[geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:07:29 -0600
Cheryl,
Thank you for the follow up. Boettner isn't really any better. I don't know
about Chinoquey.
I'd suggest you try G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and
Solange Hertz if you are at all serious and if you are looking for something
honest.
Regards,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl [mailto:c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:57 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
I've also studied carefully Loraine Boettner's work on Catholocism. I read
Chinoquey's stuff about the Confessional, his experiences as a Catholic
priest -- 45 years in the Clutches of Rome, whatever that book is. Most of
all, I know my Bible.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:28 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
> Cheryl,
> Thank you for the reference to Jack Chick. That helps me to understand
> where you are coming from and why. Though I doubt you'll take the
> suggestion, I suggest you read someone with more substance and someone who
> doesn't rely on false caricatures of the Catholic Church.
> I don't see how my statements indicate any intent to hold back. I'm
> interested in establishing a solid, irrefutable basis for the geostatic
> position. You can take my word for it or not. Neville is free to reject
> my suggestion. It was only my opinion on helping to develop a solid
> understandable footing.
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryl [mailto:c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 7:11 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
>
>
> Dr. Jones. I disagree with Nick's statement below. I think we're moving
> too slowly, and one of the reasons we're moving too slowly is because at
> least two of the militant Catholics posting on your forum are holding us
> back, and I think they're holding us back on purpose.
> Why? Because that's what militant Catholics are supposed to do to the
> ministries of nonCatholics -- demoralize and hinder and destroy if
> possible.
> Jack Chick has lots of material on this.
>
> Respectfully,
> Cheryl
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:41 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
>
>
>> Neville,
>> Realizing I'm a nonscientific lawyer, I'll offer a suggestion. I think
>> if
>> you are looking to build a logical progression which is made up of a list
>> of agreed upon statements, which in the end will support the geostatic
>> conclusion and which will be understandable to both scientific and
>> nonscientific persons, that you are looking to put too much into No. 2.
>> You could break down the point into No. 2,3, and 4 etc., which clarifies
>> for the forum and which also brings along the newcomer without a lot of
>> explanation each time. For example, No. 2 could address what we observe
>> with our own eyes, No. 3 could be what the helio model says (such as in
>> terms of the two motions), No. 4 could be the if/then result of 2 and 3,
>> and No. 5 would be why you say "most" rather than "all" in your point.
>>
>> You might also consider whether you should add to No. 1 (or add new
>> numbers) that the world doesn't orbit the sun and that the rest of the
>> cosmos orbits the world daily, and that our solar system planets orbit
>> the
>> sun, etc. Maybe I'm getting too far ahead.
>>
>> The point is, in my opinion at least, that No. 2 bites off too much in
>> one
>> chunk.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 1:57 PM
>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Point number 2
>>
>>
>> Dear Allen,
>>
>> I accept your comment, "The use the terms "EQUIVALENT IN APPEARANCE" in
>> this context, might make it difficult to differentiate from the
>> differences of "Appearance" described in the celestial pole/ and Phase of
>> Venus arguments."
>>
>> How about this amended No. 2:
>>
>>
>> 1. IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD DOES NOT ROTATE.
>> 2. THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL MUST ASSIGN AT LEAST TWO DISTINCT MOTIONS TO
>> THE
>> WORLD. SINCE THESE MOTIONS ARE CALCULATED TO FIT OBSERVATIONAL FACTS, IT
>> FOLLOWS BY DEFINITION THAT A GEOSTATIC COSMOS MUST BE EQUIVALENT TO A
>> HELIOCENTRIC ONE, IN TERMS OF MOST CELESTIAL APPEARANCES AS THEY ARE
>> VIEWED FROM THE WORLD.
>>
>> Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
>>
>> Neville.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send instant messages to your online friends
>> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
>> -- Type: text/plain
>> -- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: text/plain
> -- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
>
>
>
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
Other related posts:
