Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 1/7/25 2:08 AM, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:27:22 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 1/6/25 8:08 AM, RonO wrote:

On 1/6/2025 3:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:54:26 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 1/3/2025 1:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and
KF "you".
>

>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with
scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>

>
Projection is something I do not understand.

>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

>
See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was
presented?
>
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was
not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in
1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was
considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest
before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:56:50 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

>

On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and
KF "you".
>

>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he
been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How
insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have
been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order
to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I
know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters
like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be
mentally aware
of what he is doing.

>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with
scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>

>
Projection is something I do not understand.

>
But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

>
See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you
should be
able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has
been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You
can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that
was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from
your own
trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was
presented?

>
You seem to be getting confused between *my* sources and *your*
sources, possibly because one of *yours* directly contradicted your
claims.

>
It was your trusted source and you removed the material several times
and ran.

>
The only material I removed was your ad nauseum repetition of the
charge against Galileo which NOBODY is disputing. He was charged with
heresy but, as I have told you numerous times, it was a trumped-up
charge because heliocentrism never was a heresy.

>
Why keep lying about this?  You removed all the evidence, and you had
previously removed the same evidence before.  There is no doubt that
none of the evidence was left in your post.
>
Your interpretation of trumped up charge is not supported by your
reference.  It is clearly claimed to be a heresy in both times that
Galileo faced the charge.  Your own reference only claims that it was
not a "formal" heresy charge in 1633.  It does not say that it was a
trumped up charge.  What the catholics want is for the charges and
judgement to have been misinterpreted for centuries.  They do not want
the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge in 1633.  It is
admitted that the pope agreed with the sentencing, and that he had the
judgement and sentencing distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not a formal
heresy charge that Galileo faced.  Like your recent reference it is only
written as "heresy" in the sentencing, and formal never preceeds heresy.
   They also claim that the pope's actions after the trial were not
official papal acts.  They do not claim that the charges were trumped
up, only that Galileo was not found guilty of formal heresy.  They claim
that the 1616 formal heresy charge against Galileo was never adopted by
the 1633 court, but as stupid as it may be they want to claim that the
sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found
guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition, but in order to
break that oath, the 1633 would have had to accept the 1616 judgement
and Galileo would have been guilty of formal heresy.  There is no doubt
that breaking that oath would have meant that Galileo had committed
formal heresy because that oath was that Galileo had never committed
formal heresy, and that he would not commit formal heresy.
>
Removing the evidence doesn't change reality.  Some of that evidence
came from your trusted source, and you still snipped and ran from it.
>

>
>

>
REPOST:
This was you addressing addressing Burkhard.  You put something about
Galileo.  Claiming support for your interpretation.
>
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
>
The waffling about the Index seems to be gone from the current entry.
>
QUOTE:
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
END QUOTE:
>
Your source confirms that he was under investigation for heresy in the
1615-1616 event

>
Yes.
>

and that heliocentrism was deemed a heresy

>
The Qualifiers deemed it heretical but that was only their judgement;
they were not qualified to declare it a heresy, that would have
required papal approval which it never got. I explained this in detail
in a post back on 1st Jan; a post you chose to ignore - the equivalent
of a child sticking his fingers in his ear and pretending he can't
hear something he doesn't want to hear.
>
>

when
Copernican writings were added to the Index.

>
Being added to the Index does not mean something is heretical; things
were added for all sorts of reasons. For example, Copernicus's own
writings were added because they needed edited - edits that were
completely justified from a *scientific* perspective - and were
removed once the edits were done.

>
All the sources agree that adding the Copernican writings to the Index
was due to the Inquisition making it into a formal heresy before Galileo
faced the charge in 1615 with the judgement in 1616 before it was added
to the index.
>
Your recent quote wanted to differentiate "formal heresy" from "heresy"
in 1633.  The quotes from your trusted source did not make the
distinction between formal heresy and heresy in 1616 and 1633, but the
other sources did.
>
The geocentric wiki, and the anti-neogencentric site (anti Salza) agree
that it was a formal heresy by the 1616 Galileo incident.  The
anti-neogeocentric site and your recent quote do not want it to be a
formal heresy in 1633.  That is where the sources disagree.  It was
still a heresy, but they do not want it to be a formal heresy.  The
anti-neogeocentric site even admits that the pope had the 1633
sentencing and judgement distributed throughout the church in order to
quash the heliocentric heresy, but they claim that it was not an
official papal act.
>
All the counter claims have only been made to protect the pope.  They do
not want the pope to have been involved with a incorrect formal heresy
charge.  It is the catholic reinterpretation of the Galileo affair that
is likely false.
>

>

>
QUOTE:
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
END QUOTE:
>
It looks like your source has changed it's tune,

>
None of my sources have changed their tune; I have told you multiple
times that New Advent is an exact reprint of what was published in
1907 and has never been changed. You keep saying it has changed but
you never say what was changed - time for you to put up or shut up.

>
It either changed it tune or you quote mined the site in your previous
posts.  It doesn't matter which happened, the source does not support
your claims about Galileo.
>

>

but those events still
do not have anything to do with papal decrees.  It was obviously a
heresy without papal recognition.

>
Do those fingers in your ears never get uncomfortable?

>
Running from the evidence with your fingers in your ears is obvious
projection.
>
Your trusted source does not support you.
>

>
>

END REPOST:
>
I was quoting from your source.

>
You quoted the charge against Galileo; every one of my sources said
that he was charged with suspected of heresy and found guily but the
charge was invalid because there was no such heresy for him no be
guilty of.

>
The above repost was quotes from your trusted source.  You also snipped
out the full quotation of the sentencing that came from the site that
disagrees with the Salza site, but still adimits that Galileo faced a
"formal heresy" charge in 1616, but they did not want it to be a formal
heresy charge in 1633.  The sentencing charges Galileo with heresy, the
heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  The word "formal"
does not appear before heresy.
>

>

How many times did you snip out this
material and run before accusing me of running from the evidence?  How
many times did you snip out and run from the rest of the evidence?

>
I haven't run from any evidence. The only so-called "evidence" you
have given that heliocentrism really was a heresy is arguments put
forward by a guy trying to make a case for geocentrism.

>
The evidence came from your trusted site and the catholic site that was
against other catholics like Salza that think that the papal appology in
1995 was wrong.  They agree that Galileo faced heresy charges both
times, and the anti-Salza site even agrees that it was a formal heresy
charge in 1616.
>
You are obviously wrong about the evidence that you have been running from.
>

>
>

>

>

>
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was
doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly
countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously
two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a
distinction between types.

>
So you understand the rules of the Catholic Church better than the
Church itself does and it doesn't matter that apart from a guy trying
to make a case for geocentrism, you cannot find a single expert
anywhere who agrees with your interpretation.

>
No, I just quoted the sources, and they were all catholic sources except
for the Geocentric wiki.

>
And every one of them says that heliocentrism never was a heresy.

>
Every source that I qouted called heliocentrism a heresy in both 1616
and 1633.  Some of the sources made a distinction and claimed that it
was only a formal heresy in 1616, but that the 1633 court did not adopt
the 1616 judgement and it was not a formal heresy in 1633.  Your trusted
source does not make the distinction between heresy and formal heresy
for both cases, and just calls it a heresy.
>

>

Even your recent quote made the distinction
between "formal heresy" and "heresy".

>
None of my sources say anything whatsoever about a formal heresy - the
only time the word "formal" is used in the New Advent article is where
it states that "no formal decree [was issued] on the subject
[heliocentrism]".

>
This is ridiculous:
REPOST of you using the quote from your trusted source:
<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>
>
This is just repeating what the anti-neogeocentric catholic site was
claiming about the sentencing never stating that it was a formal heresy.
   The full quote is still below in this post.  Galileo is charged with
heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty of heresy,
but the word "formal" never appears before the word "heresy".  The
source of the sentencing quote does not want the pope to have been wrong
about a formal heresy.  Just a heresy seems to be open to some
misinterpretation and it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about
just a heresy.  That source does admit that Galileo faced a formal
heresy charge in 1616, but they claim that, that judgement was not
adopted by the 1633 court.
>
>

>
*Your* second source you gave, the one you mistakenly thought was
supporting you,also doesn't say anything about a *formal heresy* it
cites 1616 Report of the Theological Qualifiers which states:
>
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not
move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally
heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."
>
Note that it does not refer to a formal heresy, it says the
proposition is "formally heretical" which is a very different thing.
Again, I explained that in detail in my post of 1st Jan which you
choose to ignore.

>
I have always claimed that they do not want Galileo to have been guilty
of a formal heresy in 1633, and that the source only admitted that it
was a formal heresy in 1616, but not in 1633.  It was still a heresy in
1633, and that source admits that the pope distributed the sentencing
and judgement throughout the church in order to quash the heresy, but
they did not want it to be a formal heresy.  Their claim is that the
1616 judgement was only cited by the 1633 court, and never adopted.
>
You are still wrong, even your trusted source calls it a heresy in 1616
and 1633, but they do not make a distinction between formal heresy and
heresy.
>

>
>

The anti-neogeocentric catholic
site also made the distinction between the two, and claimed that it
mattered.  It admitted that Galileo had been charged with formal heresy
in 1616, but it claimed that the 1616 inquisition judgement had not been
adopted in 1633, and that Galileo was only facing a heresy charge, and
that the word "formal" did not occur in his sentencing.
>
Your quote and that anti-neogeocentric source claimed that there is a
very real difference between "formal heresy" and "heresy".  A formal
heresy seems to involve central canonical church doctrine, and heresy
seems to just be against some church beliefs.

>
It's very simple. For a something to become a heresy, it requires a
*formal declaration* with the Pope's approval. As I said at the end of
my Jan 1st post explaining all this, I don't know what else I can say
to improve your understanding

>
All the waffling about the 1633 Galileo affair would now seem to be
unnecessary if the pope had approve a formal heresy because the anti and
pro geocentric sources admit that it was a formal heresy in 1616, but
they do not claim papal involvement in that case.  If the pope had
already approved heliocentrism as a formal heresy in 1616 then the
waffling about papal infallibility would seem to be moot.
>

>

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>
>

Your reference just calls it a heresy in
both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was
not a
"formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two
sources
agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in
1616, but
they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was
considered
to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they
define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have
incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that
you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest
before us
the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
>
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It
is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does
that really matter?
>
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said
Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
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; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable
after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;
and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere
heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic;
us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:

>
What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?

>
The claim was not that the charge was trumped up by any of the sources.
the anti-neogeocentric catholic site just wanted the sentencing to have
been misinterpreted for centuries.  In order to protect papal
infallibility they wanted Galileo to not be charged with formal heresy,
and claimed that even if Galileo had been charged with heresy, that it
was never claimed to be a "formal heresy" charge.  They wanted it to not
be a formal heresy charge so that the pope's involvement and actions
after the case would not be as fallible as they are now known to be.
>
Their claim that it was not a formal heresy charge seems to be pretty
thin, since their claim of "misinterpretation" of the Galileo affair
wants to claim that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his
oath to the 1616 inquisition, and that he was not found guilty of heresy
as the sentencing clearly indicates.  The stupid thing seems to be that
in order to claim that Galileo was not charged with formal heresy, they
claim that the 1616 inquisition judgement was not adopted by the 1633
court, but was only cited by that court.  In breaking that oath, Galileo
would have been guilty of formal heresy.
>
None of the sources claimed that it was a trumped-up charge.

>
Here is what my sources have to say:
>
The Catholic Church:
=================
"In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. "
>
Professor Augustus De Morgan ([Budget of Paradoxes]
==================
"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."
>
Karl 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."i-
>
>
  From *your* anti-geocentric site that you think supports you:
>
"Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error. "
>
The same site quoting Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro [Retrying]:
>
"that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become
one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy"
>
Would you care to identify which of those sources does not support my
claim about it being a trumped-up charge?

>
This all agrees that it was a heresy in both cases, but the 1633 case
they do not want it to be a formal heresy charge.  It doesn't matter if
it should not have been a heresy.  It had been believed to be a heresy
for a very long time before the 1633 case.  Your trusted source and all
the other sources admit that it was considered to be a heresy after the
Council of Trent in 1541.  Their finding about the church fathers and
their beliefs relative to church doctrine was interpreted to mean that
things like geocentrism was church doctrine because all the church
fathers were geocentrists.  Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy
after the Council of Trent.  It was determined to be a formal heresy by
1616 by the Inquisition, and all Heliocentric writings were placed in
the Index.
>
This is what Galileo faced in 1633, but they want to protect papal
infalliblity, so they have claims that it is never called a formal
heresy in the 1633 sentencing.
>
It doesn't matter that the church now claims that it was incorrectly
judged to be a heresy, what matters is what the church was claiming back
in 1616 and 1633.
>
You put up the quote of the papal decree in the 19th century (1922?)
where Copernican writings were removed from all Indexes, and it was
deemed that heliocentrism and the motion of the earth could be freely
published for things like calendars and telling time, but that they had
to refer other uses to the proper authorities before publishing.  In the
declaration those other uses were not defined, just who you had to go to
to get them.  The geocentric site that I recall claimed that
heliocentrism could still not be used to question church doctrine in
relation to the church fathers, so the geocentrist claim was that
heliocentrism remained a heresy, but it could still be used for things
that did not question church doctrine.  The claim was that the Council
of Trent's findings were still enforce.  What is needed is to get a list
of the exceptions that still required an OK from the church and some
explanation for why they still existed after 1822.
>
>
>

>

One source
did claim that it was misinterpreted, and that the sentencing was poorly
written.  The misinterpreted claim seems to be pretty thin because that
same source claims that the pope had the sentencing and judgement
distributed throughout the church in order to quash the growing
heliocentric heresy, but they claim that that papal act was not official
and did not mean that the pope could be fallible.
>
The sentencing does not seem to be poorly written, but does not call it
a formal heresy, but Galileo is charged with heresy, the heresy is
clearly defined, and he is found guilty.  In order to absolve himself he
had to deny and condemn the heresies that he had committed.
>
Your post seems to have multiple cut and paste issues that cause
duplications.

>
You are the one that is causing duplication issues by persistently
reposting stuff that nobody is arguing about.

>
You are the one running in denial of the evidence.  There is no
duplication of issues.  Your claims are just false.  Your own trusted
source calls it a heresy in 1616 and 1633, but it doesn't make the
distinction between heresy and formal heresy that the other sources
make.  Some of the sources claim that it was a formal heresy in 1616,
but not a formal heresy in 1633.
>
It all doesn't matter because it was a heresy in both cases.  A charge
of formal heresy seems to be much worse than a charge of heresy.  Bruno
would have faced a charge of heresy, but Galileo faced a formal heresy
charge in 1616 and likely faced the same charge in 1633, but they want
to waffle about it because they do not want the pope involved in a
formal heresy charge that turned out to be not any type of heresy charge
that anyone wants to support today.  Even the source that doesn't want
it to have been a formal heresy in 1633 admits that the pope was dealing
with the Copernican heresy at the time, and that he had the sentencing
and court judgement distributed throughout the church in order to quash
the heresy, but that, that was not an official papal act, and that
Galileo had not been charged with formal heresy.  They want to protect
papal infallibility.
>
The full sentencing is quoted below, and was not claimed to have been
misinterpreted during it's distribution throughout the church until it
became an embarassment due to the failure of geocentrism.  Just put up
the dates for your counter quotes that really do not counter what was
believed in 1616 and 1633.  Why would it have taken so long to
reinterpret the Galileo affair?  Newton was born the same year Galileo
died under house arrest, and it would only be a few decades until
geocentrism was essentially dead.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to
accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it
and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto

>

>

REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
>
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said
Galileo, by
reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above,
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; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable
after it
has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;
and
that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties
imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions,
general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are
content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere
heart
and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic;
us]
the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be
prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:

>
What part of "trumped-up charge" are you struggling to understand?
>

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest
someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to
accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is
the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it
and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he
has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto

>

>

>

>

To all concerned:  let's drop this endless wrangling over what and when
and how the church dealt with heliocentrism and the nature of its
disapproval.

  It's remarkable how others let these two yammer on and on without so
much as a peep, considering how you and others jump on me for daring
to document J***'s willful stupidity.
 

It's never my intent to jump on you for documenting our troll's crap, but since he never says anything else it doesn't need documentation.