these findings. It is almost as if your pride demands of you the reprehensible tactic of burying your head in the sand and simply ignoring the evidence when presented to you. What an awful thing. I hope you can escape from this awful habit of mind. We certainly intend to see to it that as many Catholics as possible are given the opportunity not to develop such a terrible habit.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:38:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First, Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?" James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head." James White: "once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn't it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He's gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views" James White: "even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ--and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall)." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443 ------------- Second, as mentioned already, all Sungenis needs to do regarding the mistaken identity at Shea's blog is to revisit the comments there: "Whoa there. I'm sorry for any confusion, but no one was impersonating you, Dave. I picked the handle 'Mr. Armstrong' as a veiled tongue in cheek reference to the famous astronaut who knows first-hand that we landed on the moon and that the earth moves (unlike the geocentrists putting on their convention). I thought everyone would get it given the context. Why would people assume it must be you?...Look, I'm sorry if any of your friends were upset. But I didn't say anything untrue or out of line considering what we're talking about here. These conspiracy theories are nutty and I agree with Shea that it's an embarrassment to the Church. If these geocentrists, NASA laser crop circle believers and moon-landing deniers can't take a ribbing for putting out ideas like that for public consumption then maybe they should only talk about them amongst themselves at their conventions. Whoever took issue with you jumped to a false conclusion based on skimpy evidence. But then, isn’t that what conspiracy theorists typically do?" http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/09/celebration-of-crank-and-quack-science.html ----------- Third, Sungenis writes, "“God has given me something with which I intend on changing the world, and I'm not going away. The conference was just the start of what I and my associates are planning" and "“I’ve sent them my books free of charge, but they refuse to read them… I’m sure they will answer to God for their negligence.” Is he serious? If so, this is very odd and worrisome.
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:50:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 JORDANES: The natural sciences are incapable of disproving what God divinely reveals to be true, and incapable of making divinely revealed truths even more true. >> Oh, the irony....... ***************** J:If God had revealed that the earth is the stationary center of the material universe around which all other celestial bodies orbit, then no Christian would need a scientist to prove it to be true on his behalf >> Excellent. This is precisely what Cardinal Bellarmine tried to teach Galileo.
 ********************** J: for him to know it is true, and no scientist would be able to construct a valid and true alternative explanation of the shape and form of the heavens. >> This second assertion is laughably and obviously self-serving. "Valid and true"? Of course. But the modern mainstream scientific is proceeding from the *assumption* that Scripture is false in its recounting of the creation of "the heavens *and the earth*, and also in its recounting of the creation of the first parents of all humankind, Adam and Eve. Because modern scientific myths are not challenged- indeed Catholics who admirably and with great effectiveness challenge these myths are subjected to withering attacks and scorn from the likes of you- the catastrophe of the loss of Faith in the Scriptures and in the Catholic Church proceeds apace. Only an ostrich with his head buried in the sand could fail to recognize the disastrous impact of these scientific myths. It requires something even worse than that to account for the expenditure of gargantuan effort to demean, calumniate, and gainsay those Catholics like Bob Sungenis who have actually employed the very observations of mainstream science to bring to light a spectacularly unexpected and powerful truth: the universe is geocentric on its largest scales. How sad that, not only do you yourself refuse to see this, you intend with an awful implacability to prevent other Catholics from seeing it. You will, please God, fail in this strange and spectacularly misguided effort.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:51:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First, Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?" James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head." James White: "once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn't it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He's gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views" James White: "even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ--and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall)." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443 -------------
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:54:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Second, as mentioned already, all Sungenis needs to do regarding the mistaken identity at Shea's blog is to revisit the comments there: "Whoa there. I'm sorry for any confusion, but no one was impersonating you, Dave. I picked the handle 'Mr. Armstrong' as a veiled tongue in cheek reference to the famous astronaut who knows first-hand that we landed on the moon and that the earth moves (unlike the geocentrists putting on their convention). I thought everyone would get it given the context. Why would people assume it must be you?...Look, I'm sorry if any of your friends were upset. But I didn't say anything untrue or out of line considering what we're talking about here. These conspiracy theories are nutty and I agree with Shea that it's an embarrassment to the Church. If these geocentrists, NASA laser crop circle believers and moon-landing deniers can't take a ribbing for putting out ideas like that for public consumption then maybe they should only talk about them amongst themselves at their conventions. Whoever took issue with you jumped to a false conclusion based on skimpy evidence. But then, isn’t that what conspiracy theorists typically do?" http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/09/celebration-of-crank-and-quack-science.html ----------- Third, Sungenis writes, "“God has given me something with which I intend on changing the world, and I'm not going away. The conference was just the start of what I and my associates are planning" and "“I’ve sent them my books free of charge, but they refuse to read them… I’m sure they will answer to God for their negligence.” Is he serious? If so, this is very odd and worrisome.
 - Show quoted text - Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:54:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?" James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head." James White: "once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn't it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He's gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:00:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?" James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head."
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:01:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:02:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 - Show quoted text - Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments.
 First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches" But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:06:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments. First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:07:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?" James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head." James White: "once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn't it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He's gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views" James White: "even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ--and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall)." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:09:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 But: James White: "Sungenis' reputation as a serious apologist was, for all intents and purposes, over at that point. Since then he has only marginalized himself even more by adopting a whole range of odd and downright eccentric positions, resulting in a wholesale abandonment on the part of mainstream Roman Catholics of his work." James White: "given how minimalized CAI has become, and their need for "controversy" to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:10:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 James White: "I decided it was best to focus on those who actually represent mainstream Roman Catholic views rather than a small fringe minority that has already shot its credibility in the head." James White: "once you demonstrate you are willing to use anything, no matter how wild or insane it might be, as a billyclub against your imagined opponents, doesn't it require you to do a little something to repair your own credibility? What has Sungenis done? He's gone farther and farther down the road with his unique views"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:11:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 James White: "even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ--and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall)." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443 Second, as mentioned already, all Sungenis needs to do to confirm the mistaken identity at Shea's blog is to revisit the comments there: "Whoa there. I'm sorry for any confusion, but no one was impersonating you, Dave. I picked the handle 'Mr. Armstrong' as a veiled tongue in cheek reference to the famous astronaut who knows first-hand that we landed on the moon and that the earth moves (unlike the geocentrists putting on their convention). I thought everyone would get it given the context. Why would people assume it must be you?...Look, I'm sorry if any of your friends were upset. But I didn't say anything untrue or out of line considering what we're talking about here. These conspiracy theories are nutty and I agree with Shea that it's an embarrassment to the Church. If these geocentrists, NASA laser crop circle believers and moon-landing deniers can't take a ribbing for putting out ideas like that for public consumption then maybe they should only talk about them amongst themselves at their conventions. Whoever took issue with you jumped to a false conclusion based on skimpy evidence. But then, isn’t that what conspiracy theorists typically do?" http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/09/celebration-of-crank-and-quack-science.html
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:13:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 James White: "even Roman Catholic apologists I know agree that he should just be left alone to wander off into whatever form of religion is next to sample (his testimony story lists quite a range, from a follower of Harold Camping to a member of the International Churches of Christ--and that from being a Presbyterian, as I recall)." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=443
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:15:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Second, as mentioned already, all Sungenis need do regarding the mistaken identity at Shea's blog is to revisit the comments there: "Whoa there. I'm sorry for any confusion, but no one was impersonating you, Dave. I picked the handle 'Mr. Armstrong' as a veiled tongue in cheek reference to the famous astronaut who knows first-hand that we landed on the moon and that the earth moves (unlike the geocentrists putting on their convention). I thought everyone would get it given the context. Why would people assume it must be you?...Look, I'm sorry if any of your friends were upset. But I didn't say anything untrue or out of line considering what we're talking about here. These conspiracy theories are nutty and I agree with Shea that it's an embarrassment to the Church. If these geocentrists, NASA laser crop circle believers and moon-landing deniers can't take a ribbing for putting out ideas like that for public consumption then maybe they should only talk about them amongst themselves at their conventions. Whoever took issue with you jumped to a false conclusion based on skimpy evidence. But then, isn’t that what conspiracy theorists typically do?" http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/09/celebration-of-crank-and-quack-science.html
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:16:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 J: Since God has revealed that all men are descended from the single original pair of humans Adam and Eve (as repeatedly taught through the centuries, reaffirmed by Pius XII in Humani Generis and explicitly upheld in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church), therefore we know that the natural sciences will not be capable of disproving monogenism >> Sorry pal. The natural sciences *already* claim to have disproved it, and they have apostates like Ayala turning priests into heretics with these arguments, which you insist we develop no response to, since it is enough that the magisterium has pronounced on the question. But it is of course true that the magisterium also pronounced on the question of heliocentrism, which it declared to be heretical, and of the motion of the Earth, which it declared to be erroneous in Faith. These findings have never been reversed, and the recent, *shocking and astonishing* observation which show a geocentric orientation in the largest scale structure of the Universe, ought to fill us with awe at the Divine providence of the Holy Spirit in preventing the Church's magisterium from reversing or repudiating this Scriptural teaching of geocentrism, and its unanimous consensus among the Fathers. Can you imagine what a catastrophe it would have been for the magisterium to have taught that geocentrism was an error, just in time for the space probes to go up and report back the astonishing evidence of a geocentric structure across the entirety of the visible cosmos? Jordanes, you are the one who is attempting to deny Scripture, the Fathers, and the magisterium here. Your entire argument boils down to an implicit claim that unless a given doctrine is taught- how often? you do not say; how strongly? why, as strongly as Jordanes thinks it ought to be taught- in other words, unless a doctrine suits Jordanes' own private determination of its adequacy, then he considers himself arbitrarily at liberty to ignore Scripture, a unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and a formal and binding act of the magisterium of the Church. And why? Because he thinks the Church would be embarrassed by geocentrism. Pal, the Holy Spirit is a whole bunch smarter than you, and is in fact to be greatly praised for His Wisdom in *preserving the Church* from the terrible error of imagining that science had disproven the geocentric universe of Scripture, Tradition, and the ordinary magisterium. We ought to be astonished and humbled at this vindication of our Holy Faith. It is certainly my intention, and the intention of my co-thinkers, to proclaim these great victories of our Holy Faith!
