From: rokimoto557@gmail.com
On 2/19/2026 11:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:13 -0600, RonO
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2026 6:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:26:02 -0600, RonO
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> He quoted him to claim that he was wrong about the church fathers
>>>> "teaching" geocentrism. Just as I explained in what you snipped out.
>>>
>>> Let me get this right as it goes to the very heart of your arguments;
>>> do you now accept that the Church Fathers did not *teach*
>>> geocentricism?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> Some of the church fathers did specifically support geocentrism with
>> Bible verses, and that should in no way be denied as a form a
>> "teaching". All the others just adhered to the geocentric view and
>> wrote as if the creation was geocentric.
>
> That is where your argument completely falls apart.
>
> In order for something from the Church Fathers to qualify as a
> doctrine of the Catholic Church, two conditions have to be met:
>
> a) It has to be relevant to Faith or Morals
>
> b) It has to be agreed and taught UNANIMOUSLY by the
> Church Fathers [1]
This is bullshit. Just like the authors of the Bible and New Testament
wrote about what they thought they understood so did the Church Fathers.
That was all the Inquisition and the Pope in 1616 needed to condemn
heliocentrism.
>
> Leaving aside that geocentrism has nothing to do with Faith or
> Morals, and leaving aside your convoluted idea of what constitutes
> "teaching", your admission that what you are claiming only came from
> *some* Fathers means that it was never Church doctrine and therefore
> never a cause of heresy.
In your dreams.
Why do you think that we still have flat earth, geocentric, and young
earth creationists? Heliocentrism became heresy for the same reason why
geocentric and young earth creationists still exist. The Catholic
Church eventually came around to another view point, but it took a while
and multiple failures for a majority of them to do it.
The AIG still has the beliefs that still rule the Christian beliefs of a
lot of believers.
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/?srsltid=AfmBOop-z7Yw4o
JPCkYPqEuMm_DWRAULlSmRsKqtbqR9hrUptGCRDL9
QUOTE:
The 66 books of the Bible are the unique, written Word of God. The Bible
is divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely authoritative, and
sufficient in everything it teaches. Its assertions are factually true
in all the original autographs. Its authority is not limited to
spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions
in such fields as history and science (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; 2 Timothy
3:16–17; Revelation 22:18–19).
END QUOTE:
The Bible cannot be wrong about anything or you can't trust what is in it.
Even though Saint Augustine warned against this Biblical interpretation
it didn't stop the early church from clinging to this notion. You even
cling to vestiges of this Biblical belief in your claims of
misinterpretation of the Bible. It is your excuse for the Bible not
being inerrant. The Reason to Believe day for agers understand that it
is impossible to produce a literal interpretation that fits into nature,
but they can't give up on this belief. They have gone so far as to
rewrite parts of the Bible in order for a literal interpretation to be
viable. This is insanity, but it has been the way a lot of Christians
have viewed the Bible throughout the history of Christianity, and they
still exist.
>
> You like to castigate ID'ers because they fall for the "bait and
> switch". That is exactly what you have done, fallen for a bait and
> switch from the geocentrists who persuaded you that geocentrism was
> doctrine; they started off by making out that the Church Fathers
> *taught* geocentrism and the quietly switched to the Fathers
> *believing* in geocentrism, simply ignoring the fact that the most
> they had was indirect comments by *some* Fathers, not *all*;
> essentially their version of a "teach the controversy" type scam.
What a nut job. You are the one that fell for the lies and excuses of
the past. Your side had to quote mine, and lie about reality. The
church fathers were just all wrong about geocentrism, end of story. If
they had objected to geocentrism some of them would have noted that
because some of them were already claiming that the earth was not flat,
and that the earth was likely older than the Bible was claiming. None
of them did that in the case of geocentrism. They all accepted
geocentrism, and their writings reflected that belief. Origen was
against flat earth creationism, and was one of the first old earth day
for ager type creationists, but he was still a geocentrist and believed
in a Biblical firmament. Nature just is not Biblical. Most of
Christianity has accepted that nature is the creation, but nature is not
the creation described in the Bible. The authors of the Bible just
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
