[geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:57 +0100
Dear Nick,
The reason I'm replying to this posting is to make a point. When you reply
why don't you please delete from the reply all irrelevent material. Because
I find it much easier to print off long postings and read later, I waste a
lot of paper printing previously sent e-mails which are contained in new
e-mails. I already have Neville's previous reply so I don't need it again!
With much love in Christ
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
> Dear Neville,
> Thank you for following up to my email. I've got a few minutes now, so
I'll try to respond.
> 1. It's interesting that you say I'm ignorring your decision to keep
Catholic doctrine off the site, but then you respond with an abundance of
anti-Catholic doctrine that is unnecessary to the question.
>
> 2. The point of my email was to have you look to the source of the Bible
on which you rely, since none of us was handed a copy directly from God. I
said history proves it came to us from the institution of the Catholic
Church, an institution which you reject, but on which you must rely for the
Bible in your hands. You said I was "confused between the writing of the
Scriptures and the collating of them. The Catholic church did not write the
Scriptures." I'm not confused at all about this. You are confused. The
Catholic Church was founded by Christ. The Catholic Church (i.e. members of
it, such as some of the Apostles and others) wrote the New Testament
Scriptures (prophets wrote the Old Testament), each under the inspiration of
God. The Catholic Church then around the year 400 determined which of the
various books that were floating around and claiming inspiration actually
belonged in the Bible. It determnined which went in and which didn't. The
Catholic Church's conclu
> sion was accepted generally universally until the 1500's, when
Protestants threw some parts out. So, you must accept that the Catholic
Church infallibly did this (or admit you have a Bible which could be in
error on some point you rely on), yet you reject that the Catholic Church
has otherwise infallibly handled doctrine, since you obviously reject what
the Church officially has to say on various doctrines. That's irrational.
That's the main point of my email. You haven't provided one decent argument
that explains your contrary view, but instead you have embarked on other
contentions.
>
> 3. You "proclaim" that Jesus is the "son of God (NOT God the son)". This
seems to say you believe Jesus is not God, which I think you also aluded to
in an earlier email. Are you infallible--meaning incapable of error-- on
this interpretation of the Bible. If yes, then how do you know this. If
no, then why do you think you can "proclaim" such an heritical, blasphemous,
anti-Christian position. I (and Christians throughout the centuries as well
as the Catholic Church) read the Bible to clearly show Jesus is God, which
we could go through the various grounds for if you'd like, but it goes
beyond the point on the Bible origin.
>
> 4. You said I should be "careful not to let any so-called 'church' come
between [me] and our shepherd, Jesus Christ, for Christ's church is not the
Roman Catholic [Church]". Are you infallible on this point too or could you
be wrong. If you understood the Church which Christ set up, you'd see that
the Roman Catholic Church doesn't come between us and Christ. You simply
don't know what you are preaching about. Your position is like telling me
2+2=5 and you are telling me not to let the 2+2=4 people come between me and
real math.
>
> 5. You asked me to answer a question for you. You mention that the
Catholic Church sits on "huge (wordly) wealth, whilst millions starve, that
employs countless homosexual priests who sexually abuse little boys, that
replaces Christ's 'once for all time' sacrifice with the 'need' to buy loved
ones out of purgatory, that condoned Hitler's murder of God's chosen people
and so forth" and you ask me to honestly consider whether Christ would
tolerate this. To start with, some of your facts are wrong. The Catholic
Church did not condone Hitler's activities (I realize some are out there
actively claiming this). Catholics don't buy loved ones out of purgatory.
Christ Himself answered your wealth point when, over objection from an
Apostle (just like you are making), He let the woman pour the expensive oil
on Him. You don't understand the Catholic teaching on the Mass, so you don't
know what you are talking about on the once for all sacrifice. Those persons
within the Catholic Chu
> rch who are responsible for the homosexual abuse were wrong. The
Catholic Church has never said it has no sinners as members or as priests.
Even 8% (1 of 12) of Christ's handpicked Apostles went bad (i.e. Judas).
What does any of this have to do with the point. Christ will separate the
wheat from the chaff in His own time. This doesn't mean the Catholic Church
is not the true Church. Any organization can have bad members, especially
since free will exists.
>
> 6. You nitpicked the point on your analytical ability. I had said you
didn't go to the source on determining what the Church teaches, so you don't
have the analytical ability which you claim. You said this just shows you
could be lazy. It doesn't matter. Analytical ability includes diligence.
If you are lazy on important matters of faith, this just means those of us
on this site can't count on your diligence on scientific matters. Which is
fine. I'm not a scientist and I don't have time or ability to study every
scientific specialty. We all need to consider whose word we will take for
some things. For example, how do I know what truth and diligence went into
your flower pattern program, which is very intriguing by the way, if I see
the lack of diligence and logic on the items above. (You asked where does
the "I claim" come from regarding your analytical ability. It's implicit in
your whole geocentric position that you are claiming this, but if not, feel
free to corr
> ect us all by admitting you claim to have no analytical ability.
>
> 7. You mention Christ's statement to Peter to "get thee behind me, Satan"
and you conclude that using my logical processes, together with the claims
of the Catholic Church, that the Roman Catholic Church must have been
founded by Satan. This doesn't follow at all Neville and nothing I said
should lead you to this conclusion. You are making up logical falacies and
ascribing them to me. You say there is no flaw in your logical deduction,
which only makes me question more your own logical abilities and you
inability to interpret what Christ has said. Again, Neville, are you
claiming infallibility on your interpretations and the conclusions you reach
from them. Please answer clearly if you are infallible on all religious
matters. This is a yes or no question.
>
> 8. I don't know what all of your discussion about your courtroom
experience was about, but please be assured my inquiry here has not been an
ad hominem attack on you. I've simply tried to present clear analysis and
support and to stay on point.
>
> 9. You claim that the Catholic Church does not "own" the original
Scriptures, which you say "were already written down long before the
Catholic Church came into being". Of course the Catholic Church "owns" the
Scriptures (depending on what you mean by "own"), which in recent centuries
have been hijacked by non-Catholic churches (most of relatively recent
historic origin) who in essence claim their own ownership and interpretation
rights with regard to them. Christ founded the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church, with Peter and His successors as His vicars on earth. If
by "Scriptures" you are referring to New Testament, then they were written
after the Catholic Church was founded and Christ gave His Catholic Church
the promise He would not let it fail on doctrinal matters. Again, Neville,
you can ignore history and you can ignore numerous parts of the Bible, but
that doesn't mean you should be comfortable with your findings. In the
spirit of Christian charity, I'll e
> nd by saying that one of these infallible doctrinal statements by the
Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic
Church. You no longer will have the excuse before Christ that you didn't
know better, so continue to rely on your fallible contrary conclusions to
your own peril.
>
> Thanks again for the discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:42 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
>
>
> Dear Nicholas,
>
> I am prepared to admit that the "heart of [my] whole world view" is of
concern to "all on this list," but feel that most on this list do actually
know where I am coming from. In case some do not, I will reiterate my
position, even though you seem to be ignoring my decision to keep Catholic
doctrine off this forum. Jack and Philip are currently engaged in debating
this privately (and I am privileged to be included in their discussions).
>
> I believe in one, and only one, God. Furthermore, I am prepared to openly
state this fact before anyone. This places me in immediate conflict with the
"scoffers" that Peter warns us all of in his second letter (2 Pet. 3:3-7).
As an example of this, I quoted to a group set up by Jack an actual example
from my (recent) life, where I was a prosecution witness in a trial. By my
letter writing correspondence to the editor of our main local newspaper, the
defence solicitors knew that I was a geocentrist. Hence, and you will no
doubt appreciate the method and reasoning for this, being a lawyer yourself,
the first defence solicitor went straight for the "credibility of the
witness" thing. In front of the whole assembled courtroom it got him
nowhere, for two simple reasons; firstly, he should have known that I would
not be writing letters to the local newspaper if I was bothered by ridicule,
or the isolation of standing apart. Secondly, he made another silly mistake
inasmuch as he had
> printed
> out a page from the website of the establishment I then worked for, but
failed to take due note of my (worldly) qualifications in this field.