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:18:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Third. Sungenis writes, “God has given me something with which I intend on changing the world, and I'm not going away. The conference was just the start of what I and my associates are planning" and “I’ve sent them my books free of charge, but they refuse to read them… I’m sure they will answer to God for their negligence.” Is he serious? If so, this is very odd and worrisome.
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:19:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 J: Any more than they could disprove Christ's resurrection or His viriginal conception and birth, or Our Lady's immaculate conception, or the existence and immortality of the soul. >> All of which they do claim to have disproven, and all of which claimed disproofs have been the subject of continually improved and effective counter-arguments. Just as the present, brilliant expose of science's terrible error in adopting the Copernican Principle in order to demote Scripture's truthful account of creation to the status of an edited Mesopotamian creation myth has been made the subject of an incredibly powerful and sophisticated counterattack in the form of "Galileo Was Wrong". The duty of the Catholic is to *defend the Scriptures and the Faith*, Jordanes, especially in this age where the faith of millions is being undermined by the scientific juggernaut which spuriously advances its claims to have identified errors in Scripture and the catholic Church's ancient and apostolic Tradition. For example, the astonishing evidence related in posts above, concerning the very latest deep space observations, show that the magisterium's wise condemnation of Galileo stands vindicated despite the nearly total surrender on the part of the entire world to the heliocentric myths condemned by the Papal sentence of 1633. Our Faith stands vindicated, and it is so strange that those of us who intend to share this good news are finding that the greatest resistance is NOT found among the scientists- as we see they are very aware of these observations and are already incorporating them in their scientific papers. Instead the greatest resistance is found amongst a small cadre of........well. Apologists doesn't seem like the right word.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:28:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments. First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:32:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 - Show quoted text - Paul has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Three comments. First. Sungenis writes, "What if I returned the favor and suggested to you from conversations I’ve had with Dr. White that he doesn’t engage you (or people like you) because he’s told me that he will only debate Catholic apologists who are well qualified; have substantive arguments; and who know what they are talking about...he [White] engages me because he believes I am one of the better representatives of what the Catholic Church teaches"
 Posted by Paul to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:34:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 J: We do not need scientists to find Adam and Eve's bones for us to know they existed and that they are our parents, >>But we do need Catholics capable of responding effectively to the arguments of apostates like Ayala, who claim to be able to prove by genetic science that it were impossible for the human race to have descended from an original pair. Those of us who understand this will construct and publicly advance such refutations, to the end that apostates do not falsely deceive the gullible or weak who imagine that Catholics lack the scientific ability to refute such claims. Let us hope and pray that we will not find the Jordanes' and Dave Armstrongs of this world standing up to excoriate us for doing so. But whether they do or not, we shall continue just the same. J: just as (assuming geocentrism is divinely revealed, which it is not) we would not need physicists to tell us anything about cosmology for us to know geocentrism is true. >> The very same magisterium which assures us of the truth of Adam and Eve also assures us of the Truth of Scripture, which is explicitly geocentric, just as the Papal Sentence of 1633 explicitly affirms with binding effect. The magisterium has never reversed either teaching, although the success of some in ignoring the 1633 affirmation of the Faith of Scripture concerning the geocentric nature of the cosmos is being duplicated by similar attempts to undermine the Faith concerning Adam and Eve. The signs of the times are quite clear, Jordanes. You should be assisting us, and instead you find yourself condemning us. This is a strange and awful thing.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:39:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 The rest of your assertions- basically ridiculously self-refuting claims that the Church did not in fact teach geocentrism in a formally binding manner (try telling that to Galileo why dont you)- have been thoroughly refuted many times. I thank Mr. Armstrong for his continued hospitality. There have been many occasions of anger and dispute between the interlocutors, but Mr. Armstrong is to be respected for his continued provision of a forum for examination of this issue. It is my sincere wish to accommodate his stated desire to move future responses to this subject off of his blog, but I must, and I am sure Mr. Armstrong understands this, even though he disagrees with me on this issue- I must respond as long as threads remain open to those addressing the opposite side of this issue.