On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged with heresy in 1616. Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy. Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled, and if he had not sworn that he did not believe in the heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future he would have been charged with formal heresy and likely imprisoned until he confessed. The inquisition believed that Galileo was a heretic, but they could not prove it. They required a confession from Galileo, but he would not confess to believing in the heresy. Galileo maintained that putting up evidence for heliocentrism was not the same as believing heliocentrism. Galileo could not prove heliocentrism so the geocentric scriptural interpretation remained unchallengeable. That is what you snipped and ran from in the Google summary. Your own trusted source admitted that Galileo face a heresy charge both times. You know what Galileo faced, but you have to prevaricate about the issue. All that you have ever put up is prevarication. It doesn't matter that Galileo did not progress to formal charges in 1616.
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim thatOn Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran>
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>You are>
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate
too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
>
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up
with?
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
You fully understand that heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy, and that the pope agreed with the condemnation of heliocentrism at that time. What would have happened if Galileo did not swear an oath that he did not believe in the heliocentric heresy? There is no way that you can deny that the church was wrong about geocentrism. They understood that there were errors in the Bible, but the Council of Trent had provided them with some means to solidify scriptural interpretation, and by the time Galileo face the issue in 1616 heliocentrism had progressed to the point where it was determined to be a formal heresy. That is what Galileo had to swear that he did not believe. People can prevaricate about the issue all that they want. It is obvious that most of the church believed that the creation was geocentric and that was dependent on scriptural interpretation. For some stupid reason, even though they understood that the Bible was wrong about a lot of things that we could figure out for ourselves many of them wanted to make an issue of something as unimportant to their faith as geocentrism (The AIG still believes that if one thing in the Bible is wrong that you have no reason to believe any of it). You want to lie to yourself that it was just "misinterpretation" of the Bible, so you are guilty of maintaining their erroneous mind set. The authors of the Bible believed that the universe was geocentric, and they wrote the Bible as if that was the case. No amount of prevarication will change that simple fact. The Authors of the Bible were young earth geocentric flat earth creationists that believed that there was a solid dome above the earth and that the sun and moon were embedded in the firmament. They believed that there was water on the earth and water on the other side of the firmament (solid dome) and that the firmament could be opened up by god to let the rain fall. That is why there are still Biblical literalists that believe all of that to this day. The authors of the Bible did not underrstand what the creation actually was, and were wrong about what they believed about the creation. Saint Augustine understood this, but his alternative to the six day creation would have also have been wrong if he had written Genesis. Even if we wrote the Bible today we could still be wrong about some things. That is just what you have to understand and deal with. Quote mining, sniping and running, and lying about it is never going to change reality.
You need to apologize for your years of harassment, stop your assoholic behavior, and quit doing it. Snipping and running from reality will never change reality.
First Harran REPOST of his stupid snipping and running when his sources again came up short.
Second Harran repost:
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
[…]
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with reality,
and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up short?
Look at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is matched by
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the same
evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
This the other thread string that was in the "Chimp to human evolution-Sandwalk perspective" thread. This posts demonstrates that Harran tried to quote mine the condemnation. If you go to other posts in this thread string you will find Harran having memory lapse of his running from the Vatican observatory link. This was his attempt to try to claim that he did not have to run. He literally tried to quote mine the document so that it would not have been considered to be a condemnation of heliocentrism by only quoting a bit of what was being condemned.
REPOST:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
>>>>> put up?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know what you
>>>> did. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
>>>> what you did.
>>>>
>>>> You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
>>>> by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition was not
>>>> the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
>>>> offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was ordered by
>>>> the Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
>>>> did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
>>>> something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
>>>> evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your sources have
>>>> always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
>>>> repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
>>>
>>> Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
>>>
>>> https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
>>>
>>> The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
>>> anniversary and commented:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
>>> document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
>>> doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
>>> This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
>>> and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
>>> posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
>>>
>>
>> If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
>> document?
>
> LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
> actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
> of running away from it.
You did run, twice in that thread. You would not address your source getting caught lying.
>
>>
>> The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
>
> Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
> condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
> to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
He did more than allow, he directed that it should be published. Why deny what the source claimed? The source admits that it was a Papal condemnation. They just claim that it was a toned down condemnation compared to the first draft of the document that still exists.
There is no reason to try to weasel out of the fact that you ran and would not even try to lie about the situation the first time you were given this link. It did just what I claimed at the time. Your source was found to have lied about the situation, and could not be trusted. You can't say that about any of my sources. You just keep lying about those sources being unreliable when it has always been your sources that came up short.
>
>> That is what your side was lying
>> about.
>
> The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
> insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
> Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
> when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
> the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that
> heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
Your source lied about the Inquisition being the only church arm to have condemned heliocentrism. It was a false statement and should have been known to be a false statement. Lying about the Pope only allowing the publication when he wanted it to be published, and directed that it should be written up and published. The Jesuits are pretty matter of fact that it was a Papal condemnation of heliocentrism. They note that it is the only instance of any Pope directly condemning heliocentrism.
>
>> It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
>> initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
>> supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
>> matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
>> books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
>> to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
>> the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
>> heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
>> additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
>> would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
>> heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
>> books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
>> not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
>>
>> Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change reality.
>>
>> The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
>
> The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
> tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
> not even appear in it.
It was not put up to claim heresy even though that is what it did. That document condemned heliocentrism and supported heliocentric writings being added to the Index. Those writings were deemed to be heretical and against scripture. Lying about something else does not change the fact that your source was caught lying. You know what condemning means so why try to lie about the situation in this way? What was your source trying to lie about by claiming that heliocentrism had only been condemned by the Inquisition? You know why your source told that lie, so why try to weasel out of the fact that they lied?
>
>> They
>> did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
>> Trent had decided.
>
> The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding
> interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the
> *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
The decree doesn't need to reference Trent in terms of scriptural interpretation because that had already been decided by the Inquisition when it added the writings to the Index. Those writings would not have been added to the Index if it were not for the Council of Trents determination about scriptural interpretation. The Pope agreed with those additions to the Index, so he must have agreed with the Inquisitions scriptural interpretation.
>
>> They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
>
> They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
> Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zuñiga (On Job) be suspended
> until corrected".
The Books by Copernicus were never corrected and republished, so his writings were banned until removed from the index centuries later. I see that you left out the book that could not be corrected and would be permanently banned. Why did you do that? Isn't this quote mining? Heliocentrism was condemned and heliocentric writings were added to the Index. End of that story.
QUOTE:
Decree
of the Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church especially charged by Our Holy Lord Pope Paul V and by the Holy Apostolic See with the Index of books and their licensing, prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom, to be published everywhere.
In regard to several books containing various heresies and errors, to prevent the emergence of more serious harm throughout Christendom, the Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church in charge of the Index has decided that they should be altogether condemned and prohibited, as indeed with the present decree it condemns and prohibits them, wherever and in whatever language they are printed or about to be printed.
END QUOTE:
This is no quote mine, but you can find your quote in the following paragraph:
QUOTE:
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuñiga’s On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above¬mentioned doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and of the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zuñiga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present Decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.
END QUOTE:
It looks like you tried to quote mine what had been quoted on the site.
There is no reason to try to weasel out of why you ran from this link before.
>
> I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
> different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
> them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
> weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
> it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
> proposition.
So what? Copernicus' writings remained on the Index for centuries, and the heliocentric writings of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini was "completely prohibited and condemned" for the same period of time.
>
>> and
>> had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
>> condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
>> banned writings.
>>
>> Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
>> involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
>> anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
>> time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
>> Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
>> charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
>> not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
>
> You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
> someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
> with you on the jury.
Galileo was not found guilty in 1616, but he was facing a formal heresy charge. The Inquisition's condemnation was backed up by the Pope in 1616. That is what you are currently waffling about. Your source lied.
>
>> The
>> Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
>> distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
>> heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
>> that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
>> was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
>> Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
>>
>> You need to deal with reality.
>
> I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
> it's not me.
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are. You clearly quote mined above, so why lie about who has an issue with dealing with reality?
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>> It is well understood that the Bible is
>> just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
>> Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
>> misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
>> faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
>> episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
>> order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
>> young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
>> Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
>> you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
END REPOST:
Harran should apologize and stop lying about the past.
Ron Okimoto
Here it is again:
====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?
Google response:
Galileo was not charged or convicted of heresy in 1616. Instead,
the Roman Catholic Church formally banned the teaching of
heliocentrism, and Galileo was privately ordered by Cardinal
Bellarmine to abandon his defense of the theory that the Earth moves
around the Sun.
=======================================
[...]
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.