Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 12/29/2024 10:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:20:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 12/28/2024 1:06 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:20:42 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/28/2024 7:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting as if that is
going to somehow make it better. In particular, you keep reposting the
charge against Galileo and the sentence he was given. It beats me why
you keep doing that. Galileo was charged with heresy and found guilty
of it, nobody is arguing that. The point is that it was a *trumped-up
charge* because heliocentrism was never a heresy. The Catholic Church
itself has admitted that and I have given you cites for several
esteemed historians outside of the Church who have thoroughly
investigated the affair and come to the same conclusion.
>
You have not found a single recognised authority who says otherwise.
All you could come up with was a largely unknown attorney who is a
geocentrist and self-appointed apostate for the Catholic Church even
though he has no known scientific, historic or theological
qualifications. You thought you had found a second site supporting you
but that site completely contradicts you, stating unequivocally that
heliocentrism being a heresy is a total myth. You accuse me of quote
mining but is you who are doing that. You quote the charge against
Galileo stated on that site as if it was supporting your argument;
they only give it to show how wrong it was.
>
You also try to make out that the New Advent article has been changed
in some way. It hasn't, it is and always has been an exact copy of
what was published in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1907. If you
remember it having something different about the Index then that is
your faulty memory
>
You also show a very poor grasp pf what heresy even means in the
Catholic Church. Your try to make out that it was something done
without the Pope's approval which simply can't happen; you also try to
make it out to be a "minor" heresy or not a formal one; there are no
such things. Something is either a heresy or it's not; trying to make
out otherwise is the equivalent claiming a woman is only a little bit
pregnant!
>

>
Removing everything that you can't deal with does not mean that it does
not exist.  You and Nyikos have the same problem, removing the evidence
does not do what you want it to do.

>
Hard to remove evidence when the evidence doesn't exist ... unless you
seriously want to consider as evidence the personal opinion of a guy
trying to make a case for geocentrism.

>
Why lie about something like this?

 Sorry Ron, but you are the one who has been lying. Just a few
examples:
 You said that heliocentrism was a minor heresy or not a formal thing;
there is no such thing as either of those.

Your source agrees.  It doesn't make the distinction between heresy and "formal heresy" that the other two sources make, but it does call heliocentrism a heresy.  The other two sites make the distinction between a heresy and "formal heresy".  Your recent quote made the distinction claiming that Galileo was not charged with a "formal heresy".  There are obviously two types of heresy that were issues.
You are the liar about snipping out the evidence.  It came from your trusted source.

 You said the New Advent site had been altered; it hadn't.

It wasn't what I recall it being, and didn't have some of the citations that I recalled.  I did not know that it was the same site until you posted the old post.

 You said my sources stated that heliocentrism was a heresy; they
don't, they state the exact opposite.

You snipped out the direct quotes from your reference claiming that it was a heresy that Galileo faced in 1616 and 1633.  Just removing the evidence doesn't mean that you can lie about it.
Even your recent quote just claimed that it was not called a "formal heresy" in the sentencing.  I quoted the entire sentencing, and the word "formal" is missing, but they charged Galileo with heresy, they defined the heresy, and they found him guilty.  The word "formal" was just not placed in front of heresy.

 You said that heliocentrism was declared a heresy by the Council of
Trent; it isn't even mentioned in the Council records.

No one claims that the Council of Trent declared heliocentrism to be a heresy.  All the sources just admit that they made it into a heresy because of the issue with questioning the beliefs of the church fathers, and all of the church fathers were geocentrists.  Both the anti-neogeocentrist site and the presumed Salza site agree that it was a heresy after the Council of Trent and so does your trusted source.  Your source obviously calls it a heresy.  Even your recent quote only claims that it was not a "formal heresy" in 1633.  The Salza site disagrees. There has been a reinterpretation of the Galileo 1633 affair that occurred long after the trial.  The reinterpretation wasn't needed until geocentrism became something that could no longer be defended. Both sites that make a distinction between a formal heresy and heresy claim that it was a formal heresy charge in 1615 and in the 1616 judgement against Galileo.  There is disagreement about it being a formal heresy in 1633, but the guys claiming that it wasn't a formal heresy seem to be the ones that are wrong.  Their excuse is pretty slim, and the alternative charge that they claim that Galileo faced is stupid denial because they claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.  This just means that Galileo was found guilty of formal heresy because he would have had to commit formal heresy of the 1616 inquisition in order to be guilty of breaking his oath.
You seem to have sanity issues.  Lying about reality will not change reality.  Even your own reference doesn't back you up.
There are obviously two types of heresy involved in this issue.  Formal heresy apparently carries the death penalty and is the worst type of heresy.  There is just heresy that doesn't seem to carry the weight of "formal heresy".  Your trusted reference doesn't make a distinction between the two types, and just claims heliocentrism to have been a heresy in 1616 and 1633.  Your recent quote makes the distinction and claims that it wasn't a formal heresy in the 1633 court case, but it was obviously called a heresy in the sentencing where Galileo was charged with heresy, the heresy was defined, and he was found guilty of heresy.
Removing the evidence and lying about reality doesn't change reality.
Ron Okimoto

 Any of those are easy mistakes; what makes them lies is when you have
been corrected multiple times and still persist with them.
 

You snipped it all out multiple
times from multiple posts.  How many times have you snipped out the
reposted material from your own source that counters what you have been
claiming?
>
This is obviously not anything worth lying about.  You are just wrong.
Not only wrong, but you seem to be as mentally out of it as Nyikos was
when he had to lie about something stupid.
>
Ron Okimoto

>

Everything that you snipped out can
be verified.  One of the sources is your claimed reliable catholic
source, and they all agree that you are just wrong.  Your source does
not make the distinction between a formal heresy and just a heresy.

>
How many times do you have to be told that there is no such thing as a
"formal" heresy?
>

The
other two sources did.  Your source just claims that it was a heresy
when Galileo first faced the charge in 1615 and in 1633.

>
None of my sources say it was a heresy. They say that Galileo was
*charged* with heresy but it was a trumped-up charge. Apparently you
have trouble understanding that.
>

The anti
neogeocentric catholic site admits that it was a formal heresy charge
that Galileo faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, but that, that
judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court, and though Galileo is
charged with heresy, the heresy is defined, and Galileo is found guilty,
that it is never called a "formal" heresy in the sentencing.  Your more
recent quote also makes the distinction between a formal and just a
heresy, and like the anti neogeocentric site claims that the sentencing
never calls what Galileo was charged with a "formal" heresy.
>
The presumed Salza site agrees that it was a formal heresy that Galileo
faced in 1616, but also claims that it was a formal heresy in 1633.  The
two sources that disagree with this do so in order to maintain papal
infallibility.  They do not want the pope to be wrong about the heresy,
so they have reinterpreted the 1633 Galileo affair.  The claim is that
the 1616 charge of formal heresy was not adopted by the 1633 court.
This seems to be an incorrect reinterpretation of the 1633 sentencing
because their alternative claim is that Galileo was actually guilty of
breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.  As stupid as it may seem if
Galileo broke that oath he would have committed formal heresy as charged
by the 1616 inquisition.
>
Removing the evidence and running away from it does not change reality.
>
All the sources agree that the 1541 council of Trent made heliocentrism
into a heresy.

>
No it didn't. There is no reference to heliocentrism anywhere in the
Trent documents.
   >

This is what Bruno faced.

>
Have you got tired of arguing about Galileo? Do you really want to go
back to Bruno where Burkhard handed you your ass the last time you
tried it?
>

Your source does not make the
distinction between a formal heresy and and what Bruno faced, but it
acknowledges that Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616 and 1633.
The other two sources do make the distinction of a formal heresy, and
both claim that it was a formal heresy when Galileo faced it in 1616,
those two sources disagree as to whether it was a formal heresy for the
1633 court.  The 1633 sentencing calls it a heresy, defines the heresy,
and finds Galileo guilty, but it is never written as "formal heresy"
only "heresy".  That is the reality of the situation.

>
No - that's because there is no such thing as a "formal" heresy.
>