On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <
rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 1:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting
>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".
>
>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.
>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.
>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>
>
Projection is something I do not understand.
>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.
>
See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
>
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types. Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting
>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".
>
>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane? You seem to have more experience with him. How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread? How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter? I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.
>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.
>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>
>
Projection is something I do not understand.
>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.
>
See. More projection from Harran. If you are not insane, you should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run. You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence. Some of that evidence came from your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.
>
It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.
The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.
>
REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard. You put something about
Galileo. Claiming support for your interpretation.
>
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
>
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
>
QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:
>
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event
Yes.
and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy
The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.
when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.
Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.
>
QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:
>
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,
None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.
but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees. It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.
Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?
END REPOST:
>
I was quoting from your source.
You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.
How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence? How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?
I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.
>
>
I put up the evidence and you kept running. Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection. That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims. There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.
So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.
>
No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.
And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.
Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".
None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
cites 1616 Report of the Theological Qualifiers which states:
"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."
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.
The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered. It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
>
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy". A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.
It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding
>
Ron Okimoto
>
Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a
"formal" heresy in 1633. The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered
to be in 1633. The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed. It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
>
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?
>
The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries. In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge. They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
>
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates. The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court. In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
>
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.
Here is what my sources have to say:
The Catholic Church:
=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
Karl von Gebler [ Galileo Galilei]
=============
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."i-
From *your* anti-geocentric site that you think supports you:
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical. This position is a common error. "
The same site quoting Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro [Retrying]:
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?
One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written. The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
>
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty. In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
>
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.
You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently
suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the
doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine
Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move
from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the
world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Nyikos would do it
routinely. If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it. What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves. Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial. I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>
Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam
Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam