Re: The Lord takes another ruinous heathen: D&D creator passes away


"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A648393F3392taustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:U8idnecOgYpLKkPanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:Xns9A6472AB876C9taustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:eOCdnTUwVZRdLEPanZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Terry Austin" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A63DD5F15B49taustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:QvSdnaahp_eN80HanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Terry Austin" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A62B2BECA525taustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:R6mdnTn7vP9X3kHanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Terry Austin" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A62885C2EAF6taustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:FqOdneZpj5MfuEHanZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"Terry Austin" <taustinca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A61BF590349Etaustingmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Are you going to whine some more, Terry? How about
telling us again how there is no possible conflict
between science and religion, you fucking buffoon.

If you weren't a retard, you'd agree.

Unlikely, since you are wrong. Try looking up
"Heliocentrism."

That would be the theory that Copernicus first
published?

Yes, and I am familiar with the history, including stuff
you omitted.

But not including stuff you omitted, that demonstrates
that heliocentrism actually supports me, not you.

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was placed on the
Index Librorum Prohibitorum for over 140 years.

Indeed. Of course, it was available, in its original
form, to any scientist who wanted it, and in its abridged
form, to anyone.

No, it really wasn't.

Yes, it really was.

Feel free to prove that it was available to "any scientist
who wanted it" during the 4 years it was pulled out of
circulation, chump.

Feel free to prove it wasn't, 'tard.

It was pulled out of circulation for 4 years, moron.

I see no reference to "talking out one's ass" here:

No, you don't. Try reading The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume
IV. The folks who make that encyclopedia certainly think it was
pulled out of circulation for 4 years:

"On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the
Congregation of the Index 'until corrected', and in 1620 these
corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the
heliocentric system was represented ascertain, had to be either
omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was
allowed."

Which is to say, as I have pointed out, your example actually
supports me, not you.

No, it really does not.

"At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was
as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection
was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all
phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all
practical purposes be adopted by astronomers."

You are weaseling with the word hypothesis, using the modern meaning when
the older meaning (a mere clever idea or a convenient mathematical construct
that has no necessary relationship with reality) was what was being used.

"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it
will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of
the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we
should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce
that to be false which is demonstrated."

You are quoting from the Cardinal Robert Belarmine's letter to Paolo
Foscarini. Allow me (from the same letter):

"For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the
appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak
well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians.
But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the
heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis )
without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the
third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very
dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic
theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy
Scriptures false."

In other words, it is fine as a mathematical contruct, but dangerous and
injurious to "holy faith" to treat as real. Apparently, Bellarmine found
this to be a conflict.

Furthermore, we have the following, from the special injunction (February
16, 1616):

"...the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also present still, the
aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the
whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said
Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the
above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world
and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any
way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would
start proceedings against him."

That sure sounds like a conflict, and "in the name of His Holiness the Pope"
as well.

"By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time
prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each
instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being
such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an
hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler)."

You need to source and date that quote. I have only found it as part of a
bunch of Catholic articles, which have no source document named, nor date.
The "with permission" could easily be referring to the time *after* the ban
was removed.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley



.

Loading