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 03:10:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes- That's all true -- but disbelief in geocentrism does not raise any problems for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith. JM – Jordanes believes he has come across church documents to back his claims. Jordanes clearly says “Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith”. The claim that the church is unaware is clearly not true. The church was aware enough to repeatedly condemn Galileo and officially state a moving earth was against the faith. Jordanes- "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4) JM – The quote above is taken from an address given to the church as a commentary on Dante and not a specific commentary on geocentrism or the binding nature of any cosmology. Furthermore the quote is merely a hypothetical, where it states “If the progress of science”, therefore the Pope has not made any official statement on cosmology in this document. Jordanes- "The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. . . " (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19) JM – This quote merely means the individual opinions of the fathers on matters of science are not binding because those statements are not covered by the protection of the HS. This has already been discussed before and it was shown that the correct understanding of Leo is to harmonise all of his statements, including the expressed demand that the unanimous consent of the fathers is binging. As the fathers had a unanimous consent on a stationary earth, then that truth is part of the faith. Jordanes has once again failed to make a case from church documents which overcomes the geo position that the church has formally taught a stationary earth is part of the faith. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 05:57:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 - Show quoted text - johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes- That's all true -- but disbelief in geocentrism does not raise any problems for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith. JM – Jordanes believes he has come across church documents to back his claims. Jordanes clearly says “Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith”. The claim that the church is unaware is clearly not true. The church was aware enough to repeatedly condemn Galileo and officially state a moving earth was against the faith. Jordanes- "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4) JM – The quote above is taken from an address given to the church as a commentary on Dante and not a specific commentary on geocentrism or the binding nature of any cosmology. Furthermore the quote is merely a hypothetical, where it states “If the progress of science”, therefore the Pope has not made any official statement on cosmology in this document. Jordanes- "The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. . . " (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19) JM – This quote merely means the individual opinions of the fathers on matters of science are not binding because those statements are not covered by the protection of the HS. This has already been discussed before and it was shown that the correct understanding of Leo is to harmonise all of his statements, including the expressed demand that the unanimous consent of the fathers is binging. As the fathers had a unanimous consent on a stationary earth, then that truth is part of the faith. Jordanes has once again failed to make a case from church documents which overcomes the geo position that the church has formally taught a stationary earth is part of the faith. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 05:58:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (3 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes- That's all true -- but disbelief in geocentrism does not raise any problems for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith. JM – Jordanes believes he has come across church documents to back his claims. Jordanes clearly says “Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith”. The claim that the church is unaware is clearly not true. The church was aware enough to repeatedly condemn Galileo and officially state a moving earth was against the faith. Jordanes- "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4) JM – The quote above is taken from an address given to the church as a commentary on Dante and not a specific commentary on geocentrism or the binding nature of any cosmology. Furthermore the quote is merely a hypothetical, where it states “If the progress of science”, therefore the Pope has not made any official statement on cosmology in this document. Jordanes- "The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. . . " (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19)
 - Show quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 05:58:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (2 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Some good posts there Rick. Modern science is clearly in favor of geocentrism. The quotes from the Oxford research was enlightening. I wonder what the anti-geo camp will do with it? So now we have the church teaching geo and modern science admitting the Copernican principle is very shaky. We may yet see scientists become geocentrists, before some anti-geo Catholics do. We sure do live in interesting times. JM
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 06:01:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (2 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes- That's all true -- but disbelief in geocentrism does not raise any problems for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and the Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith. JM – Jordanes believes he has come across church documents to back his claims. Jordanes clearly says “Church is unaware of any unanimous consenus of the Fathers proposing geocentrism as an article of faith”. The claim that the church is unaware is clearly not true. The church was aware enough to repeatedly condemn Galileo and officially state a moving earth was against the faith. Jordanes- "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ." (Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4) JM – The quote above is taken from an address given to the church as a commentary on Dante and not a specific commentary on geocentrism or the binding nature of any cosmology. Furthermore the quote is merely a hypothetical, where it states “If the progress of science”, therefore the Pope has not made any official statement on cosmology in this document.
 Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 06:02:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 johnmartin to me - show details Dec 28 (2 days ago)
 johnmartin has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes- "The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. . . " (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19) JM – This quote merely means the individual opinions of the fathers on matters of science are not binding because those statements are not covered by the protection of the HS. This has already been discussed before and it was shown that the correct understanding of Leo is to harmonise all of his statements, including the expressed demand that the unanimous consent of the fathers is binging. As the fathers had a unanimous consent on a stationary earth, then that truth is part of the faith. Jordanes has once again failed to make a case from church documents which overcomes the geo position that the church has formally taught a stationary earth is part of the faith. JM
 - Show quoted text - Posted by johnmartin to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 06:02:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Mr. DeLano, since you once again find yourself incapable of refraining from your practice of sanctimoniously leveling personal attacks on those with whom you disagree, arrogating to yourself the right to diagnose their alleged spiritual flaws, this conversation is over. Let me know when you want to talk about the subject at hand rather than your opinions about what my personal problems supposedly are.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 11:59:00 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Dave, you can add the latest disturbing statements from Bob Sungenis to the growing heap of reasons to seriously question his sanity (I know I'm not the only one to wonder about that). Challenging his eccentric and pernicious opinions is one thing, but it doesn't seem like a very good idea to interact with him directly. Just thought I'd share my opinion about that. Feel free to delete this comment.
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:17:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Gentlemen, If I'm reading you correctly, the heliocentric folks are saying that geocentrism is not an article of faith of the Catholic Church, whereas the geocentrist folks say that it is. You know that as a Protestant I have no particular dog in this hunt other than my own curiosity about what the Catholic Church's official teaching is on this. If you have the time and are so inclined, please: a. Demonstrate where it can be found in official Catholic writings that geocentrism is an article of faith (and by extension, necessary to salvation, perhaps) b. Demonstrate that geocentrism is not an article of faith (and by extension, necessary to salvation, perhaps) either in official Catholic writings or silence on the issue I think this is a crucial starting point. I seem to be getting mixed messages in the combox and would appreciate some clarification. Or perhaps I missed it in all the kerfuffle? Thanks and blessings in Christ, Pilgrimsarbour
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:44:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Jordanes: You can dish it out but you can't take it. You are well advised to depart the fray. You are losing badly, plus you are more concerned about your feelings than you are about the Truth. I will look forward to further opportunities to examine your opinions.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 12:46:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Hi Tim, Jordanes and David Palm have provided extensive reasoning showing how geocentrism is in no way, shape, or form, required dogma for a Catholic. Recent popes casually assume this without argument (but alas, Bob, Rick, johnmartin et al believe they know more than popes and ought to be trusted as Super-Popes who have THE TRVTH): Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:02:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 I understand the reasoning of Jordanes, but if someone could show me this: ...the heliocentric myths condemned by the Papal sentence of 1633. I would be grateful.
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:06:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Oops! Missed your link there, Dave. I'll check it out.
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:07:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Pilgrimsharbor reasonably requests: a. Demonstrate where it can be found in official Catholic writings that geocentrism is an article of faith (and by extension, necessary to salvation, perhaps) >> That which pertains to the deposit of Faith is necessary for salvation. All of Sacred Scripture, belonging to the deposit of Faith, must be believed. Geocentrism is taught throughout Scripture, beginning in Genesis 1:1, where the Earth is the first object created, before the Sun, moon, and stars, and continuing throughout the Old Testament, crucially including the account of Joshua's long day (there are of course many other instances where the Sun is reported to be moving, and the Earth stationary and established by God as His footstool): Joshua 10:12-13 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. Habakkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear. It is clear that Joshua told the Sun and moon to stand still, and did not say to the Earth that it stop spinning. The above Scriptural truths and those additional passages referenced in passing formed the basis for the consensus of the Fathers, which in this case is completely unanimous. There are no Fathers who tell us the Earth is moving (since Scripture doesn't tell us the Earth is moving, and the Fathers believe the Scriptures rather than the Greek heliocentrists of their day). This in turn leads us to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which solemnly define the teaching that *no consensus of Scripture which is in contradiction to a unanimous consensus of the Fathers is permitted*. The reason is that patristic unanimity is considered, logically enough, to be a mark of apostolicity, and hence of Divine Revelation. Council of Trent, Session IV: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred
 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath
 held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even
 though such interpretations were never
 intended to be at any time published.” This in turn forms the basis upon which the Papal sentence condemning Galileo in 1633 was issued, and at the command of the Pope distributed widely throughout Europe.
 Here are the propositions formally condemned: “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.” This answers your first question, pending further inquiry. There is much more evidence available should you or anyone else desire it, including the teaching of geocentrism in the official catechism of the Council of Trent, for example.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:17:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Pilgrimsharbor reasonably requests: a. Demonstrate where it can be found in official Catholic writings that geocentrism is an article of faith (and by extension, necessary to salvation, perhaps) >> That which pertains to the deposit of Faith is necessary for salvation. All of Sacred Scripture, belonging to the deposit of Faith, must be believed. Geocentrism is taught throughout Scripture, beginning in Genesis 1:1, where the Earth is the first object created, before the Sun, moon, and stars, and continuing throughout the Old Testament, crucially including the account of Joshua's long day (there are of course many other instances where the Sun is reported to be moving, and the Earth stationary and established by God as His footstool): Joshua 10:12-13 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. Habakkuk 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear. It is clear that Joshua told the Sun and moon to stand still, and did not say to the Earth that it stop spinning. The above Scriptural truths and those additional passages referenced in passing formed the basis for the consensus of the Fathers, which in this case is completely unanimous. There are no Fathers who tell us the Earth is moving (since Scripture doesn't tell us the Earth is moving, and the Fathers believe the Scriptures rather than the Greek heliocentrists of their day).
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:19:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 This in turn leads us to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which solemnly define the teaching that *no consensus of Scripture which is in contradiction to a unanimous consensus of the Fathers is permitted*. The reason is that patristic unanimity is considered, logically enough, to be a mark of apostolicity, and hence of Divine Revelation. Council of Trent, Session IV: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred
 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath
 held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even
 though such interpretations were never
 intended to be at any time published.” This in turn forms the basis upon which the Papal sentence condemning Galileo in 1633 was issued, and at the command of the Pope distributed widely throughout Europe.
 Here are the propositions formally condemned: “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.” This answers your first question, pending further inquiry. There is much more evidence available should you or anyone else desire it, including the teaching of geocentrism in the official catechism of the Council of Trent, for example.
 - Show quoted text - Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:19:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 Pilgrims: The following link will provide you convenient access both to the David Palm piece linked above, and Robert Sungenis' completely devastating response :-) http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/6.pdf
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:21:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 This in turn leads us to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which solemnly define the teaching that *no consensus of Scripture which is in contradiction to a unanimous consensus of the Fathers is permitted*. The reason is that patristic unanimity is considered, reasonably enough, to be a mark of apostolicity, and hence of Divine Revelation. Council of Trent, Session IV: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred
 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath
 held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even
 though such interpretations were never
 intended to be at any time published.” This in turn forms the basis upon which the Papal sentence condemning Galileo in 1633 was issued, and at the command of the Pope distributed widely throughout Europe.
 Here are the propositions formally condemned: “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.” This answers your first question, pending further inquiry. There is much more evidence available should you or anyone else desire it, including the teaching of geocentrism in the official catechism of the Council of Trent, for example.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:22:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...":
 In short, these geocentrist fanatics don't understand how Catholic authority works. They make things into dogmas which are not at all.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:26:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis & Allies Qu...": See also my dialogue with an agnostic (who often reasons like Sungenis; how ironic): Dialogue With an Agnostic on the Galileo Fiasco & Whether or Not it Disproves Catholic Infallibility or Suggests Various Other Shortcomings (vs. Jon) Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:30:00 PM EST  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 Dave Armstrong writes: "but alas, Bob, Rick, johnmartin et al believe they know more than popes and ought to be trusted as Super-Popes who have THE TRVTH)" >> How remarkable that, after a setup like this, Dave quotes some fellow named David Palm, whom I must have missed his election to the Chair of Peter. The personal opinions of Popes are not a matter of Revelation, as Dave well knows. Only the formal exercise of the magisterial power to bind and loose is heaven-protected. I have pointed out before how remarkable it is that, despite the clear indication of the personal opinions of Popes that heliocentrism had been established, none of them exercised the power to reverse the ordinary magisterium and its foundation, Scripture and the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. In light of the shocking recent cosmological evidences for geocentrism, this ought to be carefully considered as evidence of the Divine protection of the magisterium even through such agonizingly difficult episodes as the supposed "scientific proofs" of heliocentrism, which "proofs" persuaded nearly the whole world, and each and every one of which proofs have subsequently been scientifically *disproven*. It is typical of the anti-gocentrism apologetic to attempt to blur the distinction between the opinions of Popes, andthe authentic acts of the heaven-protected magisterium. It is typical of the geocentric apologetic to insist that those distinctions be carefully retained.
 Posted by Rick to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:33:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pilgrimsarbour to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Pilgrimsarbour has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 Thank you Rick and Dave. I will take some time to look everything over and come back into the combox if I think I can add anything to the discussion or if I have (what I suspect will be) even more questions to ask. One thing I did want to say, though, is in regard to this matter of "unanimous consent" of the fathers. In other contexts it has been demonstrated that "unanimous" (to the Protestant's view) is most often rather overstating things. However, Dave explained to me once that the use of the word "unanimous" should really be understood as a shorthand term for "majority report." (Just as in Reformed Protestantism the word "Calvinism" denotes much less a following of one man and much more a shorthand term for the general principles of a systematic theology which developed before, during and after the Reformation).
 Posted by Pilgrimsarbour to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:36:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 Pilgrims: "I understand the reasoning of Jordanes, but if someone could show me this: ...the heliocentric myths condemned by the Papal sentence of 1633. I would be grateful." >> This was previously posted but disappeared. Let's try it again: The Councils of Trent and Vatican I solemnly define the teaching that *no consensus of Scripture which is in contradiction to a unanimous consensus of the Fathers is permitted*. The reason is that patristic unanimity is considered, reasonably enough, to be a mark of apostolicity, and hence of Divine Revelation. Council of Trent, Session IV: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred
 Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath
 held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even
 though such interpretations were never
 intended to be at any time published.” This in turn forms the basis upon which the Papal sentence condemning Galileo in 1633 was issued, and at the command of the Pope distributed widely throughout Europe.
 Here are the propositions formally condemned: “The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.” This answers your first question, pending further inquiry. There is much more evidence available should you or anyone else desire it, including the teaching of geocentrism in the official catechism of the Council of Trent, for example.
 Posted by Rick to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:37:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 In the case of geocentrism, Pilgrims, it is not a majority report. It is completely unanimous. Not one Father ever suggests the Earth is moving. There is perhaps no greater example of true patristic unanimity than geocentrism. This is because Scripture is quite clear that the Earth is not moving, and the Fathers believe Scripture, and not Greek heliocentric philosophers. Plus ca change.......
 Posted by Rick to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 01:39:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 [Father Campion's] gaiety, too, was in strange contrast to the solemn Puritanism of his enemies. For instance, he was on the point that Councils might err in matters of fact, but that the Scriptures could not. "As for examples," he said, his eyes twinkling out of his drawn face, "I am bound under pain of damnation to believe that Toby's dog had a tail, because it is written, he wagged it." The Deans looked sternly at him, as the audience laughed. "Now, now," said one of the them, "it becomes not to deal so triflingly with matters of weight." Campion dropped his eyes, demurely, as if reproved. "Why, then," he said, "if this example like you not, take another. I must believe that St. Paul had a cloak, because he willeth Timothy to bring it with him." Again the crowd laughed; and Anthony laughed, too, with a strange sob in his throat at the gallant foolery, which, after all, was as much to the point as a deal that the Deans were saying. "By What Authority," pp.203-4, Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:06:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 I see that Jordanes has rejoined us with his favorite bedtime story. Well, it certainly carries with it a certain literary cachet....and of course that delightful ambiguity which provides the requisite cover for those who wish to perform the theological equivalent of Shufflin' Off to Buffalo........ Let's have some more of the old soft shoe, Jordanes.......
 Posted by Rick to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:15:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 I've never seen people so desperate for debate and so unable to get it (since almost everyone thinks their position is so ludicrous). It makes for high comedy. But on another level it is sad and pitiable.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:18:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 Unable to get it? Dave, check your combox logs. The geocentrists have the only thing keeping your blog hopping :-) Anyway thanks for the memories........
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:30:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jordanes to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Jordanes has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 I've never seen people so desperate for debate and so unable to get it (since almost everyone thinks their position is so ludicrous). James White was probably onto something when he said, "given how minimalized (sic -- maybe he meant 'marginalized,' but either word seems to apply) CAI has become, and their need for 'controversy' to keep themselves going, what benefit is there in aiding them to do so?"
 Posted by Jordanes to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 02:58:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 It's funny to read James White's account of Sungenis' eccentricities and why he is no longer interested in debating him. This is a game that White plays, that Bob doesn't grasp. White will denounce someone as a worthless imbecile; not worthy to debate; to waste his time on. Then later he will do exactly that. 1) He did this with apologist Gary Michuta, my good friend. I turned White down in 1995 for my usual reasons (detesting the oral debate format). I suggested Gary Michuta as a debate partner. White blew him off as someone he didn't know of. A few years later white debate Gary on the deuterocanon. 2) Everyone knows White's rock-bottom opinion of yours truly, but as I have documented, that doesn't stop him from challenging me to oral debate every six years (1995, 2001, 2007) while fleeing in terror from any written response to my challenges. 3) White also has a special disdain for Dr. Art Sippo, going way back to the mid-90s. He insulted him repeatedly and said he had no interest in debating him, then later, as always, he changed his mind when he was running out of debate partners. 4) Now we see how White debated Bob Sungenis, insulted him as a fringe figure, and now is back debating him again. It's not rocket science. White despises all Catholic apologists. He'll be nice to them only enough to have a chance to debate them: which is what he craves above all else. They are means to an end. But Bob is foolish enough to think that White views him as some sort of respectable debate partner, as if this proves that White views him and myself in fundamentally different terms. He's simply playing us off each other and stroking Bob's ego. Bob's silly enough to fall for it and throw it up against me. He doesn't get it. White blasted him in his post: Sungenis Rattles His Geocentric Traditionalist Mr-X Saber (5-20-05) He blasted him again in a post from 8 March 2007: ". . . this was back before Sungenis combined geocentrism with some odd form of Jewish conspiracy theory and ushered himself unceremoniously out of the Roman Catholic apologetics picture. I still get a note about him once in a while, but for all intents and purposes, he has fulfilled the constant element of the titles of his own books: he is now alone." [to be continued]
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 04:13:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 How typical. Jordanes and Dave, unable to prevail in the debate, are reduced to employing perhaps the best known anti-Catholic apologist in America as the basis of their petty grievances against Bob. Oh well. As for CAI, I can assure one and all that it is doing very well indeed. And 2011 will be something far beyond what I suppose would be the wildest expectations of anyone who would take James White's word about the status and plans of CAI. Tally ho, gentlemen :-)
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 04:31:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 White noted the inanity of Bob's response to his 2005 criticisms (in a post of 6-23-05), and referred to a Catholic Answers Forum thread where Bob's response was posted (23 June 2005) [see much more in the thread beyond what I have cited]: "As for White's argument that 'Sungenis is out of the mainstream,' it doesn't hold a drop of water. Understand this, my fellow Catholics. James White was declining to debate me long before I took on a more traditional slant in the apostolate of CAI in 2002. I have the documentation to prove it. And then add this to the unbalanced equation. While James White was singing the blues that he wasn't going to debate me because I had 'left the mainstream' and had become a "traditionalist," White arranged a debate with Gerry Matatics, a traditionalist that is more out of the mainstream than I, during the same time he was complaining to me, and he followed through with the debate even after I pointed out his hypocrisy in doing so! . . . "As for debating 'mainstream' opponents, I suggest that you visit some of the people White has debated in the last few years and count how many fringe groups and individuals he either invites to debate or accepts their invitation to debate. You will see that the 'mainstream' argument is nothing but a smoke screen. . . . The real truth is that James White wants to debate people like Rutland, Michuta and Pacwa because he knows they don't have good debating skills, and thus he comes out smelling like a rose. He is a hypocrite of the first order, and you'll do your best to stay away from him." How quaint: now Bob attacks Fr. Mitch Pacwa as a lousy debater (and also Gary Michuta). White debates them because he thinks they are lousy. Obviously, then, that is why he changed his mind about debating Bob!
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 04:43:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 White blasted Bob Sungenis again: Quick Update on the Catholic Answers Forums Thread (6-22-05): " I do not trust Bob Sungenis. His credibility is shot with me, and with anyone else who has followed his tortured path to his present position, and truly, what is accomplished by vindicating Reformed theology against someone who was once with Harold Camping, and once a Presbyterian, and once a member of the International Churches of Christ, and now off on his own in the rad/trad camp somewhere, who may well be who knows where next year? Far better to find a meaningful Roman Catholic apologist who remains in the mainstream to debate the issue, . . . There is one other reason to ignore Sungenis' challenges: read his site! The phrase 'playground bully' comes to mind. 'Debate me or I will call you a chicken and throw a temper tantrum!' Please!" But let a few years pass and there is White debating Sungenis again, knowing that his followers are so logic-challenged that they won't even see the humor or inconsistency there.
 Posted by Dave Armstrong to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 04:49:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rick DeLano to me - show details Dec 29 (2 days ago)
 Rick DeLano has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis and Allies ...":
 Dave, you have a real gift as a gossip columnist. Perhaps you should re-conceptualize your whole approach in order to grab the "here's what James White had to say about so-and-so" market. Pathetic.
 Posted by Rick DeLano to Biblical Evidence for Catholicism at Tue Dec 28, 04:57:00 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dave Armstrong has left a new comment on the post "How Geocentrists "Argue": Bob Sungenis Denies That...":
 Obviously, Rick, you have missed the context of my citing White (as usual). I'll get you up to speed out of the goodness of my heart and appreciation for your constant charity. Your ineptitude in logic and reading comprehension is, I confess, endearing in its own way: Bob appealed to White for his argument that I am inferior to him as an apologist, because White said so. So I am showing what White really thinks of Bob, to disabuse Bob of being taken in by the game that White is playing (a version of divide and conquer). Got it? I have added Bob's latest letter to the end of the post (5:15 PM EST, 12-28-10). He is more convinced than ever that I am not a Catholic (hence I have changed the title again to reflect what he is claiming).  Will someone please urge him to shut up before he damages himself even further with this laughable hogwash and fathomless imbecility? Have mercy on him! He won't listen to me; it'll have to come from someone he respects: begging him to shut his mouth and cease his lying about a fellow Catholic apologist (me) and fellow Catholics (heliocentrists).