From: rokimoto557@gmail.com
On 2/15/2026 11:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 12:36:58 -0600, RonO wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/2026 5:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:56:00 -0600, RonO wrote:
>>>
> […]
>
>>>> "Galileo well knew that the Fathers of the Church held to a geocentric
>>>> view of the universe and taught the same in a unanimous way as any other
>>>> view would have been immediately recognized by them as against Scripture
>>>> and common sense or reason"
>>>>
>>>> This quote comes from an article on Galileo's heresy,
>>>
>>> What article?
>>
>> An article discussed by the anti geocentric author on your site. I
>> provided the link above.
>
> FFS, the quote came from Paul Haigh, a geocentrist. The author quoted
> him to show how wrong his claims was:
>
> "Haigh's error is thinking that the Fathers of the Church taught
> geocentrism as they taught christological or sacramental doctrines-as
> beliefs to be held as matters of Catholic Faith."
>
> It beats me why you keep taking the opinions of geocentrists against
> that of reputable historians and other writers recognised by the
> Catholic Church. The only thing I can come up with is that it comes
> from your dislike of the Church and that it's some sort of weird
> application of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
>
He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
"teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
Your source did not deny that the church fathers were geocentrists, and
even admitted that they wrote about the world as geocentric. He was
doing it to refute the geocentrists that you claim don't exist, and
don't believe what you don't want them to believe. He did not refute
the fact that all the church fathers were geocentrists and accepted that
Biblical interpretation. You can look it up and as your source admits
some church fathers used Bible verses to support their geocentric
beliefs. Just because your source wants to claim that just writing
about the creation as being geocentric is not teaching it, doesn't mean
what you want it to mean. They were all Biblical geocentrists. Some of
them would likely have changed their minds when confronted by reality,
and some of them may have gone into denial as the the current Biblical
geocentrists are today.
This came up with a google search:
QUOTE:
Early Church Fathers and medieval theologians, including Lactantius (c.
250–325), Augustine of Hippo (354–430), and later Thomas Aquinas
(1225–1274), supported a geocentric cosmos by interpreting biblical
passages—such as Psalms 104:5 ("earth... shall not be moved") and Joshua
10:12 ("sun, stand still")—literally to mean the Earth is stationary.
END QUOTE:
Tertullian is the one that I recall, but he isn't included until later
in the Google response, and it isn't stated what Bible verses he used to
support geocentrism.
It beats me why you can't accept reality and what your own trusted
sources tell you about reality.
The Bible was just wrong about nature, and the early church fathers were
unanimously geocentric. There are still flat earth geocentric, young
earth, old earth day for ager Catholics that all misinterpret the Bible
because it cannot be taken literally. The Bible is just wrong about a
lot of things about nature. As your source admits the authors of the
Bible, just like the church fathers, wrote about what they thought that
they understood. Their understanding does not reflect reality as we now
understand it. Even if we wrote the Bible today we could still be wrong
about some things.
Ron Okimoto
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
