[geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:42:04 +0100 (BST)
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!
Other related posts: