Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

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]