I don't know about Mike. But you're talking the basis of authority as being the Catholic church. Obviously I don't agree with that or I would be a Catholic. You can't put a manmade institution ahead of God and his Holy Word. Cheryl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it. > Happy to talk that off list Cheryl... I was not preaching my religion. ... I told the list why I hold to geocentrism agains all commers, no matter what religion. . I am not about debateing one religious belief versus another. Not here . Neville has his reason, I have mine...Jack has his etc.. Only recently I defended Mike to be allowed his say even though He was /is an avowed athiest. > I'm here to help the fight for what we hold in common, to share our scientific knowledge, against Mikes science, not his beliefs. If we can... > Philip. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Cheryl B. > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:54 AM > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it. > > > Philip -- You say the church has all authority. Well, the Pope IS the > church, the Roman Catholic Church. He is infallable, Christ on Earth. So > here you have the Pope in conflict with the Scripture. > > Which really has the authority? The Bible or a manmade religion with a > leader bequeathed with imaginary, nonscriptural powers? > > Cheryl > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:30 PM > Subject: [geocentrism] Gary asked for it. > > > > Ok You asked for my belief to be clarified. Here it is. > > The Bible is for me open to interpretation in many of its aspects. Thus I > can be changed in my view of some things given sufficient evidence. > > > > However where the Church has authoritively DEFINED, as quite distinct from > mere theological opinion , an unterpretation as a matter of dogma, then any > evidence no matter what or how convincing it is, must be suspected, nay more > than that, must be rejected, as having any validity, and I would consider it > as error, and that we would have to look for another physical answer for the > evidence we observe. > > > > If I am wrong in this then not only does the Church lose its credibility, > but the words of Jesus Christ Himself, and the Bible as well all go down the > drain... So I know that cannot happen. > > > > In relation to our subject, the immobility of this world, the Church has > defined it infallibly as dogma. The Bible says it infallibly in support of > that dogmatic definition. No amount of modernistic theological opinion > emanating from anywhere, even the highest of the Church authorities, or the > Pope himself can change that dogma. If any Pope were to try with the same > legal force to contradict any previously defined dogma, then I believe > emphatically, that if he did not get struck dead on the spot, (its happened > in the past) then he must be an imposter pope, and a false Christian. (which > is why he did not get struck dead. The Holy Ghost cannot be made a liar) > > > > Thus in light of that afore said belief, if I were able to show physically > by a neutral polar launched orbiter, a physically moving earth towards the > east, or if by my gyro experiment , the properties indicated a definite > rotational movement of this world, then rather than lose any of my beliefs > stated above, I would proceed to look for another explanation in the physics > of gyroscopic forces, and even consider Roberts cosmic inertia, or Sungenis' > universal Mass. If I could never find an answer, it would change nothing, > because perhaps only God Himself is meant to understand the truth of it. > After all, no man is as good as he thinks he is. Only One is perfect, and > He was the essence of humility. > > > > Philip. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gary Shelton > > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:51 PM > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Did NASA do it? > > > > > > > > Philip, > > > > How do you now believe? Do you feel the geo.sats still allow for > > geocentricity? Shouldn't we have a geocentric answer then, for the > figure > > eights the h-people always talk about? For without it, would not > Biblical > > credibility indeed be mashed to pieces? > > > > Gary > > > > [Philip wrote] > > > > <snip> > > > > I have shown unanswerable evidence of the existence of these orbiters. > I > > still cannot see how such would in any way destroy biblical credibility. > > > > > > Philip. > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05 > > > > > > > > >