[geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:53:33 -0600
Philip,
I think you've stated this well.
Can you save me from hunting. Where is the Church's definition on the
immobility of the earth.
Thanks,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip [mailto:joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:30 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Gary asked for it.
Ok You asked for my belief to be clarified. Here it is.
The Bible is for me open to interpretation in many of its aspects. Thus
I can be changed in my view of some things given sufficient evidence.
However where the Church has authoritively DEFINED, as quite distinct
from mere theological opinion , an unterpretation as a matter of dogma,
then any evidence no matter what or how convincing it is, must be
suspected, nay more than that, must be rejected, as having any validity,
and I would consider it as error, and that we would have to look for
another physical answer for the evidence we observe.
If I am wrong in this then not only does the Church lose its
credibility, but the words of Jesus Christ Himself, and the Bible as
well all go down the drain... So I know that cannot happen.
In relation to our subject, the immobility of this world, the Church has
defined it infallibly as dogma. The Bible says it infallibly in support
of that dogmatic definition. No amount of modernistic theological
opinion emanating from anywhere, even the highest of the Church
authorities, or the Pope himself can change that dogma. If any Pope were
to try with the same legal force to contradict any previously defined
dogma, then I believe emphatically, that if he did not get struck dead
on the spot, (its happened in the past) then he must be an imposter
pope, and a false Christian. (which is why he did not get struck dead.
The Holy Ghost cannot be made a liar)
Thus in light of that afore said belief, if I were able to show
physically by a neutral polar launched orbiter, a physically moving
earth towards the east, or if by my gyro experiment , the properties
indicated a definite rotational movement of this world, then rather than
lose any of my beliefs stated above, I would proceed to look for another
explanation in the physics of gyroscopic forces, and even consider
Roberts cosmic inertia, or Sungenis' universal Mass. If I could never
find an answer, it would change nothing, because perhaps only God
Himself is meant to understand the truth of it. After all, no man is as
good as he thinks he is. Only One is perfect, and He was the essence of
humility.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shelton
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:51 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Did NASA do it?
Philip,
How do you now believe? Do you feel the geo.sats still allow for
geocentricity? Shouldn't we have a geocentric answer then, for the
figure
eights the h-people always talk about? For without it, would not
Biblical
credibility indeed be mashed to pieces?
Gary
[Philip wrote]
<snip>
I have shown unanswerable evidence of the existence of these
orbiters. I
still cannot see how such would in any way destroy biblical
credibility.
>
> Philip.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
Other related posts:
