[geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:35:24 +0100 (BST)
Dear Nicholas,
Since you request that I "indulge a few further thoughts on the topic," I will,
reluctantly, respond, even though I have asked for these Catholic beliefs to be
dropped from our postings.
When Steven set up this forum on freelists, I provided the technical
specifications of what we were to discuss. Those are basically that we cover
the scientific, technical and Biblical aspects of a geocentric cosmological
model.
You and Philip (and certain others on this list) are Catholics. Jack was
brought up a Catholic, but then pulled away. If we consider doctrine on this
site then several other people will take offence, as has, indeed, happened.
If you want to read my thoughts on "paradise," and the state of those spirits
that reside there, then please go to Steven and my website,
www.midclyth.supanet.com
and click on the button labelled, "Paradise".
All I will say about the Bible canon is that God uses people in various ways in
order to accomplish His plan. For example, Oskar Schindler was used by God to
save thousands of God's chosen people, the Jews, from the Nazi death camps
during WWII. After WWII, Schindler emigrated to Argentina and reverted back to
his old ways. If the best way to accomplish His will was to have the Catholic
committes decide on Bible canon, then fine. I'm quite okay with that. It does
not mean that the Catholic church has God's blessing in everything that it does
or teaches.
I am prepared to consider the possibility that the Sun did actually move during
the Fatima incident. This may well have been one of the tests (for those who
witnessed it), that the Bible tells us frequently about. Notice, in this
respect, that the whole Earth did not witness it, but only a tiny portion.
Christ states absolutely clearly that "No man cometh unto the Father, but by
me." Not by Mary. Not by St. John. Not by St. Paul. Not by Pope John Paul II.
Not by the Roman Catholic church. Not by the protestant church (of which I am
not a member). Not by the Jehovah's Witnesses sect (of which I am not a
member). Not by the Christadelphian sect (of which I am not a member). ... But
by Christ alone.
You dismiss Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons." No doubt you have your
reasons for doing so. For my part, I agree with his analysis, with a few, minor
exceptions. I also concur with Jack's analysis, under "Roman Catholicism" on
the website, with only one exception.
I am not one of God's chosen people, because I am not an Israelite. The Jews,
being of the tribe of Judah, are part of God's chosen people. I bless the Jews,
even though I am a Gentile. You would do well to do the same, but I suspect
that you regard yourself as safe within the RC church. You say, "... then how
can those of us on this site give you credibility for evaluating scientific
matters," but you fail to realise that I do not seek your credibility. I seek
only to bring whatever glory I can to our Father, by defending His written
word, using the particular gift that I have, and acknowledging His son before
men. For I proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the chosen one, the annointed
one, God's only begotten son. If I have to do that on my own, then I will do it
on my own. Questioning my abilities in science, mathematics and programming,
because I flatly reject Roman Catholicism, is ill-founded, but that is up to
you. Certainly I do not bend under the wind of ridicule.
Finally, the God of Abraham is one ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is
one."), just as the Jews (descended through Isaac and Jacob) and the
Ishmaelites (descended through Ishmael) - Muslims, in general - claim. God is
not a trinity. Mary is not the "mother of God," despite what one of your popes
decreed. I most certainly do not "place [my] eternal salvation in the ...
hands of a man like Hislop," as you unacceptably and unjustifiably, claim.
Rather, I accept that God alone is my saviour and I accept that the means of
this salvation for a Gentile such as myself is through the sacrifice willingly
made by His son.
I will force myself to stop there.
Yours in Christ,
Neville.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Neville,
Thank you for your continuing thoughts. In the spirit of Christian patience,
please indulge a few further thoughts on the topic, because the point goes to
the heart of your scientific debate and credibility.
Underlying your whole view of the cosmos is that science must conform to the
Bible. I agree, as I think everyone must.
What you are missing is where did the Bible come from and what does it mean. Of
course, it is the inspired Word of God. However, God didn't show up on your
doorstep and hand it to you. You got it from someone, who got it from someone
else, so on back for about two thousand years. However, for the first few
centuries of Christianity, there was debate about which of the various
manuscripts making the rounds were God inspired. There were a variety of false
documents. Not until a Catholic council in the late 300's were the contents
fixed. The council's work was approved by the then Pope (with God's guidance).
This became the official Bible which has been handed down. Prior to the
Catholic council in AD 390's, there were widespread differences amongst
Christians about which books belonged in and which didn't. You and everyone on
this list can study history if you want and you'll learn this. Seek and you
will find. Just don't ignore the correct historical evidence.
The point is that either you all need to trust that the Catholic Church got the
Bible infallibly right or you can't trust that the Bible in your hands is in
fact the Word of God. There was no other authority which codified it (although
in the 1500's some protestants threw some books out). And, if you trust the
Catholic Church for codifying the Bible, then you have to ask why you place
your eternal salvation in the anti-Catholic hands of a man like Hislop (whose
views are patently wrong, but I understand this is not the site for that
debate. Just as we could discuss that you apparently have a misunderstanding of
the actual Catholic view of the "worship" of Mary, but you don't want to cover
that here, but I encourage you to inquire with credible authorities).
The other point is this. If you have not in your due diligence capably or
correctly evaluated the historical source of the official Bible which you rely
on, then how can those of us on this site give you credibility for evaluating
scientific matters. And, if you are going to judge scientific theories against
your "Bible", you'd better make sure you are relying on the absolutely correct
God-inspired version of the Bible and the absolutely correct interpretations of
it that have been made by the proper Christ-appointed authority.
Keep plugging away, but realize that until you address the foundational
question, you really haven't and can't do a convincing job on the points that
rely on the foundation.
You didn't address the Fatima point regarding the sun's movement. Hopefully you
will. It is factual evidence hopefully you won't ignore since it doesn't fit
into your religious view. Again, this is a matter of whether you have
credibility in any of these matters.
Regards,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:09 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
Gary said, "We need to get off this denominational thing. Everybody. We have
enough battles just improving ourselves and our arguments against the likes of
the Robs of the world. ... If on this site we concentrate on giving
evidence-filled posts, then all will be enriched. ... By their very presence on
this site, all participants have decided to come together for increasing the
awareness of geostasis. ... This list is only for our education and comraderie.
Nothing will be written here that will not be forgotten in a month or two by
everyone."
I agree with this entirely, except for the last statement, which I hope we can
all work together to change (see below).
Nick, I appreciate that you are a Catholic and that you therefore worship Mary.
I do not wish to debate this doctrine here, but I do also appreciate the fact
that you took the time and effort to "correct" my thinking. I am prepared to
openly admit that my knowledge of Scriptures is far from complete (even the
disciples did not understand until Christ opened their eyes after his
resurrection). I would refer you to "The Two Babylons," by Hislop, which agrees
with my thinking on Mary worship and other Catholic beliefs.
Now, I want to move on to something that we can hopefully cooperate on. Gary, I
am impressed by the concepts you have raised regarding the behaviour of our
atmosphere in a heliocentric scheme. Would you be prepared to write up your
thoughts and post it to us all and, if we can get somewhere with it, could I
put it up on my website?
Neville.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
