Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/8/2024 6:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 12:48:22 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/7/2024 3:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:45:29 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 12/4/2024 10:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

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.

>
You could not deal with the citations when you got them last time.  Your
only response was ad hominem against the priest, but nothing to state
that his conclave references were not what he claimed.

>
I have no appetite for wading through the numerous errors in your post
that have been well covered several times in the past. I will,
however, make clear that I make no apology whatsoever for dismissing
out of hand an anonymous blog post trying to make the case for
geocentrism and that Galileo was wrong, implying that the Catholic
Church were justified in treating him the way they did. You couldn't
even identify the author in whom you were putting so much faith. but
Ernest Major identified him as John Salza, an attorney who is a
self-appointed apologist for the Catholic Church but has no
theological or historian qualifications or authority to speak for the
Churc; ironic echoes of another lawyer, Phillip Johnson, setting
himself up as an authority on evolution! It seems to height of
hypocrisy for you to castigate other people for taking basing their
opinions on what Johnson says yet be happy to form yours from what
Salza says.
>
[snip stuff that desn't improve with repetition]
>

>
Just like the last time.  I recall that it was you, and you called him a
conservative catholic preist at the time.  Nothing was said about him
being a lawyer.

 No, I didn't say that anything about him being a priest at that time;
I simply pointed out that if the best you could find was an anonymous
article, that really should have given you pause for thought.
 https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/eASJA9dLBAAJ
 I did refer to him as a priest earlier in this current thread but that
was *me* misremembering. When I went back and checked, I found he was
a lawyer and unlike *you*, I have no problem admitting to an error and
correcting it.
 

I found the material on line because it was Major that
claimed that heliocentrism did not carry the death penalty at the time
Bruno was tried.  I found it looking for confirmation of what Major had
claimed.  That source confirmed what Major had claimed, and had the
citations of the Conclave reports that changed the status to one that
carried the death penalty.  It was similar to what I just put up, and
that you have snipped out.

 You first introduced the site in a thread you started titled
'Geocentrism and Christianity' back in 2020. Here's your starter post:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/nCd0oh2NAwAJ
 Just hours after you posted the above, Ernest Major identified the
author as Jon Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/dESEYVCwAwAJ
 Ernest described him as "an anti-Mason, and a Catholic apologist… [and
that] … Wikipedia thinks that he's not notable."
 In that Geocentrism and Christianity' thread, he made four posts
relating to the Catholic Church about geocentrism:
 1 He identified Salza as the author of that site (link above)
 2 He explained in a reply to you how he figured out that is was Salza
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/po1MiCK3AwAJ
 3) In reply a comment by Burkhard comment 'Oh, that guy! Rare case of
a catholic YEC …." he responded that "He [Salza] seems very keen on
deferring to the Church Fathers, but not so far as to defer to
Augustine's instruction to let empirical data trump scriptural
interpretation."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/1UQZ5pa2AwAJ
 4) He commented that he didn't see where you got the 1850 date for the
Church's "reaffirmation of geocentrism". Perhaps his questioning that
particular date is what you are misremembering even though he said
nothing at all about a death penalty.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/v4fNh_0IBAAJ
 He did contribute some other posts in the thread but they were about
the Cathholic Church's attitude to science in general and nature of
fundamentalism. No reference at all to geocentrsim, heresy, or death
penalty.
 I have thoroughly searched my own Agent archive and also GG I cannot
find anything anywhere by Ernest about heliocentrism and the death
penalty so it's obviously your faulty memory.
 

>
This is pretty much what you did last time.  Why can't you deal with the
source that I just put up?  It doesn't matter if the guy is a lawyer or
a priest, you have to deal with the material presented.  The source that
I just put up has about the same material except it doesn't have the
references about the status change of the heresy.  It just notes that it
was a heresy, and is the heresy that Galileo faced.

 I have dealt with it several times including in that particular thread
where I gave the Catholic Church's own statement about it and the
supporting conclusions of eminent scholars like Augustus De Morgan and
von Gebler.
 https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/m0ort1DTb0M/m/-mVloL6LBwAJ
 I really can't do anything about you deciding to handwave away the
conclusions of reputable authorities in favour of  a guy arguing for
geocentrism other than reminding you that you regularly castigate
others for exactly that sort of behaviour.
 

So you found the thread.  The whole point is that it doesn't matter if the guy was a priest or a lawyer.  You could not address his citations that just backed up what else could be found on the web, and you can't deal with the evidence now except to make disparaging remarks about the author instead of address what he had written and the documents he put up.
The current link has been modified from what it was.  The conclave reports that were previously cited from 1822 and 1831 (I had recalled those dates as being around 1833 earlier) are no longer up on the web site.  I should have quoted from the material instead of just giving the link because those citations are no longer included in the current site.   They were supposed to be when the church softened their position on the heliocentric heresy and put it back to what it was when Bruno faced the charges (1600), but the author claimed that geocentrism was still the church doctrine.  Those are no longer included in the geocentric section, but the author still has the evidence that it remained a church issue into the 20th century.
The current site is claiming that the Council of Trent 1564 set geocentrism as infallible church doctrine, and would have been what Bruno faced, but the claim is, at that time, the church had no set position on heliocentrism.  It cites the 1616 banning Copernican writings, but not the 1616 Inquisition's claim of formal heresy against Galileo.  The claim is that all the church fathers were geocentrists including Augustine.  My take is that Augustine would not have condoned heliocentrism becoming a formal heresy, but geocentrism was his cosmology at the time that he lived.
The Geocentrism Wiki cited previously in this thread claims that in 1616 the Inquisition called Galileo's indiscretions a formal heresy.
This type of evidence can't be countered by making disparaging remarks about the author.
At the time of the previous thread we could find other sources that backed the claims, but they didn't have the specific citations in many cases.  A couple mentioned the Council of Trent, but did not go into details as to why that meant heliocentrism was a heresy.
The facts are consistent with a moveable earth (heliocentrism) not being a heresy that carried the death penalty when Bruno was convicted of it (cosmology is among the list of charges that he was found guilty of) and he was not executed for those beliefs.  The status of the heresy changed when the protestants started to make a fuss about the church being too lenient on such heretics.  By 1616 when Galileo was first being investigated for the heresy it had reached the point where the Copernican writings were banned, and Galileo was being investigated for supporting a formal heresy.  The current source has the quote from Galileo's trial in 1633 where he faced the death penalty.
QUOTE:
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo…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…after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture…From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that…you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.
1633 – Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church…but, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…”
1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596 to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
END QUOTE:
The 1664 part of the quote is likely a formating error and should be a paragraph separate from the 1633 Galileo paragraph, as I have it.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/
You can't deny reality by making disparaging remarks about the author and then running away.
Ron Okimoto