[geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)

  • From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:10:42 -0500

Dear Neville,
Thank you for following up to my email.  I've got a few minutes now, so I'll 
try to respond.
1. It's interesting that you say I'm ignorring your decision to keep Catholic 
doctrine off the site, but then you respond with an abundance of anti-Catholic 
doctrine that is unnecessary to the question.

2. The point of my email was to have you look to the source of the Bible on 
which you rely, since none of us was handed a copy directly from God.  I said 
history proves it came to us from the institution of the Catholic Church, an 
institution which you reject, but on which you must rely for the Bible in your 
hands.  You said I was "confused between the writing of the Scriptures and the 
collating of them. The Catholic church did not write the Scriptures."  I'm not 
confused at all about this. You are confused.  The Catholic Church was founded 
by Christ.  The Catholic Church (i.e. members of it, such as some of the 
Apostles and others) wrote the New Testament Scriptures (prophets wrote the Old 
Testament), each under the inspiration of God.  The Catholic Church then around 
the year 400 determined which of the various books that were floating around 
and claiming inspiration actually belonged in the Bible. It determnined which 
went in and which didn't.  The Catholic Church's conclusion was accepted 
generally universally until the 1500's, when Protestants threw some parts out. 
So, you must accept that the Catholic Church infallibly did this (or admit you 
have a Bible which could be in error on some point you rely on), yet you reject 
that the Catholic Church has otherwise infallibly handled doctrine, since you 
obviously reject what the Church officially has to say on various doctrines. 
That's irrational. That's the main point of my email.  You haven't provided one 
decent argument that explains your contrary view, but instead you have embarked 
on other contentions.

3. You "proclaim" that Jesus is the "son of God (NOT God the son)".  This seems 
to say you believe Jesus is not God, which I think you also aluded to in an 
earlier email. Are you infallible--meaning incapable of error-- on this 
interpretation of the Bible.  If yes, then how do you know this.  If no, then 
why do you think you can "proclaim" such an heritical, blasphemous, 
anti-Christian position. I (and Christians throughout the centuries as well as 
the Catholic Church) read the Bible to clearly show Jesus is God, which we 
could go through the various grounds for if you'd like, but it goes beyond the 
point on the Bible origin.

4. You said I should be "careful not to let any so-called 'church' come between 
[me] and our shepherd, Jesus Christ, for Christ's church is not the Roman 
Catholic [Church]".  Are you infallible on this point too or could you be 
wrong. If you understood the Church which Christ set up, you'd see that the 
Roman Catholic Church doesn't come between us and Christ.  You simply don't 
know what you are preaching about.  Your position is like telling me 2+2=5 and 
you are telling me not to let the 2+2=4 people come between me and real math.

5. You asked me to answer a question for you.  You mention that the Catholic 
Church sits on "huge (wordly) wealth, whilst millions starve, that employs 
countless homosexual priests who sexually abuse little boys, that replaces 
Christ's 'once for all time' sacrifice with the 'need' to buy loved ones out of 
purgatory, that condoned Hitler's murder of God's chosen people and so forth" 
and you ask me to honestly consider whether Christ would tolerate this.  To 
start with, some of your facts are wrong.  The Catholic Church did not condone 
Hitler's activities (I realize some are out there actively claiming this).  
Catholics don't buy loved ones out of purgatory.  Christ Himself answered your 
wealth point when, over objection from an Apostle (just like you are making), 
He let the woman pour the expensive oil on Him. You don't understand the 
Catholic teaching on the Mass, so you don't know what you are talking about on 
the once for all sacrifice. Those persons within the Catholic Church who are 
responsible for the homosexual abuse were wrong.  The Catholic Church has never 
said it has no sinners as members or as priests.  Even 8% (1 of 12) of Christ's 
handpicked Apostles went bad (i.e. Judas). What does any of this have to do 
with the point.  Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff in His own time. 
 This doesn't mean the Catholic Church is not the true Church.  Any 
organization can have bad members, especially since free will exists.

6. You nitpicked the point on your analytical ability.  I had said you didn't 
go to the source on determining what the Church teaches, so you don't have the 
analytical ability which you claim.  You said this just shows you could be 
lazy.  It doesn't matter.  Analytical ability includes diligence.  If you are 
lazy on important matters of faith, this just means those of us on this site 
can't count on your diligence on scientific matters.  Which is fine.  I'm not a 
scientist and I don't have time or ability to study every scientific specialty. 
We all need to consider whose word we will take for some things.  For example, 
how do I know what truth and diligence went into your flower pattern program, 
which is very intriguing by the way, if I see the lack of diligence and logic 
on the items above.  (You asked where does the "I claim" come from regarding 
your analytical ability.  It's implicit in your whole geocentric position that 
you are claiming this, but if not, feel free to correct us all by admitting you 
claim to have no analytical ability.

7. You mention Christ's statement to Peter to "get thee behind me, Satan"  and 
you conclude that using my logical processes, together with the claims of the 
Catholic Church, that the Roman Catholic Church must have been founded by 
Satan.  This doesn't follow at all Neville and nothing I said should lead you 
to this conclusion.  You are making up logical falacies and ascribing them to 
me.  You say there is no flaw in your logical deduction, which only makes me 
question more your own logical abilities and you inability to interpret what 
Christ has said.  Again, Neville, are you claiming infallibility on your 
interpretations and the conclusions you reach from them.  Please answer clearly 
if you are infallible on all religious matters.  This is a yes or no question.

8. I don't know what all of your discussion about your courtroom experience was 
about, but please be assured my inquiry here has not been an ad hominem attack 
on you.  I've simply tried to present clear analysis and support and to stay on 
point.

9. You claim that the Catholic Church does not "own" the original Scriptures, 
which you say "were already written down long before the Catholic Church came 
into being".  Of course the Catholic Church "owns" the Scriptures (depending on 
what you mean by "own"), which in recent centuries have been hijacked by 
non-Catholic churches (most of relatively recent historic origin) who in 
essence claim their own ownership and interpretation rights with regard to 
them.  Christ founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Peter 
and His successors as His vicars on earth.  If by "Scriptures" you are 
referring to New Testament, then they were written after the Catholic Church 
was founded and Christ gave His Catholic Church the promise He would not let it 
fail on doctrinal matters.  Again, Neville, you can ignore history and you can 
ignore numerous parts of the Bible, but that doesn't mean you should be 
comfortable with your findings.  In the spirit of Christian charity, I'll end 
by saying that one of these infallible doctrinal statements by the Catholic 
Church is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.  You no 
longer will have the excuse before Christ that you didn't know better, so 
continue to rely on your fallible contrary conclusions to your own peril.

Thanks again for the discussion.  

Regards,
Nick.







-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:42 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)


Dear Nicholas,

I am prepared to admit that the "heart of [my] whole world view" is of concern 
to "all on this list," but feel that most on this list do actually know where I 
am coming from. In case some do not, I will reiterate my position, even though 
you seem to be ignoring my decision to keep Catholic doctrine off this forum. 
Jack and Philip are currently engaged in debating this privately (and I am 
privileged to be included in their discussions).

I believe in one, and only one, God. Furthermore, I am prepared to openly state 
this fact before anyone. This places me in immediate conflict with the 
"scoffers" that Peter warns us all of in his second letter (2 Pet. 3:3-7). As 
an example of this, I quoted to a group set up by Jack an actual example from 
my (recent) life, where I was a prosecution witness in a trial. By my letter 
writing correspondence to the editor of our main local newspaper, the defence 
solicitors knew that I was a geocentrist. Hence, and you will no doubt 
appreciate the method and reasoning for this, being a lawyer yourself, the 
first defence solicitor went straight for the "credibility of the witness" 
thing. In front of the whole assembled courtroom it got him nowhere, for two 
simple reasons; firstly, he should have known that I would not be writing 
letters to the local newspaper if I was bothered by ridicule, or the isolation 
of standing apart. Secondly, he made another silly mistake inasmuch as he had
  printed
 out a page from the website of the establishment I then worked for, but failed 
to take due note of my (worldly) qualifications in this field. Neither point 
has any explicit mention of God, or of my belief in God. The solicitor did ask 
me whether I accepted evolution, and I replied, of course, that "not in the 
least (if we are talking about organic evolution)" did I believe in it, but he 
backed away (on two occasions, I sensed) from directly asking me if I, who had 
the audacity to claim to be a scientist, believed in God. Had he have asked, I 
would of said, "yes," but he did not ask. Hence, my ability to defend my 
position could be purely scientific. As an example, Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle used 
probability mathematics to show that organic evolution was literally 
impossible, but he remained an atheist to his (physical) death, a few years ago.