Neither point has any explicit mention of God, or of my belief in God. The
solicitor did ask me whether I accepted evolution, and I replied, of course,
that "not in the least (if we are talking about organic evolution)" did I
believe in it, but he backed away (on two occasions, I sensed) from directly
asking me if I, who had the audacity to claim to be a scientist, believed in
God. Had he have asked, I would of said, "yes," but he did not ask. Hence,
my ability to defend my position could be purely scientific. As an example,
Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle used probability mathematics to show that organic
evolution was literally impossible, but he remained an atheist to his
(physical) death, a few years ago.
>
> Let me give you another example of the flaw in your reasoning, which came
to me whilst I was driving to Thurso today. Consider (Mat 16:23 KJV) "But he
turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence
unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be
of men," together with (1 Pet 5:8 KJV) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your
adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may
devour:" Now the King James rather interestingly uses "Satan" in the first
verse and "the devil" in the second, yet they are exactly the same Greek
word, but the point I want to make to you is that Christ calls Peter,
"Satan." Using nothing more than the logical processes you seem to advocate,
TOGETHER WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the Roman Catholic Church
must have been founded by Satan. Since Jesus says, (John 8:44 KJV) "Ye are
of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from
> the
> beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the
father of it," the Catholic church must be founded on lies and be full of
lies. This is a simple, logical sequence. Let me assure you that I do not
hold this view myself, but as a logical deduction there is no flaw in it.
>
>
>
> You state, " Neither of us was handed the Bible. History proves it came to
us from the institution of the Catholic Church--the same church which you
apparently believe has gotten just about everything else wrong, yet you are
willing to believe it got the Bible exactly right. This defies logic and
rational thinking."
>
> You are confused between the WRITING of the Scriptures and the COLLATING
of them. The Catholic church did not write the Scriptures. The Catholic
church did not instruct me that the universe is geocentric, nor does it in
some way "own" the original Scriptures, which were already written down long
before the Catholic church came into being.
>
> Now that I have answered your query about the ORIGIN (rather than FORM) of
the Bibles on my bookshelves, perhaps you could answer a question from me?
Given that Christ has ended up with a church that sits on huge (worldly)
wealth, whilst millions starve, that employs countless homosexual priests
who sexually abuse little boys, that replaces Christ's "once for all time"
sacrifice with the "need" to buy loved ones out of purgatory, that condoned
Hitler's murder of God's chosen people, and so forth, do you honestly
consider for one moment that Christ would tolerate that, when he lost his
temper regarding the Jewish traders in his Father's temple?
>
>
>
> You state that, "Besides this, you have fallen into the frequent ant
i-Catholic trap of believing what other people say the Church teaches,
rather than going right to the source to see what it actually officially
teaches. This shows you don't have the analytical ability you claim."
>
> If your primary contention were true, it would show only that I was lazy,
and would give no indication as to my "analytical ability." Also, where does
the "[I] claim" bit come from?
>
> Further, you state that, "Which impacts the "credibility" of the
scientific matters you discuss. (The other errors mentioned about the
Trinity and what Catholics actually believe about the "worship" of Mary only
add to the point that you aren't willing to firmly establish your premise.)"
>
> However, as regards the worship of Mary, I think I did accept Philip's
assurance that Catholics do not worship Mary, and agreed with him that to do
so would be idolatrous.
>
> "[I] should bend under the wind of truth." I completely agree with this
comment, and note that Christ said that he was "the way, the truth and the
life," and that "no man cometh unto the Father but by [him]." I proclaim
that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah, the Christ, the son of God (NOT God the
son). He is my head. I am in subjection to him, just as my wife is in
subjection to me. Christ should be your head, too. Be careful not to let any
so-called "church" come between you and our shepherd, Jesus Christ, for
Christ's church is not the Roman Catholic, or the Baptist, or The Church of
Latter Day Saints, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Christadelphians, or
the Wee Frees, or the Church of Scotland, or the Church of England, or the
"Happy Clappers," or the Salvation Army, ..., ad infinitum, ... it is simply
the collection of households whose patriarch is a true believer.
>
> Neville.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
>
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: text/plain
> -- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
>
>
>
Other related posts:
