Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:46:48 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/3/2024 12:57 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:52:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/3/2024 8:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:08:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>

>
My take is that most Christians no longer fear God in this way.  It is
why most Catholics are just fine with the Heliocentric heresy.
Heliocentrism was never removed as a heresy in the Church.

>
It was never removed as a heresy because it never was a heresy. You
have been told that multiple times, yet you persist in stating it.

>
This is absolutely wrong because of the last major fuss about the issue
where it turned out that heliocentrism was only a minor heresy at the
time that Bruno was executed.  It was not the reason for his execution,
but was one of the heresies that he was found guilty of.

 
Your memory serves you badly or else you just can't accept having your
ass handed to you as Burkhard did the last time you argued this.
 

We found out

 
Who is this "we" ? It certainly doesn't include me and I don't know
who else it includes.

So, nothing to offer on who "we" are.

 

that it wasn't made into a capital heresy until the protestants started
to make it an issue claiming that the church was being too soft on the
heretics.  When Galileo was charged with the heresy it carried the death
penalty.
>
Even the Bruno sources claimed that it was one of the things Bruno was
found guilty of, but was not what he was executed for.
>

>

It was only
down graded, to a more minor heresy

>
There is no such thing as a "minor" heresy. There are degrees of
heresy including one of being *suspected* of heresy which was what
Galile was charged with.

>
Apparently there is because the heliocentric heresy was only down graded
to such a minor heresy in the 19th century, and was never dropped as a
heresy by the church.  We found that out in the last major dust up.  The
source that was put up then had the conclaves cited that had made the
decisions, and the dates.  As laughable as it may seem, the evidence was
discounted by your side because the article was written by a
conservative catholic priest who was a geocentrist.

 
Taking an unnamed geocentric priest as an authoritative source for
Catholic Church is indeed laughable.
 

What you need to do
is determine that those conclaves never happened and those decisions
were never made.

 
*You* are the one making the claims, *you* are the one who needs to
produce evidence - and it needs to be better than an unnamed priest or
a Wiki article.
 

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#:~:text=Galileo's%20opinions%20were%20met%20with,to%20be%20%22formally%20heretical%22.
>
"Galileo's opinios were met with opposition within the Catholic Church,
and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally
heretical".

 

Galileo faced the death penalty when he was tried in 1633.

 
No, he didn't.

>
Your senseless denial is noted.

Your failure to cite a recognised historian who supports your claim is
even more noted.

>

 

>
The conservative Catholic source that was put up before noted that it
was the influence of the protestants that forced the issue that resulted
in Galileo being investigated by the church for his views, and cited the
conclave and date for the upgrade of the heresy.  That same source cited
the conclave in the 1800's that downgraded the heresy back to what it
was before Galileo.  That source claimed that heliocentrism remained
heretical.  It was obviously something worth finding Bruno guilty of and
investigating Galileo for before it became a heresy punishable by death.
  The Bruno sources claimed that Bruno had been found guilty of the
heresy, but that it did not hold the death penalty at that time that
supported the conservative Catholic priest's account.  It was some type
of lesser transgression before it was upgraded.

 
I told you before that when you want to find out the Church's position
on something, you should turn to the Church's own documentation, not
some unnamed renegade geocentric priest or what someone put up on
Wikipedia; your reliance on sources like that is a pretty clear case
of confirmation bias.
.
Here is what the Church does say:
 
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
 
<quote>
 
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with
the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly
implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree
on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this
only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom
none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor
Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

>
Because it had already been declared to be a heresy back in 1616.

No, it wasn't. Have you even read what I posted above where various
theologians and independent historians have pointed out that
Inquisition did not have the power or authority to declare a heresy?

>
The source that you have been in denial of had the church documentation
of the change in status of the heresy.  He was a priest, and he cited
the official church documents on the matter.
>

You haven't been able to tell us the name of the priest or say what
documents he cited.
 
Ignoring recognised authorities inside and outside the Church and
relying on the word of an unnamed priest who is daft enough to
subscribe to geocentrism is the same behaviour as those you scorn for
turning to places like AIG and writer like Stephen Meyer to find out
about evolution.

 
'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.'
 
And 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.'

>
The church banned the Copernican writings after the 1616 change, and had
to unban them after better sense prevailed. 

Copernicus's writings were being placed on the Index was nothing to do
with heresy; it was because the Church authorities thought he went too
far in polemically claiming his ideas were *proof* of heliocentrism
and asked him to make some fairly modest edits to make clear they were
only theoretical at that stage. When the edits were made, it was
removed from the Index.

I posted about this over 6 years ago with supporting cites:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WiNC5hwHE8A/m/yp51Qxy2BQAJ

The argument was that
geocentrism was not cannon, and accounts claim that Copernicus' book was
in the Jesuit library at the time.
>

 
It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were
permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition
had issued from the supreme pontiff.

>
It was made into a capital heresy from whatever it was before in 1616.
Bruno had been convicted of it,

No, he was not even charged with heresy, let alone be found guilty of
it. Burkhard gave a very detailed explanation of this with supporting
references [1] the last time you tried to claim it but you clearly
suffer from a selective memory problem where you simply discard
anything that challenges your pet theories no matter how strong the
supporting evidence against them is.

[1]
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RyVl6vtkYzw/m/AbMWnkyPAwAJ

but it was some type of lesser heresy at
that time, and he was executed for other beliefs.  That conservative
Catholic source was not happy that heliocentrism had been down graded
because he remains a geocentrist.  His consolation was that the matter
had only been downgraded to what it was before 1616, and that good
Catholics should still be geocentrists like the church fathers.  One of
those church fathers had already admonished the true believers like that
Priest.  Saint Augustine had already told the faithful that they should
not use the Bible to deny what their senses could tell them about
nature.  The church fathers may have all been geocentrists, but Greek
geocentrists were not flat earthers.  The circumference of the earth had
been estimated using physical measurements a couple of centuries before
Christ was born and the geocentrists did not hold with the flat earth
cosmology of the Bible.
>

 
</quote>
 
 
That is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1906, with the
approval of Pope Pius X who was noted for his opposition to Modernis,
a time when the Church was totally autocratic and not prone to
apologies for its actions so not some namby pamby recent attempt to
play down the wrongs that the Church did to Galileo; they treated him
very badly but the underlying issue was a clash between Galileo and
the Pope, not a matter of Church teaching

>
This was after the conclave cited by the conservative Catholic priest
that down graded the heliocentric heresy to what it remains as today.
>
Why could you not refute that priest's citations? 

Kinda hard to refute citations when you haven't give nany indication
of what the citations were.

Those were official
church documents not just an encyclopedia entry.  That priest confirmed
that heliocentrism was not a heresy punishable by death until after
Bruno was executed.  It was upgraded to a capital heresy in 1616, and
that is what Galileo was facing.  It was not down graded to a lesser
heresy until the 19th century.
>
Ron Okimoto

 
 
 

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

not punishable by the death penalty,
in the 19th century.  It is why the Pope can come out in support of
biological evolution, and most Christians don't care how old the earth
is.  There is still a lot of fear-of-God involved in Christianity, but
it doesn't have the strangle hold that it used to have.
>
Laurie Lebo covered the Dover case and part of her story was her
interactions with her father.  Her father supported the ID scam because
of what he believed his god would do.  He wasn't bathing in the love and
communion, but was in fear of hell's fire and damnation.
>
Ron Okimoto

>

>