[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> claim that the Council of Trent still held and that heliocentrism could   
   >> not be used to challenge the beliefs of the Church Fathers.   
   >>   
   >> All of this just means that it isn't worth your stupid efforts to reject   
   >> reality.  The creationists of the Catholic Church were once geocentric   
   >> creationists.  Just as they were once young earth creationists.  When   
   >> did the church give up on Noah's flood?  Centuries before Darwin   
   >> creationists were already claiming that there must have been multiple   
   >> global floods to account for the multiple biomes that they were   
   >> observing in the fossil record.  These types of beliefs are not noted   
   >> because no one ever faced the death penalty for believing something   
   >> else, but the church was still wrong about them.   
   >>   
   >> One of the crazy things is that the anti geocentric catholics blame the   
   >> protestants for harassing the Pope into doing something about the   
   >> heliocentric heretics.  It was the protestants that were claiming that   
   >> the Pope was not doing anything, but let the heliocentric heresy to   
   >> fester.  The anti geocentric catholics definitely do not want the Pope   
   >> to have been involved in a formal heresy charge, and they do not want   
   >> him to be involved in any type of heresy charge.  Even though the anti   
   >> geocentrics admit that the Pope had the Galileo case published and   
   >> disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the heliocentric   
   >> heresy, they claim that it was not an official papal action, so it does   
   >> not reflect on papal infallibility.  Such is the stupidity involved in   
   >> this issue.   
   >   
   > Good God but you have a fertile imagination. Not a word of those 3   
   > paragraphs is true.   
      
   Why keep lying about the situation.  You could have gone to the same   
   sources because I linked to them all.  The anti geocentric site actually   
   had to most about the issue.  They tried to cover all the bases and   
   excuses, and some of their excuses were pretty lame.   
      
   Really, how can you deny that the pope had the Galileo fiasco published   
   and disseminated through out the church when the anti geocentrics admit   
   that he did that, and even admit that he did it to quash the   
   heliocentric disaffections that were going through the church at the   
   time.  They wanted to protect papal infallibility by claiming that, that   
   was not an offical papal act.  That is just nuts.   
      
   It was the anti geocentric site that had the full papal decree from the   
   19th century (it took the church that long to try to make things right),   
   and you could read it and determine for yourself that the conservative   
   Catholic site was correct.  The pope did leave some restrictions in   
   place, but they were not explicitly stated, and the pope just wrote that   
   authors needed to check with the church to see if what they wanted to   
   publish was OK to publish.  He seemed to claim that if the heliocentric   
   publications were not about planetary motions or telling time that you   
   needed to check with the church about it.  The conservative Catholic   
   site had claimed that the restrictions were concerning the beliefs of   
   the church fathers, and that the Council of Trent still held, but there   
   probably isn't any way to check that out unless you can find someone   
   that checked out the remaining restrictions at that time.   
      
   Your denial can't change reality.  Even your trusted site called it a   
   heresy for both Galileo conflicts, and both anti geocentric and   
   geocentric Catholics agree that the inquisition made it a formal heresy   
   charge and banned Copernican writings because of the geocentric beliefs   
   of the church fathers.   
      
   Ron Okimoto>   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> It was claimed to be a heresy in Galileo's   
   >>>> sentencing, just not a formal heresy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Just what has always been claimed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto>   
   >>>>>> They wanted the Pope to not be   
   >>>>>> associated with a formal heresy charge, but even they admitted that the   
   >>>>>> Inquisition had made heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge when   
   >>>>>> Galileo first faced the charge.  The anti geocentrics just claim that   
   >>>>>> the Inquisition case against Galileo was not adopted by the court when   
   >>>>>> the Pope got involved.  So both Catholic sides of the issue know that it   
   >>>>>> was deemed to be a formal heresy.  One side just does not want it to   
   >>>>>> have been a formal heresy charge when the Pope was involved.  The wiki   
   >>>>>> also notes that it was deemed to be a formal heresy the first time   
   >>>>>> Galileo faced the charge.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)