Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

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.