[geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:38:26 -0500
I don't know about Mike. But you're talking the basis of authority as being
the Catholic church. Obviously I don't agree with that or I would be a
Catholic. You can't put a manmade institution ahead of God and his Holy
Word.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
> Happy to talk that off list Cheryl... I was not preaching my religion. ...
I told the list why I hold to geocentrism agains all commers, no matter what
religion. . I am not about debateing one religious belief versus another.
Not here . Neville has his reason, I have mine...Jack has his etc.. Only
recently I defended Mike to be allowed his say even though He was /is an
avowed athiest.
> I'm here to help the fight for what we hold in common, to share our
scientific knowledge, against Mikes science, not his beliefs. If we can...
> Philip.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cheryl B.
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:54 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
>
>
> Philip -- You say the church has all authority. Well, the Pope IS the
> church, the Roman Catholic Church. He is infallable, Christ on Earth.
So
> here you have the Pope in conflict with the Scripture.
>
> Which really has the authority? The Bible or a manmade religion with a
> leader bequeathed with imaginary, nonscriptural powers?
>
> Cheryl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:30 PM
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Other related posts:
