[geocentrism] Re: geocentrism

Marshall said, "then what can one conclude about the "unique" science based 
"solely on a supernatural/theological position" of another religion which 
contradicts the Bible on every major doctrine (and, of course, hates Jesus and 
has Him boiling in crap in hell)?  Instead of starting with the geo/helio 
controversy--the truth of which is indispensable to both theological 
positions--perhaps we should start with the the Religions and their Holy Books 
and the God/g'd which is behind these theological positions.

I respond:  I said we cannot use such presumptions of theology in a scientific 
forum.

Its unfair ..  Its going to require unique science to prove our claim, which we 
base solely on a supernatural/theological position. It is unfair (to use) to 
base our claim on the philosophical supernatural theological conclusions that 
Marshall states above in a purely scientific forum.. 

The average scientific community has no knowledge of, or interest in the above 
socio political theological positions, which are outside its domain. Electrons 
must be charged particles, and never elements of the holy spirit.. 

Only should individuals seek answers along these questions, is it then 
permissable and even advisable to enlighten them personally..  

But, considering the great divisions and diversity among the occult community, 
that includes us, such arguments have a big task in convincing the rational 
mind of their authenticity.  The credibility factor is 1%

The aether has a great chance of being proved providing we do not include  an 
occult conspiracy conspiring to hide it from everybody..  We have two domains.. 
 Science and politics (religion) ..  They should not be mixed. Even though they 
may arrive at the same post eventually. 

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernie Brauer 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:14 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: geocentrism


  Bernie,

  Two things regarding Phillip's conclusion:

  a) The planets go around the sun in the geocentrism model, so there is no 
conflict there. Even the Brahe Model had this worked out over 400 years ago.
  b) The heliocentricity model is one of the five essentials of the Big Bang 
Evolutionary Paradigm. All of those essentials form an "alternate creation 
scenario" promoted by anti-Christ, anti-Bible Pharisaic Kabbalists. If one 
concludes that geocentrism is "unique" science based "solely on a 
supernatural/theological position" then what can one conclude about the 
"unique" science based "solely on a supernatural/theological position" of 
another religion which contradicts the Bible on every major doctrine (and,
  of course, hates Jesus and has Him boiling in crap in hell)?  Instead of 
starting with the geo/helio controversy--the truth of which is indispensable to 
both theological positions--perhaps we should start with the the Religions and 
their Holy Books and the God/g'd which is behind these theological positions.  
When that is done--usisng only facts and excluding
  assumptions based upon other assumptions...along with the willfully deceptive 
"secular" science claim...and certifiably fraudulent use of virtual reality 
technology--one is faced squarely with which religion and which God/g'd one 
trusts. And, oh yes, it is useful to note the admitted 
  theological position of the Pharisee Kabbalists
  is that Satan is their g'd.
  The heliocentricity keystone of the Kabbalilst Kosmos is pure illusion in 
defiance of all observational evidence; e.g.:
  http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_andStructure%20Part%20IV.htm   Is this 
"science" ?
  http://www.fixedearth.com/Virtual%20Reality%20Fraud.htm

  Marshall

  philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    Geocentrism as a science.  

    I know you all have noted my often presented defense of main stream 
science, not that I want to debunk geocentrism, but to be just plain fair.

    Perhaps it needs to be said outright...

    I have just spent several minutes looking at the side by side animations 
(GWW.) of the daily orbits of the solar system from both the  geocentric and 
heliocentric perspective.  

    It cannot be denied when considering all the natural motions of the planets 
around the central sun, as shown in both systems, that to claim an unmoving and 
central earth is very very unique, and goes against the natural order presented 
by the rest of the cosmos. Indeed against our own experimental evidence in 
earth bound laboratories. 

    Its unfair to say otherwise..  Its going to require unique science to prove 
our claim, which we base solely on a supernatural/theological position. 

    Philip. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 15/03/2008 
2:36 PM

Other related posts: