(no subject)

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:31:20 +0000 (GMT)

Philip M
Finally got around to this response. I started out trying to make just a few 
terse comments of a non inflammatory nature as this thread has about outlived 
its usefulness. But I got carried away in spots as usual. (Measles?) Not 
inflammatory though I hope. (Pun intended). In the eye catching shade, Fuschia, 
this time.
Hi Paul Here is half my response.. 
But this, The same process applies in other fields including theology., is not 
true for TRUE theology. Seeing as you bought into an argument on theology, let 
me answer. But who is to decide what is TRUE theology? Safer to consider all 
schools of thought. You know, I think a good case can be made for the view that 
the greatest short term strength of a given theology is the insistance upon 
orthodoxy and that it is its greatest long term weakness. Arrival at 'truth' is 
a partisan process.
You yourself must decide what is true theology, or rather who has the authority 
from God to pronounce it. If you can consider yourself a good researcher. It is 
an imperative that you do so, because to neglect it poses a grave personal 
uncertainty, which mere probability can only provide.??? Probable is not a 
certainty, thus uncertainty!
As a scientist, I would want to know the truth of a matter, not a probability. 
And to find out a truth, I must include EVERY POSSIBILITY for consideration, 
excluding none. This latter is quite impossible. Why? I did not mean to try 
every dream. I meant, not to exclude any offered alternative that could be true 
or possible. Equivocation.
The last time I looked, I found an estimate of ~33,000 religious schools of 
thought and I can't recall whether this was just Christian or all faiths (which 
would include reading the divinations in an owl's entrails).Of course. But you 
can leave the entrails out. You could start with the most likely, and the one 
with confirmable supernatural interventionist miracles.. A study of history 
would help, and a beginning would be to compare beteen those that claim 
exclusivity. If you are to take only those that have real miracles, then you 
can exclude all those outside Christianity to start with. Partisan.
Your problem is that you say a thing is more probable based upon a faith in a 
sequence of assumed probabilities, that is no more than a consensus of like 
minded anti-God vocal majority. Come now, such a thought is unworthy of you. 
And it's untrue to boot. 
Which part do you claim untrue, and which part unworthy? 
this: you say a thing is more probable based upon a faith in a sequence of 
assumed probabilities, Belittling. Every effort is made by honest men to 
discover truth. Most men are honest - science or releigion. that is no more 
than a consensus or this like minded anti-God vocal majority. Untrue. Very few 
are actively anti God. Many are apathetic.
Is it Untrue? Of course you cannot prove that and you yourself have demanded 
that God cannot be allowed into the equation. It is not that God is disallowed 
- it is that God does not meet the definition. We don't say that oil is not 
allowed to be mixed with water, it is just that they do not mix. And in the 
spirit of accomodation which I'm trying to reach here, you would help by not 
introducing homogenising agents. Let us try to avoid equivocation. And you 
yourself have already said here that science is based on probabilities and 
never certainties. Nothing, nothing is certain.
I realise the evidence is, as called in law, circumstantial, but isn't 
scientific evidence mostly circumstantial? To the latter, possibly. Concerning 
scripture, no, I have seen reference to many serious texts which take this 
view. It is more than my opinion.
Of course you would find people to call Biblical evidence less than 
circumstantial, but these would be people including modern church men who do 
not believe the Bible is the unerring word of God. But once again, such is not 
a matter of consensus. Consensus does not determine truth. I'd suggest to you 
that there is at least as much -- and I'd say more -- discord between religious 
faiths than you will find within science. And they all -- religions -- will 
claim that they have the truth. I've got the odd prosletising pamphlet lying 
around if you'd like quotes but again, in the spirit of accomodation, I feel 
confident you won't put me to the trouble of all that tiresome typing.
The same theology states elsewhere, that should a proof , an absolute certainty 
proof be given to show the earth moved, then theology would be obliged to 
re-examine its theology. That could hardly be called absolutism. But so far 
this certainty of proof has not been forthcoming. It is a feasable theory, but 
not absolute. and could be completely reversed without undoing any mathmatical 
laws. Likewise geocentricity. Yes but Philip, so long as theology claims 
infallibility unto itself, and retains the right to judge that which it judges 
as threatening to itself, it will never yield. 
No 'proof' will ever suffice. 
That is a presumption. No certain proof has ever been provided. And none ever 
will -- it doesn't exist. But most people are happy that as long as it 
continues to be the base of successful predictions, it will suffice. Surely you 
would not expect an infallible decision based upon probability? Such would be a 
contradiction. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Geocentrism has been 
declared infallibly. If an axiomatic undeniable proof of the heliocentric solar 
system was demonstrated, then not only would the doctrine of Infallibility, (an 
ordered system) go out the window, but along with it the entire Catholic 
religion, and its Bible, and the diety of Jesus Christ. The same would apply to 
all thos religions that sprang from the same Catholic fundamentalist beliefs. 
Of course the newchurch and the new Protestants would easily modify their 
doctrines and maintain their power base, as is happening already, based on the 
circumstantial evidence. Such would not be my Church,
 but of the anti-christ. 
You say, which it judges as threatening to itself, it will never yield. This is 
not logical? You are assuming that men would take a vocation which is mostly a 
sacrificing and dedicated life, giving up most of mans pleasures, for power 
based upon a lie. You cannot accuse us , even those on this list, of 
demanding/desiring personal power, to the point of denying an absolute proof. I 
doubt it. I know I would be free for many other pleasures should such proof be 
forthcoming, but you and I know such certain proof does not exist. Finally yes. 
Let me confirm that Judas was in His church, and Judas was a thief. Expect to 
find such even more so today. (Conspired infiltration is another story)
Theres meat in this this sandwitch:
(I) sometimes get the impression that you believe that I am ignorant of the 
basic tenets of Christianity. That I said this, "Does not the depth and 
richness of this Mans teachings not sometimes amaze you?" sort of denies that 
presumption or impression, but you have always shown some antagonism to 
religion involvement in science. By this I mean Christian researchers, not 
theologians, unless of course they were also physicists. . I really don't 
really care if an honest scientific researcher attends mass daily or sacrifices 
three frogs to Baal at every full moon. What matters is whether his research is 
accurate. It goes without saying though, that he should respect the right of 
others to their opinions. I would feel for the frogs though.
(I'm certainly not a scholar of the Judeo-Christian scriptures). But I had more 
than 40 years experience at mass each week, of sermons, readings from the old 
and new testaments, the catechism, communion and confirmation classes and a bit 
of reading on the side. If you mean you are a cradle Catholic, that was risky 
if you had to go through the transition from tradition to Newchurch. If you 
were born into Newchurch, then there is 90% chance you were taught error, and a 
100% chance the teachings were lacking. But then I've read many things in my 
life, and one day I began to read The Last Days of Socrates. And the more I 
read, the more I realised that this pious pagan was privy to truths which my 
upbringing encouraged me to believe were the exclusive preserve of the one true 
church -- Catholicism. Catholicism does not exclude the natural law, it being 
the first law of God , and Tradition, through Thomism, is built upon the 
philosophy of Aristotle, and his predecessors. I've
 read further and learned more since then. It's amazing what you can learn when 
you are no longer surrounded by a wall of coercive information but free to 
learn from all sources. The Church in her wisdom has always tried to protect 
her children from such freedom. This does not mean that coercion was the right 
method for all, though ok for the most. A true student not rebellious, had 
access to everything. Just go look at the 1914 Catholic Encyclopaedia, and any 
preV2 school apologetics text. I recall that you have indicated in other places 
the need to consider all things, to exclude nothing. Do you still hold to these 
views? Yes for me, mainly to confirm my faith and that of others, not to seek a 
reason to doubt it. But not for my "children" unless it was a desire by them to 
know more of their faith, or they had missionary zeal to help their friends. I 
was a Protestant convert, and nothing was kept from me when answering any 
question I asked. My cradle Catholic friends who
 did not seek, never got past the catechism, which normally is more than 
sufficient in a family with holy parents. . 
Paul merely refusing to consider a God, does not, and cannot make Him 
nonexistent. I'm aware of that. Your reasoning is dangerous, because your soul 
is eternal, and an eternity of hell fire, cannot be evaded after death.. Its 
forever. Your science cannot disprove Him. Nor your theology prove Him. I've 
asked several times whether "We know that God is true because the Bible tells 
us so. And we know the Bible tells the truth because it is God's word." is an 
example of circular logic but no one will touch it. But that Paul, if it were 
true, is a stalemate. Can any soul gamble his eternal life on probabilities? Is 
it worth such a risk? If God truly exists, I feel He will reward honesty and 
integrity. And that I repeat, "that Paul is a stalemate". UNCERTAINTY 
And therein lies the gamble that every rebel takes. Its the gamble I referred 
to, and I could never take such a gamble even in doubt. If God refuses your 
integrity and honesty, after death, then you will hate Him and nash your teeth 
for eternity. Wherever in the Bible you look, leave the church out of it for a 
while, this God does not think like us. He is a harsh and uncompromising God. 
He made the rules, and is not about to break them Himself. 
This is why I "HATE" Him. Not real hate as that would be self destruction. I, 
like yourself hate this philosophy, a God that could even consider a place like 
Hell. But I'm not about to gamble my eternity on my own limited intellect to 
understand His intellect. I bow and submit to the whip. "as little 
children..".total obedience.
Philip, I'm sorry but I think you are hung up on semantics, overly concerned 
with theological legalities. What was it Jesus said -- "These people honour Me 
with their lips but their hearts are far from Me"? (Not to be taken as a 
personal accusation). But you didn't answer the question -- what word would you 
substitute? For facts? Probability comes to mind. Theory? It is true that many 
commentators do write as though they are describing certainties. This is 
regrettable. But you'll notice that we don't generate "Laws" anymore -- the 
term "theory" is preferred. Why, there is even the "Germ Theory of Disease". 
Now most people would think that that at least had been settled.
Not hung up on semantics. But yes semantics, the comprehension of words is what 
the modern world is having problems over. Remember Prime Minister Whitlam over 
how to pronounce kilometre? His error was a serious grammatical misconstruction 
which altered the meaning and understanding of a heap of literature. They 
changed some dictionaries to make him right, but how can it be anything but a 
lie, to ignore the suffix kilo, and call it a kil, and ignore the unit metre, 
and call it an ometer? And this subject is so serious that for the sake of the 
reader, I stop here and will continue with Part 2 tomorrow.. 
Continued. Part 2 response to Paul. His last paragraph was , What was it Jesus 
said -- "These people honour Me with their lips but their hearts are far from 
Me "? (Not to be taken as a personal accusation). 
hung up on semantics: Not so much on the meaning of words, but their misuse, 
specifically in translations of the Bible into venacular. For example, the 
english word LOVE is used almost everywhere for charity, or "charitus" Only in 
John, do they get it right. More ado about this word later, but your quote from 
Jesus gives me a good opportunity to show where I am coming from. "their hearts 
are far from Me" You know this is why the Church insisted on Latin with its 
original dictionary, not modern updated varieties. 
Take the use of "heart" for this discussion. Today everyone takes this word to 
associate with emotional feeling. This is not what Jesus was intending to 
convey. Elsewhere He showed that "feeling emotion" was transitory.Of use, but 
of no real value. In the religious sense, the heart means the "centre" of the 
Thus I would render His phrase this way. "These people honour me with their 
lips, but their intentions are not mine." I would judge both statements to be 
equivalent. But as long as you insist on Certainties, Truth, and Absolute Truth 
(a redundancy if I ever heard one) you will face difficulties. But if you 
accept statements in the spirit in which they are offered, make an effort at 
understanding, and are aware that unCertainty, High Level of Confidence and 
Great probability are the norm, we can proceed with the reasonable expectation 
that all will be well. In other words they are liars and pretenders. Whereas 
another, may honour Him with their lips, maybe, or even silently, yet fail due 
to weakness of will, to do His will. As did Peter, in fear of pain, and myself 
in uncontrollable hormone activity. See the technical details on Biblical 
mis-uses of Love at the end. (though I doubt the people of the 15th century or 
earlier had such misconceptions)
Back to Pauls post. 
Its a matter of two faiths.. One faith in God.. The other faith in Man. we can 
easily see where that latter faith is leading us today. I contest this idea 
that there are two faiths. Well actually there are many faiths but man and 
science are not among them. Self confidence is not a faith. Science is not a 
faith, it is a disciplined explanation of reality -- incomplete certainly, but 
it still dispells a lot of fear.
My goodness Paul, how you wriggle? -- incomplete certainly??? But I get your 
meaning. You have faith in your self confidence that is not a faith. 
Conviction? Isn't conviction faith? Of course there are many faiths in that 
sense you proposed, but the world has two faiths. Those who accept the 
supernatural, and those who because of their conviction, there self confidence, 
(pride?) will not accept it. If there was as much evidence for the supernatural 
as there is for heliocentrism, I'd have to think pretty hard about my position. 
But while one prediction after another within the heliocentric theory has been 
shown to have utility, I don't believe that, under controlled conditions, any 
prediction relying on the supernatural has ever been demonstrated. 
Because you do not accept the dictionary true meaning that a fact is a truth, 
an axiom, A fact or a truth is an infallibly true. It can be declared a fact 
infallibly, (thats a double superlative) that the three internal angles of a 
triangle add up to 180 degrees. If it is drawn on a plane surface. Sorry, that 
was a bit mean! No not mean, each plane has its own angles.. I was referring to 
spherical trig. Even in a pyramid, I stick to my case. (whose getting semantic? 
grin. Not semantics, "... but yer honour, I pleads guilty to gettin' teknical". 
That is a fact. That the world turns is an opinion, even a probability but not 
yet a proven fact. But it is highly probable. I would have not so many decades 
ago agreed with you. More, I would have thought any contrary view insane. Thats 
because I believed my teachers when they gave me glossed over facts. The word 
theory is rarely used in popular (people consumption) texts. The maths fitted, 
so I fell for that being a proof. 
would he (Edison) have gambolled his life on it do you think?). He nearly did 
.By your definition, he could not have been certain, because there is no 
Biblical description of a light bulb. obstropolis, and indicative of sarcasm, 
or is it real hate for things God and Bible? No Philip -- I do not hate God or 
the Bible. And I'm not being sarcastic. But you were still being obstropolis. A 
light bulb has no bearing on theology. He had faith or conviction that he would 
find it. God would not come into the equation. I have already shown, that adam 
knew the light bulb was unimportant to the salvation of man, but no doubt Satan 
knew it was important in mans eventual downfall. Have you not considered that 
the appollo mission is akin to the titanic, and it likewise akin to the Tower 
of babel? I confess I don't see a connection here.
End of sequence. 
Paul D

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

Other related posts: