Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 1/8/2025 11:54 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

OK, I know I said I was finished here but I will add one final
explanation for the record as to why I'm dropping out as a
counterbalance to your predictable claims about me running away.
Taking just one example from several above;
 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."
 According to you "This ...  agrees that it was a heresy in both
cases."
 There are only two explanations that I can see for that - you are
being either blatantly stupid or blatantly dishonest.
 In either case, there is no point in continuing to try to have a
rational discussion with you about this so I will turn to my favourite
prayer and seek the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
 

There is absolutely no reason to snip and run from reality.  Your own trusted source agrees with the conclusions from last time.
There are obviously at least 2 classifications of heresy.  Formal heresy is much worse than just a heresy.  All the sources put up even your trusted source calls heliocentrism a heresy after the Council of Trent in 1541.  No one claims that the council of Trent stated that heliocentrism was a heresy.  What they did was make the beliefs of the church fathers unchallengable with respect to catholic beliefs.  Since all the church fathers were geocentrists all the sources agree that heliocentrism became a heresy.  It would have been a heresy when Bruno faced the charge in 1600 but it may not have been a formal heresy at that time.  The quotes that I put up from your trusted source called it a heresy for both Galileo cases in 1616 and 1633, but did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.  Your quote from that source wanted to make the distinction that it was not a formal heresy in 1633, but the conservative catholic source (probably neogeocentric), the current geocentrism wiki, and the anti-neogeocentric catholic site all agree that it was a formal heresy charge in 1616 that Galileo faced. Heliocentrism had obviously become recognized as a formal heresy by 1616.
The complete 1633 sentencing was quoted.  Galileo is clearly charged with heresy, the heresy is clearly defined, and he is found guilty, and in order to be absolved, Galileo had to admit that the heresy was wrong, that he did not believe in the heresy, nor would he support the heresy in the future, and that is exactly what Galileo did to save his life.
It looks like the catholics that want to reinterpret the Galileo affair are the ones that are wrong.  They need to do it in order to preserve papal infallibility because they do not want the pope to have been wrong about a formal heresy charge.  They note that the word formal never appears before heresy in the sentencing (even the recent quote from your trusted source), but they also claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was actually found guilty of breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition.  The stupid thing is that if Galileo broke that oath he would be guilty of the formal heresy charge (likely why the sentencing was written as it was written).  The catholics that want to reinterpret the charge also claim that the 1616 judgement was never adopted by the 1633 inquisition, but only cited by them because they do not want the formal heresy charge to apply to 1633.  What does that mean about the reinterpretation of what charge Galileo actually faced?  They would have had to have adopted the 1616 judgement in order to find Galileo guilty of breaking that oath.
The 1633 waffling doesn't matter.  What was settled years ago is still intact.
There are obviously at least two types of heresy in the catholic church "formal heresy" is the worst offense and a "heresy" charge is open to some interpretation (it is OK for the pope to have been wrong about a non formal heresy charge).
Bruno faced a heresy charge for heliocentrism in 1600, but it likely was not a formal heresy charge, and he was executed for other formal heresy charges.
Galileo did face a formal heresy charge in 1616, but there is waffling about whether it was a formal heresy charge in 1633.
Snipping and running from evidence that came from your own trusted source will not change reality.
Your quote above is obviously lying or you are misrepresenting the quote.  Your trusted source, and all the other sources would have to be wrong for that quote to be correct.  The anti-neogeocentric site that quoted the entire 1633 sentencing to show that the word formal never came before heresy in that sentencing, but they admitted that the inquisition had charged Galileo with formal heresy in 1616.  All the sources admit that heliocentrism was a heresy, they differ in what type of heresy it was in 1633.
The anti neogeocentric site 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, that was not an official papal act, and that Galileo was not sentenced for committing a formal heresy. They make those claims to protect papal infallibility, but heliocentrism is still admitted to have been a heresy that needed to be dealt with.
Ron Okimoto