Let me give you another example of the flaw in your reasoning, which came to me 
whilst I was driving to Thurso today. Consider (Mat 16:23 KJV) "But he turned, 
and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: 
for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men," 
together with (1 Pet 5:8 KJV) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary 
the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" Now 
the King James rather interestingly uses "Satan" in the first verse and "the 
devil" in the second, yet they are exactly the same Greek word, but the point I 
want to make to you is that Christ calls Peter, "Satan." Using nothing more 
than the logical processes you seem to advocate, TOGETHER WITH THE CLAIMS OF 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the Roman Catholic Church must have been founded by Satan. 
Since Jesus says, (John 8:44 KJV) "Ye are of your father the devil, and the 
lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from 
 the
 beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When 
he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of 
it," the Catholic church must be founded on lies and be full of lies. This is a 
simple, logical sequence. Let me assure you that I do not hold this view 
myself, but as a logical deduction there is no flaw in it.

 

You state, " Neither of us was handed the Bible. History proves it came to us 
from the institution of the Catholic Church--the same church which you 
apparently believe has gotten just about everything else wrong, yet you are 
willing to believe it got the Bible exactly right. This defies logic and 
rational thinking."

You are confused between the WRITING of the Scriptures and the COLLATING of 
them. The Catholic church did not write the Scriptures. The Catholic church did 
not instruct me that the universe is geocentric, nor does it in some way "own" 
the original Scriptures, which were already written down long before the 
Catholic church came into being.

Now that I have answered your query about the ORIGIN (rather than FORM) of the 
Bibles on my bookshelves, perhaps you could answer a question from me? Given 
that Christ has ended up with a church that sits on huge (worldly) wealth, 
whilst millions starve, that employs countless homosexual priests who sexually 
abuse little boys, that replaces Christ's "once for all time" sacrifice with 
the "need" to buy loved ones out of purgatory, that condoned Hitler's murder of 
God's chosen people, and so forth, do you honestly consider for one moment that 
Christ would tolerate that, when he lost his temper regarding the Jewish 
traders in his Father's temple?



You state that, "Besides this, you have fallen into the frequent ant i-Catholic 
trap of believing what other people say the Church teaches, rather than going 
right to the source to see what it actually officially teaches. This shows you 
don't have the analytical ability you claim."

If your primary contention were true, it would show only that I was lazy, and 
would give no indication as to my "analytical ability." Also, where does the 
"[I] claim" bit come from?

Further, you state that, "Which impacts the "credibility" of the scientific 
matters you discuss. (The other errors mentioned about the Trinity and what 
Catholics actually believe about the "worship" of Mary only add to the point 
that you aren't willing to firmly establish your premise.)"

However, as regards the worship of Mary, I think I did accept Philip's 
assurance that Catholics do not worship Mary, and agreed with him that to do so 
would be idolatrous.

"[I] should bend under the wind of truth." I completely agree with this 
comment, and note that Christ said that he was "the way, the truth and the 
life," and that "no man cometh unto the Father but by [him]." I proclaim that 
Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah, the Christ, the son of God (NOT God the son). He 
is my head. I am in subjection to him, just as my wife is in subjection to me. 
Christ should be your head, too. Be careful not to let any so-called "church" 
come between you and our shepherd, Jesus Christ, for Christ's church is not the 
Roman Catholic, or the Baptist, or The Church of Latter Day Saints, or the 
Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Christadelphians, or the Wee Frees, or the Church 
of Scotland, or the Church of England, or the "Happy Clappers," or the 
Salvation Army, ..., ad infinitum, ... it is simply the collection of 
households whose patriarch is a true believer.

Neville.


                
---------------------------------
 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  



-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt



Other related posts: