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

"Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:oPqdnZLbUsnPxXzanZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx:


"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.

Your own source says it does.

"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.

None of those words are mine. That is indicated by the quote marks.
What the *** are you jibbering about, 'tard-boy?

"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.

He found it to be dangerous, since heresy of any form tended to
result in riots in those days. A purely political, secular concern,
after all, for all governments.

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."

As I recall, Galileo, being, in the end, a ***, did, in fact,
denounce heliocentrism, and promised not to teach it any further.
And, when hauled in front of the Inquisition again, later, denied
he had continued to teach it, despite having published a book on
the subject.

None of this, of course, addresses the reality that the entire
affair was caused far more by Galileo's talent for pissing off
people with powerful friends than his talents as a scientist.

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

Which is meaningless, of course.

"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.

It's *your* source, retard.

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.

If the source is worthless, son, it's *your* source. If you don't
like what it says, you should stop citing it.

Retard.

Still can't find a second example, eh? As predicted.

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
.

Loading