[geocentrism] Re: A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:25:12 +1000
This is good... meaning it makes me happy.. OOOOH ! We are not supposed to be
happy here... but to be joyous in taking up the cross and following Him.
So I want to get in there and try to fairly answer what Marshall has said..
And I will cc it to Marshall, as i do not think he is on the list, except by
proxy of Bernie..
My comments below in Navy blue
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT
fwd,
This from Madsen is not to me, so I will just take the quick way—but a
fair way, I think—of responding to his conjectures, which, I must admit, seem
to me to fall flat in his second sentence, which is obviously an assumption,
but upon which he proceeds to build everything. One can just as readily accept
the first part of his question, as the second, for which he claims contextual
proof when no such exists, and proceeds to ignore the context of scores of
creation verses throughout the Scriptures which attest to the first conjecture,
not the second. I absolutely agree with all that Marshall said in this
paragraph.. and I liked the form of his expression. My intention was to show
the confusion of scripture , in verse taken as read for the first time ,
starting from the beginning, when it is necessary to have read all of the
following text to get any reason out of it . Even then it is a dishonest
presentation as not being literally true, getting away with it solely on poetic
licence. (if one may use such licence, and I do not agree it should in a book
of love from Our Lord) disclaimer.. This does not mean I deny the Book is
sacred scripture, nor that I should tell God how to present His Words.. As a
Catholic I expect His mysteries to be revealed only as He intends to His
apointed .... not to me. I accept my lowly station as not equal to His
Apostles..
Anyway, there is an detailed explication and exegeses of this subject
in three substantive links which begin here:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm This
not to suggest, of course, that what I have written on the subject is ipso
facto correct and his incorrect. Not at all. It only suggests that there is a
lot more to the subject that must be considered from Scripture alone that
itself gives the scientific meaning which will withstand all critics.
Knowing from Philip’s other comments that he is a Roman Catholic by
affiliation; I am in need of enlightenment regarding his two opening sentences,
viz., “The majority of us [RC’s?] here [in Australia ?] are essentially (?)
fundamentalist believers in scripture as it is writ. This is why we are
geocentrist.” Ah my goodness me Marshall, forgive me for my style of writing...
When I said "the majority of us here." as this was to a list, I meant to those
of us here on the geocentrist list.... Not australia which is by far 90% pagan,
represented on the list here by Paul who is a blind follower of the world.
Well not fair, otherwise he would not be here on this list.
It is my understanding that the Roman Church withdrew its opposition to
Copernicanism well before the 18th century, but formalized that withdrawal
c.1835 by removing his book from the banned book list. It is also my
understanding that the sum of the lengthy Council of Trent some 450 years ago
was that obvious contradictions between what the Scriptures teach and what the
Church teaches are to be resolved by the faithful accepting what the Church
teaches.
Yours (understanding of church proceedure) is a major problem with
modern Protestants, that would not exist in the days of the reformation, when
the rebels would or should have known how the Roman church works as regards
discipline versus dogma. Time and space restricts me here from all the detail,
sufficient to just correct your miss-understanding . When the Church teaches
INFALLIBLY, which is rare, meaning directly controlled by the Holy spirit,
what is said cannot be revoked..
As regards the Galelleo affair, as much as one can trust the available
history of church documents, ( I have all the records) the Church has declared
infallibly on the geocentric position. Having done so it cannot do a reversal.
Faced with the onslaught of science, lacking in faith, it chose to put the
matter aside, (no invoking of the spirit here) and began the long slide down
towards the rule of the Prince of this world with whom Christ has nothing in
common. It is no wonder they are now almost in total apostasy.. But they NEVER
dogmatically reversed the earlier doctrine, and they do not dare. They rule
today by regulation, and very little of that, as chaos and corruption is
evident through the Media visible Catholic world.. We who are aware are in the
"catacombs". Personally, If Rome the Vatican is Catholic , I cannot see it
today.. This does not mean a Divine shock might not put it and the whole world
back on track.
Believing these understandings to be a matter of historical record, I'm
glad for the opportunity of explaing to you the real significance of them, the
puzzlement I have is why any more credence should be given to any given
Scripture (e.g., the geocentist parts) than, say, the parts that deny the
Churches’ Mariolatry doctrine (or any of a dozen others). These are subjects
of another debate.. As far as I can see you have a large degree of
misunderstandings, demonstrated again in your word "mariolatory", which implys
idolatory, when any enlightened honest serious protestant student of
Catholicism will see easily the distinction and major difference between
reverence and respect for the Mother of Jesus, or the saints, and idolatory,
which is due only to God. This error has a more deeper theological reason, and
that is concerning whether those already in Heaven can with our Guardian Angels
pray for us who remain on earth. Another debate all together. How can one
project a credible witness for the truth on one subject (stationary earth)
while attributing belief in that subject because they are “fundamentalist
believers in scripture as writ”, while rejecting or adding to or subtracting
Easily because we do not subscribe to the idea that everything Jesus taught is
in the Bible or that God put everything there.. as though nothing else
matters.. Such a theology effectively shuts God out of any further say or
input into the affairs of man.. He and what He wants to say to us is limited to
how ordinary men interpret, transcribe, translate, preserve, copy, print , or
talk about , or write about in various publications their own pesonal ideas ..
having nothing but a few scraps of the original writings in the original
languages , which alone were inspired... not their copies.. and only vaguely
accredited scholars to verify any discrepancies.
from other “scripture as writ”? How can the one claim one portion of
Scripture must be viewed as truth by a system which blatantly alters Scripture
and justifies the alteration with the words of men outside of Scripture? I can
only add to my last paragraph, what the world sees of Christianity , which
places itself as solely dependent upon Scripture without any authority in any
men upon this world. The world see only chaos and division.. Not one flock..
Not one shepherd.. A divided people having only a book as a shepherd, denying
the real shepherd whenever He appears , as being a manisfestation of the
Devil..
God knows men’s hearts, of course, and no uncertainty remains in His
Judgment as to whether He has kept His Word inerrant, sufficient, and
infallible. Which is more apt to please Him and produce truth: agreement with
all of His Word “as holy writ”, or with some man made system which claims to be
the only true representative of His truth…when it is clear on the geocentrism
doctrine alone that no church—however “fundamentalist” it may claim to be—will
stand up boldly for a non-moving earth? I was surprised to find that none of
this actually spoke about my subject of the poor and confusing words of the
introduction of Genesis, as it appeared to a normal reader like myself..
Instead we had what is a rather poor and misinformed attack on the Universal
Church of jesus Christ, in its Roman branch.
I haver no authority from God or Church to preach, but I am happy to
oblige to the best of my knowledge.
Marshall and Philip.
PS I did not proof read.. any errors of diction etc I'll correct after
you get it..
Other related posts:
