[geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:18:56 +1000

Thanks for letting us know... As I said Neville does not like this discussion 
here on this list.   It is his list.. 
Philip.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cheryl B. 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:38 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it. 


  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
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >
  >
  >
  >



Other related posts: