[geocentrism] Re: FW: Re: Climate change
- From: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:15:48 -0400
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your perserverance in reading GWW.
A little background is in order, related to your concerns below.
When I converted from a creation agnostic to apologetic 7 yrs ago I first
reviewed Revelation for guidance to the truth. When invited to join a
Catholic creationist group, I said I first must review evolution science for
its credibility. After thorough research I then joined the group.
Fast forward to 3 yrs ago. After reviewing the religious arguments for
geocentrism I again intended to research the science before commiting to
give a GC presentation. Then I thought: Why does my faith depend on
science?.... If I believe in Revelation, what more do I need? So I agreed to
give a GC talk, WITHOUT ANY IDEA HOW TO DEFEND GC SCIENCE AGAINST MS.
Since then the Lord has chosen to give me insights - not w/o false starts
and dead ends - that will hopefully lead to whatever ends He has intended,
since before time began. My only goal is to be a stepping stone in His
path, not a stumbling block.
So Jack, whenever science and Scripture overlap - and they can do so in very
subtle ways, like GC - I will never use reason in science w/o first seeking
revealed guidance, that I may know the truth as God gives me to know the
truth. I will never deny the religious basis for my belief in creation and
GC against all the errors of modernism. Though I may not use Revelation
explicitly in dialogue with scientists, faith always is the foundation of
all I believe.
Jack, suppose you had a friend with two interesting and desirable
characteristics:
a.. He knew all things ... ALL things.
b.. He always was truthful.... by nature incapable of lying.
Would you resort to fallible scientific interpretations, historically proven
to be as fickle as a feather in the wind, rather than your friend? Why do
your Christian friends do otherwise?
Another issue:
The Church today is rampant with the heresies of modernism, biblical and
liturgical revisionism and spiritual liberalism. If threatened with a
deadly global infection that could wipe out all of you, would you first deal
with the safety of your family, or that of your neighbors?
This is why GWW addresses the ignorance and misunderstanding of geocentrism
within the Church first, just as Christ sought first to save the lost sheep
of Israel. The Galileo case is always cited by Catholic modernists as the
triumph of science over the Magisterium.
In GWW we spoke the truth as we see it now - the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. Of course we can be in error, but we ask to be shown where.
Those who object to 'Catholic' references should be asking themselves
'why?'. When I encounter a strictly Protestant belief amidst scientific
discourse, I just ignore it and deal with the science claims.
The visions to Hildegard are not part of the deposit of faith - not binding
on anyone. But they are intellectual gifts that God chose to reveal a
millennium ago for His own inscrutable reasons.
I have found these private revelations very beneficial in understanding
cosmology and cosmogenesis, and will use this knowledge as premises and
axioms in constructing my own metaphysics for aether theory. Hildegard
gives me a huge headstart in this analysis, a free insight to the truth,
yet I need never mention this source in my didactics.
Belief in Scripture is not a matter of choice; belief in Hildegard is.
In any case nothing contained in Hildegard was used - explicitly or
implicitly - to support the technical GS science of GWW Chap 12. Tell your
friends that it is a 'Hildegard-free zone'!
additional responses inserted below..
Thanks for your encouragement and comments, Jack.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jack Lewis
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 11:04 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: FW: Re: Climate change
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: "Geocentrism" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] FW: Re: Climate change
>
> The review shows how a purely rational and logical approach to evolution's
> claims can be effective without a hint of Bible-thumping.
Dear Robert,
I would just like to say how much I enjoyed reading 'Galileo Was Wrong'. I
read it during my two weeks annual holiday, its probably been the longest
period of time that I have spent in my wife's company with talking to her! I
doubt that there is another book anywhere that brings together a damning
scientific criticism of heliocentrism. However my one criticism is that you
have woven into it a high level of 'Catholicism thumping' disguised as
history and mysticism (Hildegard). Why not allow readers the same chance as
those you refer to in the above quote?
As this book stands I would have difficulty in getting some of my
non-Christian and even creationist friends to give it the time of day
especially the chapter on Hildegard.
Indeed the creationist group that received my first GC talk reacted
negatively, believing they had enough credibility problems challenging
evolution, w/o aligning with the flat-earthers.
They may have mellowed since then, but if creationists profess belief in
literal exegesis and the past rulings of the Magisteria, then they are
inconsistent in their logic by rejecting GS.
There are those who would compare
Hildegard with Nostradamus.
On what basis? Nostradamus made ambiguous predictions about the future, like
the oracle at Delphi. Hildegard made arcane postdictions about the past.
There are many who follow N., ; how many Hildegardians do you know of?
This chapter may help to reinforce the faith of
R.C's but it would leave a non-Catholic cold.
If GS is the subject, why should the Catholic view be of concern?
Hildegard predated the Reformation; it's impossible for her to be acceptably
Protestant.
I think you have missed a
fantastic opportunity to cause non-believers (of geocentrism) to be
challenged in a most demanding way.
They are being challenged in a demanding way .... by traditional
Catholicism.
Moderns have failed to adopt Catholicism - not because it has been tested
and found wanting, but because it has not been tested. (GKC)
A scientific journal could not possibly
entertain reviewing this book because of its religious content.
And religious journals ignore GWW because of its scientific content.
Also I'm not
so naive to think that any mainstream journal would review it even if it was
sans-religious. However I do believe it would stand a better chance
somewhere - anywhere just on its scientific content.
Then just promote that content.
I most certainly could
use it to help me witness to my non-believing friends - but I would have to
edit-out the religious content. My son is married to a R.C. but does not
share her or my belief in a creator. However I do believe that I could get
somewhere with him using your book but not, I'm afraid, without being
edited. He would see this as an attempt to force, either his wife's or my
beliefs, onto him whereas he couldn't argue with the plain scientific truth.
Disagree - the plain scientific truth is ephemeral. This is a difference in
epistemology - the sources of truth. Nevertheless, if he has an open mind,
he should find the GS science arguments irrefutable. (he said, modestly)
Incidentally he is a Lt. Commander in the Royal Navy and whose job is being
responsible for the atomic engine in a submarine. I guess he will be
familiar with Einstein.
Once he or they have been challenged by its
scientific evidence, they must then consider what they do next. It would be
at this point that I would preach the gospel to them rather than Roman
Catholicism.
The gospel interpreted by His Church IS RC. The gospel personally
interpreted may be.
Also I know many people who are non-Catholic, Bible believing,
geocentric sceptical, creationists who would shy away from reading your book
simply because of it's R.C. connection - its a pity but a fact of life. I
personally was able to quickly scan through the R.C. content and ignore it
without degrading the scientific content.
If you can, why not others. What is to fear from the 'RC content'?
May I suggest you make available a
copy of the book that deals only with history and science. I realise that
early geocentrism and Roman Catholicism are linked historically, but I think
your book dwells a little too much on an assumed understanding of Roman
Catholicism by its readers. Having said all this, once again I must
congratulate you on a well researched and well referenced scientific text
book.
In view of my comments above can I have your permission to produce an edited
copy?
Jack Lewis
Suggest you describe exactly what you have in mind, then forward to Bob
Sungenis CAIRomeo@xxxxxxx
RB
Other related posts:
