On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:58:44 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:59:12 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Second Harran repost that demonstrates that the Bellarme quote is just
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review.
Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the >>>>>> form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer
review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to >>>>>> share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always >>>>> been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that >>>>> you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that
explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise
condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim
that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying
about what he said?
This current stupidity that you are
putting up is your dishonwest response to how your latest source lied >>>>> about the situation in order to support your take on the issue. You >>>>> could not deal honestly with how your source had been caught lying and >>>>> you ran, sniped and ran, and lied about running. You then tried to
quote mine the document that demonstrated that your source had lied
about the inquisition being the only church body to have condemned
heliocentrism. The Jesuits were pretty matter of fact that the Pope had >>>>> condemned heliocentrism and put up the document that the pope had
ordered to be produced. You tried to quote mine the document as some >>>>> excused for your dishonest behavior.
Nothing that you can possibly do will undo your past failures. You need >>>>> to apologize for doing it and stop doing the stupid and dishonest junk. >>>>>
[rCa]
prevarication because the Pope agreed with the Inquisition in 1616.
So *you* know better than the Vatican's most senior cardinal, who
dealt directly with Galileo on behalf of the Pope and the Holy Office
(Inquisition)
*You* know better than the all the highly qualified researchers who
spent years studying and writing about Galileo.
No matter what is written in the Wiki article, you know better what it
says.
You don't need any cites or any quotes, you just know this stuff. You
should seriously consider putting yourself forward for the next
presidential election. You are even better at this stuff than the
present incumbent.
[..]
Meant to include that anyone who contradicts you is a lying asshole.
Another important quality that would make you a great replacement
president.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:30:28 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 4/17/2026 2:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:59:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2026 6:56 am, sticks wrote:
[...]
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner Gitt. >>>>> It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways >>>>> of people exactly like the Emperor. It might also help you in your
understanding of things. It's a solid book.
Thanks - got Kindle version for $10.
Both of you - instead of just reading someone who agrees with your
existing opinions, why not read someone who challenges those opinions?
I don't "just" read agreeing books, Martin. Odd way to start a
suggestion, IMO. If you've been following Mark's recent posts you would
realize they are of research work done not by people of faith, but
evolutionists.
But it is work by people of faith that I am talking about, not those
who reject religious belief out of hand. Can you identify any book you
have ever read by a theistic evolutionist?
When I read things I know ahead of time I won't agree
with, it is written by more contemporary scientific authors so I can
understand what they believe and what their theories appear to give
evidence for. Sometimes it is a struggle to get through, and I can't
finish them in entirety. Point is, I am not against differing opinions
as you seem to suggest.
Not because those challenges will necessarily change your existing
opinions but because they may encourage you to think about your
existing opinions in a different, possibly deeper, way.
Deeper? Unlike the Emperor, I realize people interpret and accept
things differently than I do. What I don't do is demand they think the
way I do.
Nor do I.
I don't care, to be honest.
I think that is the key difference between us - I do care. When people disagree with me about my religious beliefs, I take that as a failure
on my part because as a Christian, I have the duty of trying to spread
the Good News and I may have failed to do so. If I can understand why
people disagree with me and try to deal with those disagreements, I
have a better chance of at least showing that my religious belief is
not quite as foolish as they might think on first appearance.
I will be adding some thoughts to Mark shortly, but I gotta get to the
gym and mow the lawn before it rains.
Also that in two different places, he states that heliocentrism was
*not* declared a heresy.
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 11:49:31 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also that in two different places, he states that heliocentrism was
*not* declared a heresy.
'He'= Finocchiaro
You have just become a lying asshole about this issue.Let's get this right:
*You* claimed the Wiki article says Galileo faced a heresy charge in
1616 but it doesn't.
*You* claimed the Wiki article had been edited but it hadn't.
*You" said you hadn't claimed it was edited even though your words
were preserved in the text you quoted.
Somehow, that makes*me* the lying asshole.
Welcome to Ron's Twilight Zone where reality is whatever Ron wants it
to be.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/9/2026 9:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 09:20:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:Snipping and running will never change reality.
On 6/9/2026 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review. >>>>>>>> Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the >>>>>>>> form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer >>>>>>>> review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to >>>>>>>> share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always >>>>>>> been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that >>>>>>> you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that >>>>>> explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise >>>>>> condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim >>>>>> that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying >>>>>> about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition >>>>> and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had
heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in >>>>> 1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and >>>>> that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a >>>>> heretic.
LOL, Ron's version of Taking the Fifth
[rCa]
keep lying about reality.
I asked you a straight question and you didn't answer it. *That* is
running away.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:38:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 09:20:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:Snipping and running will never change reality.
On 6/9/2026 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review. >>>>>>>>> Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the >>>>>>>>> form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer >>>>>>>>> review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to >>>>>>>>> share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always
been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that
you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that >>>>>>> explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise >>>>>>> condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim >>>>>>> that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying >>>>>>> about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition >>>>>> and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had >>>>>> heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in >>>>>> 1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and >>>>>> that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a >>>>>> heretic.
LOL, Ron's version of Taking the Fifth
[rCa]
keep lying about reality.
I asked you a straight question and you didn't answer it. *That* is
running away.
I agree totally - that's why you should stop doing it.
[...]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:38:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 09:20:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:Snipping and running will never change reality.
On 6/9/2026 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review. >>>>>>>>> Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the >>>>>>>>> form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer >>>>>>>>> review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to >>>>>>>>> share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always
been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that
you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that >>>>>>> explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise >>>>>>> condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim >>>>>>> that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying >>>>>>> about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition >>>>>> and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had >>>>>> heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in >>>>>> 1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and >>>>>> that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a >>>>>> heretic.
LOL, Ron's version of Taking the Fifth
[rCa]
keep lying about reality.
I asked you a straight question and you didn't answer it. *That* is
running away.
I agree totally - that's why you should stop doing it.
[...]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/10/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:38:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 09:20:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Snipping and running will never change reality.
On 6/9/2026 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to >>>>> keep lying about reality.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review. >>>>>>>>>> Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the >>>>>>>>>> form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer >>>>>>>>>> review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to
share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always
been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that
you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that >>>>>>>> explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise >>>>>>>> condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim >>>>>>>> that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying >>>>>>>> about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition >>>>>>> and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had >>>>>>> heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in >>>>>>> 1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and >>>>>>> that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a >>>>>>> heretic.
LOL, Ron's version of Taking the Fifth
[rCa]
I asked you a straight question and you didn't answer it. *That* is
running away.
I agree totally - that's why you should stop doing it.
[...]
So why do you have to do it in order to continue your assoholic
harassment? You even just snipped and ran from the Google Galileo
thread. There is no doubt that you are good with snipping and running,
it is the only way that you can continue your assoholic harassment.
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:52:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:38:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2026 9:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 09:20:34 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Snipping and running will never change reality.
On 6/9/2026 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
LOL to lying assholes like you that have to snip and run in order to >>>>>> keep lying about reality.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:55:32 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 6/8/2026 7:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 12:46:03 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/7/2026 11:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 11:02:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You have written elsewhere about your experience in peer review. >>>>>>>>>>> Imagine for a minute that the claims you have been making are in the
form of a paper for publication that you have been asked to peer >>>>>>>>>>> review. Here are a summary of the relevant sources. Would you care to
share what your reacation as peer reviewer would be?
You need to quit lying about the past and stop doing it. It has always
been your sources that have come up short or supported the sources that
you want to keep lying about.
So, when Cardinal Bellarmine issued a written statement in 1616 that >>>>>>>>> explicitly stated that Galileo had been neither tried nor otherwise >>>>>>>>> condemned, was he lying, coming up short, or supporting your claim >>>>>>>>> that Galileo was charged with heresy at that time? Or am I just lying >>>>>>>>> about what he said?
Nothing that you can do will undo what you have already done.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a formal heresy by the Inquisition >>>>>>>> and you found out that the Pope agreed with the Inquisition and had >>>>>>>> heliocentrism condemned in 1616. Galileo was not tried for heresy in >>>>>>>> 1616 because he maintained that he did not believe in the heresy, and >>>>>>>> that his evidence supporting heliocentrism did not mean that he was a >>>>>>>> heretic.
LOL, Ron's version of Taking the Fifth
[rCa]
I asked you a straight question and you didn't answer it. *That* is
running away.
I agree totally - that's why you should stop doing it.
[...]
So why do you have to do it in order to continue your assoholic
harassment? You even just snipped and ran from the Google Galileo
thread. There is no doubt that you are good with snipping and running,
it is the only way that you can continue your assoholic harassment.
Nope, putting you on the spot is the opposite of running away. You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate
too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate
too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up
with?
On 6/10/2026 9:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:52:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
Snipping and running is not putting anyone on the spot. Just go up this >thread and you will see yourself quote mining the Wiki in order to try
to justify your snipping and running from what you could not deal with.
There is absolutely nothing that I have to run from.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate
too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up
with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
Here it is again:
====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?
Google response:
Galileo was not charged or convicted of heresy in 1616. Instead,
the Roman Catholic Church formally banned the teaching of
heliocentrism, and Galileo was privately ordered by Cardinal
Bellarmine to abandon his defense of the theory that the Earth moves
around the Sun.
=======================================
[...]
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:22:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 9:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:52:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Snipping and running is not putting anyone on the spot. Just go up this
thread and you will see yourself quote mining the Wiki in order to try
to justify your snipping and running from what you could not deal with.
I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of me
quote mining. You haven't been able to do so because there is no quote
mining so you just run away from it.
There is absolutely nothing that I have to run from.
In addition to the quote mining accusation, here are a few examples of
other things you have run away from:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
1) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by me. You have run away every time because you can't
identify even one example.
2) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by my sourcses. You have run away every time because you
can't identify even one example.
3) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of my
sources supporting your claims. You have run away every time because
you can't identify even one example.
4) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a reputable source supporting your claims. You have run away every time
because you can't identify even one example.
5) You have now run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contradicts your claim that Galileo was charged with heresy
in 1616.
I would now ask you to identify a single example of me not addressing
any issue or question brought up by you. My expectation is that this
will just be another thing you run away from.
On 6/12/2026 5:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:22:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 9:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:52:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Snipping and running is not putting anyone on the spot. Just go up this >>> thread and you will see yourself quote mining the Wiki in order to try
to justify your snipping and running from what you could not deal with.
I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of me
quote mining. You haven't been able to do so because there is no quote
mining so you just run away from it.
There is absolutely nothing that I have to run from.
In addition to the quote mining accusation, here are a few examples of
other things you have run away from:
What an assoholic liar. You are the one that is running from your quote >mining reposts. You lied about running from the papal condemnation, and >then you tried to quote mine the document in order to justify your
stupid lies.
There is nothing that I need to run from.
1) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by me. You have run away every time because you can't
identify even one example.
2) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by my sourcses. You have run away every time because you
can't identify even one example.
3) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of my
sources supporting your claims. You have run away every time because
you can't identify even one example.
4) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
reputable source supporting your claims. You have run away every time
because you can't identify even one example.
5) You have now run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contradicts your claim that Galileo was charged with heresy
in 1616.
I would now ask you to identify a single example of me not addressing
any issue or question brought up by you. My expectation is that this
will just be another thing you run away from.
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate
too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up
with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged
with heresy in 1616.
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the
inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged
with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually contradicts you.
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther
were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened
with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of
the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims
made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the
harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and
the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over
the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail
in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to
know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
[rCa]
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:27:33 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:22:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 9:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:52:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Snipping and running is not putting anyone on the spot. Just go up this >>>> thread and you will see yourself quote mining the Wiki in order to try >>>> to justify your snipping and running from what you could not deal with. >>>I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of me
quote mining. You haven't been able to do so because there is no quote
mining so you just run away from it.
There is absolutely nothing that I have to run from.
In addition to the quote mining accusation, here are a few examples of
other things you have run away from:
What an assoholic liar. You are the one that is running from your quote
mining reposts. You lied about running from the papal condemnation, and
then you tried to quote mine the document in order to justify your
stupid lies.
Yet again, you cannot point to single example of a lie or a quote
mine.
There is nothing that I need to run from.
So why don't you deal with the things I asked for?
[rCa]
1) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by me. You have run away every time because you can't
identify even one example.
2) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
lie told by my sourcses. You have run away every time because you
can't identify even one example.
3) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of my
sources supporting your claims. You have run away every time because
you can't identify even one example.
4) I have asked you numerous times to identify just one example of a
reputable source supporting your claims. You have run away every time
because you can't identify even one example.
5) You have now run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI
directly contradicts your claim that Galileo was charged with heresy
in 1616.
I would now ask you to identify a single example of me not addressing
any issue or question brought up by you. My expectation is that this
will just be another thing you run away from.
I got that last one right.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/16/2026 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >>> inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged
with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually
contradicts you.
Why do you think that Galileo would have to swear that he did not
believe the heresy in order to be released from Rome? You just have to
stop lying about reality. You need to apologize for your stupid
behavior for years of harassment on this issue and quit doing it. It
never mattered that Galileo was never formally charged in 1616, you and
the church understands what the situation was when Galileo was forced to >remain in Rome. They wanted Galileo to confess without bringing
charges, but Galileo maintained that he did not believe the heresy, and
that putting up evidence supporting the heresy was not the same as
believing the heresy was fact. They refused to let him leave Rome until
the matter was settled. He was obviously facing the charge of heresy.
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for
heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther
were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened
with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of
the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His
particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims
made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the
harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video
channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and
the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over
the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail
in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to
know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
Nothing will change what you have lied about for years. My sources have >never been demonstrated to be deficient.
Your sources have always come
up short every single time.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:42:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/2026 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that >>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >>>> inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged
with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually
contradicts you.
Why do you think that Galileo would have to swear that he did not
believe the heresy in order to be released from Rome? You just have to
stop lying about reality. You need to apologize for your stupid
behavior for years of harassment on this issue and quit doing it. It
never mattered that Galileo was never formally charged in 1616, you and
the church understands what the situation was when Galileo was forced to
remain in Rome. They wanted Galileo to confess without bringing
charges, but Galileo maintained that he did not believe the heresy, and
that putting up evidence supporting the heresy was not the same as
believing the heresy was fact. They refused to let him leave Rome until
the matter was settled. He was obviously facing the charge of heresy.
From Stillman Drake [1]:
<quote>
On 11 March [1616] Galileo was granted a long audience with the pope.
It is fairly safe to conclude that Bcllarmine had meanwhile told Paul
V what had actually happened at his palace on 26 February and had
arranged this audience to put Galileo's mind completely at rest. At
any rate when Galileo told him of his concern about false accusations
made by his enemies, the pope assured him that he knew Galileo's
integrity and sincerity, told him not to worry, said that not only he
but the entire Congregation of the Holy Office knew about his unjust persecutions, and added the unusual remark that so long as he, Paul V,
lived, Galileo remained secure. Considering Guicciardini's description
of this pope and his previous attitude in this matter, it can hardly
be doubted that his friendly remark reflected new information recently
given to him.
But despite all evidence that Galileo personally was in good repute
with the highest authorities at Rome, Sagredo wrote on this very day,
11 March, to tell him that word was spreading in Venice that Galileo
had been called to Rome to account for his belief in the earth's
motion and that he must bend his neck. In April Castelli wrote from
Pisa that Galileo was said there to have abjured secretly in the hand
of Bcllarmine. Sagredo then wrote again; rumor at Venice now had it
that Galileo had been severely admonished and forced to do penance.
Hence before he left Rome Galileo spoke again to Bcllarmine, showing
him these letters (and perhaps others). It was all very well for the
cardinal to ask Galileo to treat some things as if they had never
happened, but such rumors would damage his credibility with the grand
duke at Florence. Bellarmine at once recognized the danger and the
injustice; he wrote out a signed statement that Galileo had neither
abjured nor done penance, but had merely been informed of the general
edict governing all Catholics. With this affidavit in hand, Galileo
returned to Florence and this stage of his relations with the Roman Inquisition was over.
</quote>
But then again, what would Drake know, after all he was only "probably
the foremost authority on Galileo of our times" [2]
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for
heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther
were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened
with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of
the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His
particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims
made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the
harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video
channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and
the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over
the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail
in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to
know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
Nothing will change what you have lied about for years. My sources have
never been demonstrated to be deficient.
'Source' singular, not plural. The only source that has supported you
is the anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism. It beats me how you
have always disparaged Tony Pagano yet give so much credence to this
guy.
Your sources have always come
up short every single time.
So you aren't interested in finding out what really happened, you
prefer to wallow in the ignorance of your own misunderstandings.
[rCa]
=============================================
[1] Drake, Stillmann, and Winifred Lovell Wisan. "Galileo at work: His scientific biography." (1979): 54-56.
[2] Hahn, Roger (1980). "Reviewed work: Galileo at Work: His
Scientific Biography, Stillman Drake". The Journal of Library History.
15 (1): 103-105. JSTOR 25541055.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that
Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the
inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged
with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually contradicts you.
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther
were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened
with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of
the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims
made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the
harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and
the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over
the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail
in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to
know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/18/2026 4:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:42:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/2026 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>>>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that >>>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >>>>> inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged >>>>> with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually
contradicts you.
Why do you think that Galileo would have to swear that he did not
believe the heresy in order to be released from Rome? You just have to
stop lying about reality. You need to apologize for your stupid
behavior for years of harassment on this issue and quit doing it. It
never mattered that Galileo was never formally charged in 1616, you and
the church understands what the situation was when Galileo was forced to >>> remain in Rome. They wanted Galileo to confess without bringing
charges, but Galileo maintained that he did not believe the heresy, and
that putting up evidence supporting the heresy was not the same as
believing the heresy was fact. They refused to let him leave Rome until >>> the matter was settled. He was obviously facing the charge of heresy.
From Stillman Drake [1]:
<quote>
On 11 March [1616] Galileo was granted a long audience with the pope.
It is fairly safe to conclude that Bcllarmine had meanwhile told Paul
V what had actually happened at his palace on 26 February and had
arranged this audience to put Galileo's mind completely at rest. At
any rate when Galileo told him of his concern about false accusations
made by his enemies, the pope assured him that he knew Galileo's
integrity and sincerity, told him not to worry, said that not only he
but the entire Congregation of the Holy Office knew about his unjust
persecutions, and added the unusual remark that so long as he, Paul V,
lived, Galileo remained secure. Considering Guicciardini's description
of this pope and his previous attitude in this matter, it can hardly
be doubted that his friendly remark reflected new information recently
given to him.
But despite all evidence that Galileo personally was in good repute
with the highest authorities at Rome, Sagredo wrote on this very day,
11 March, to tell him that word was spreading in Venice that Galileo
had been called to Rome to account for his belief in the earth's
motion and that he must bend his neck. In April Castelli wrote from
Pisa that Galileo was said there to have abjured secretly in the hand
of Bcllarmine. Sagredo then wrote again; rumor at Venice now had it
that Galileo had been severely admonished and forced to do penance.
Hence before he left Rome Galileo spoke again to Bcllarmine, showing
him these letters (and perhaps others). It was all very well for the
cardinal to ask Galileo to treat some things as if they had never
happened, but such rumors would damage his credibility with the grand
duke at Florence. Bellarmine at once recognized the danger and the
injustice; he wrote out a signed statement that Galileo had neither
abjured nor done penance, but had merely been informed of the general
edict governing all Catholics. With this affidavit in hand, Galileo
returned to Florence and this stage of his relations with the Roman
Inquisition was over.
</quote>
But then again, what would Drake know, after all he was only "probably
the foremost authority on Galileo of our times" [2]
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for >>>> heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther
were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened >>>> with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of
the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His >>>> particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims >>>> made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the
harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video >>>> channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and
the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over
the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail
in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to >>>> know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
Nothing will change what you have lied about for years. My sources have >>> never been demonstrated to be deficient.
'Source' singular, not plural. The only source that has supported you
is the anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism. It beats me how you
have always disparaged Tony Pagano yet give so much credence to this
guy.
Your sources have always come
up short every single time.
So you aren't interested in finding out what really happened, you
prefer to wallow in the ignorance of your own misunderstandings.
[rCa]
=============================================
[1] Drake, Stillmann, and Winifred Lovell Wisan. "Galileo at work: His
scientific biography." (1979): 54-56.
[2] Hahn, Roger (1980). "Reviewed work: Galileo at Work: His
Scientific Biography, Stillman Drake". The Journal of Library History.
15 (1): 103-105. JSTOR 25541055.
Just give it up. Further prevarication on this issue is just stupid and >dishonest. Galileo is known to have convinced the Pope that he did not >believe in the Heliocentric heresy. The Pope agreed that just putting
up evidence for heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:09:01 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2026 4:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:42:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/2026 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>>>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>>>>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that >>>>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >>>>>> inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged >>>>>> with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually >>>>> contradicts you.
Why do you think that Galileo would have to swear that he did not
believe the heresy in order to be released from Rome? You just have to >>>> stop lying about reality. You need to apologize for your stupid
behavior for years of harassment on this issue and quit doing it. It
never mattered that Galileo was never formally charged in 1616, you and >>>> the church understands what the situation was when Galileo was forced to >>>> remain in Rome. They wanted Galileo to confess without bringing
charges, but Galileo maintained that he did not believe the heresy, and >>>> that putting up evidence supporting the heresy was not the same as
believing the heresy was fact. They refused to let him leave Rome until >>>> the matter was settled. He was obviously facing the charge of heresy.
From Stillman Drake [1]:
<quote>
On 11 March [1616] Galileo was granted a long audience with the pope.
It is fairly safe to conclude that Bcllarmine had meanwhile told Paul
V what had actually happened at his palace on 26 February and had
arranged this audience to put Galileo's mind completely at rest. At
any rate when Galileo told him of his concern about false accusations
made by his enemies, the pope assured him that he knew Galileo's
integrity and sincerity, told him not to worry, said that not only he
but the entire Congregation of the Holy Office knew about his unjust
persecutions, and added the unusual remark that so long as he, Paul V,
lived, Galileo remained secure. Considering Guicciardini's description
of this pope and his previous attitude in this matter, it can hardly
be doubted that his friendly remark reflected new information recently
given to him.
But despite all evidence that Galileo personally was in good repute
with the highest authorities at Rome, Sagredo wrote on this very day,
11 March, to tell him that word was spreading in Venice that Galileo
had been called to Rome to account for his belief in the earth's
motion and that he must bend his neck. In April Castelli wrote from
Pisa that Galileo was said there to have abjured secretly in the hand
of Bcllarmine. Sagredo then wrote again; rumor at Venice now had it
that Galileo had been severely admonished and forced to do penance.
Hence before he left Rome Galileo spoke again to Bcllarmine, showing
him these letters (and perhaps others). It was all very well for the
cardinal to ask Galileo to treat some things as if they had never
happened, but such rumors would damage his credibility with the grand
duke at Florence. Bellarmine at once recognized the danger and the
injustice; he wrote out a signed statement that Galileo had neither
abjured nor done penance, but had merely been informed of the general
edict governing all Catholics. With this affidavit in hand, Galileo
returned to Florence and this stage of his relations with the Roman
Inquisition was over.
</quote>
But then again, what would Drake know, after all he was only "probably
the foremost authority on Galileo of our times" [2]
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for >>>>> heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther >>>>> were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened >>>>> with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of >>>>> the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His >>>>> particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims >>>>> made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the >>>>> harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video >>>>> channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and >>>>> the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over >>>>> the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail >>>>> in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to >>>>> know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
Nothing will change what you have lied about for years. My sources have >>>> never been demonstrated to be deficient.
'Source' singular, not plural. The only source that has supported you
is the anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism. It beats me how you
have always disparaged Tony Pagano yet give so much credence to this
guy.
Your sources have always come
up short every single time.
So you aren't interested in finding out what really happened, you
prefer to wallow in the ignorance of your own misunderstandings.
[rCa]
=============================================
[1] Drake, Stillmann, and Winifred Lovell Wisan. "Galileo at work: His
scientific biography." (1979): 54-56.
[2] Hahn, Roger (1980). "Reviewed work: Galileo at Work: His
Scientific Biography, Stillman Drake". The Journal of Library History.
15 (1): 103-105. JSTOR 25541055.
Just give it up. Further prevarication on this issue is just stupid and
dishonest. Galileo is known to have convinced the Pope that he did not
believe in the Heliocentric heresy. The Pope agreed that just putting
up evidence for heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy.
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than
any of them.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 09:09:01 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/2026 4:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:42:59 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/2026 10:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:17:15 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/12/2026 5:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:25:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/10/2026 10:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:32:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are
the one tying to run away from the fact that your beloved Google AI >>>>>>>>>> directly contracts you.
*Contradicts* you - though 'contracts' is actually kinda appropriate >>>>>>>>> too - it's reducing the places you can run away to.
Why lie about it when you had to snip and run from what Google came up >>>>>>>> with?
Are you denying that Google AI explicitly contradicts your claim that >>>>>>> Galileo was charged with heresy in 1616?
Are you snipping and running from the fact that the pope agreed with the >>>>>> inquisition that heliocentrism should be condemned? That is what
Galileo faced. No one ever claimed that Galileo was formally charged >>>>>> with heresy in 1616.
Nobody except you has made *any* claims about Galileo facing *any*
charges in 1616. Even the Wiki that you thought supports you actually >>>>> contradicts you.
Why do you think that Galileo would have to swear that he did not
believe the heresy in order to be released from Rome? You just have to >>>> stop lying about reality. You need to apologize for your stupid
behavior for years of harassment on this issue and quit doing it. It
never mattered that Galileo was never formally charged in 1616, you and >>>> the church understands what the situation was when Galileo was forced to >>>> remain in Rome. They wanted Galileo to confess without bringing
charges, but Galileo maintained that he did not believe the heresy, and >>>> that putting up evidence supporting the heresy was not the same as
believing the heresy was fact. They refused to let him leave Rome until >>>> the matter was settled. He was obviously facing the charge of heresy.
From Stillman Drake [1]:
<quote>
On 11 March [1616] Galileo was granted a long audience with the pope.
It is fairly safe to conclude that Bcllarmine had meanwhile told Paul
V what had actually happened at his palace on 26 February and had
arranged this audience to put Galileo's mind completely at rest. At
any rate when Galileo told him of his concern about false accusations
made by his enemies, the pope assured him that he knew Galileo's
integrity and sincerity, told him not to worry, said that not only he
but the entire Congregation of the Holy Office knew about his unjust
persecutions, and added the unusual remark that so long as he, Paul V,
lived, Galileo remained secure. Considering Guicciardini's description
of this pope and his previous attitude in this matter, it can hardly
be doubted that his friendly remark reflected new information recently
given to him.
But despite all evidence that Galileo personally was in good repute
with the highest authorities at Rome, Sagredo wrote on this very day,
11 March, to tell him that word was spreading in Venice that Galileo
had been called to Rome to account for his belief in the earth's
motion and that he must bend his neck. In April Castelli wrote from
Pisa that Galileo was said there to have abjured secretly in the hand
of Bcllarmine. Sagredo then wrote again; rumor at Venice now had it
that Galileo had been severely admonished and forced to do penance.
Hence before he left Rome Galileo spoke again to Bcllarmine, showing
him these letters (and perhaps others). It was all very well for the
cardinal to ask Galileo to treat some things as if they had never
happened, but such rumors would damage his credibility with the grand
duke at Florence. Bellarmine at once recognized the danger and the
injustice; he wrote out a signed statement that Galileo had neither
abjured nor done penance, but had merely been informed of the general
edict governing all Catholics. With this affidavit in hand, Galileo
returned to Florence and this stage of his relations with the Roman
Inquisition was over.
</quote>
But then again, what would Drake know, after all he was only "probably
the foremost authority on Galileo of our times" [2]
Even your trusted source just claimed that Galileo
faced the charge of heresy, not that he was charged with heresy.
Galileo was forced to remain in Rome until the matter was settled,
No he wasn't. The Wiki source that you claim supports you says
correctly that he went to Rome of his own accord to argue the case for >>>>> heliocentrism, against the advice of his friends and supporters. Ther >>>>> were no charges of any kind against him.
If you have any interest in getting to understand what really happened >>>>> with Galileo, you should read this article:
https://historyforatheists.com/2022/07/cosmic-skeptic/
The author, Tim O'Neill is an atheist and is a subscribing member of >>>>> the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of
the Australian Skeptics so he is no friend of the Catholic Church. His >>>>> particular "mission", however, is to deal with false or mangled claims >>>>> made by atheists about religion; just like Augustine warned about the >>>>> harm done by people trying to use Scripture to deny science, so
O'Neill believes that atheists damage their own case when they make
claims that are easily shown to be false. In this article, he goes
through a YouTube video by Alex O'Connor of the 'Cosmic Skeptic' video >>>>> channel which makes all sorts of outlandish claims about Galileo and >>>>> the Church, some of them the same as the ones you have made here over >>>>> the years. It's a long article because he goes into extensive detail >>>>> in debunking the claims but well worth reading for anyone who wants to >>>>> know the truth of what really happened and what the actual issues
were.
Nothing will change what you have lied about for years. My sources have >>>> never been demonstrated to be deficient.
'Source' singular, not plural. The only source that has supported you
is the anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism. It beats me how you
have always disparaged Tony Pagano yet give so much credence to this
guy.
Your sources have always come
up short every single time.
So you aren't interested in finding out what really happened, you
prefer to wallow in the ignorance of your own misunderstandings.
[rCa]
=============================================
[1] Drake, Stillmann, and Winifred Lovell Wisan. "Galileo at work: His
scientific biography." (1979): 54-56.
[2] Hahn, Roger (1980). "Reviewed work: Galileo at Work: His
Scientific Biography, Stillman Drake". The Journal of Library History.
15 (1): 103-105. JSTOR 25541055.
Just give it up. Further prevarication on this issue is just stupid and
dishonest. Galileo is known to have convinced the Pope that he did not
believe in the Heliocentric heresy. The Pope agreed that just putting
up evidence for heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy.
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than
any of them.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than
any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than
any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than
any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:11:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
END QUOTE:The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:11:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>what you
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the Jesuits
put up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
was notdid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being condemned
by anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
always come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable, have
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
reality.It doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and condemned
heliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered to be
heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
and
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the Index of
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/23/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:11:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
You seem to be insane and cannot deal with reality. You just snipped
your claims out.
From the initial REPOST 1 before more of your prevarications had been
added to the REPOST:
QUOTE
END QUOTE:The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
This quote comes from a post where you were running from your source
having been found to be wrong. You then snipped and ran when I put up
the evidence that your source had lied in my response to your initial >running.
You claimed that the quote came from von Gebler.
It turned out that von Gebler had lied, and that the Pope had, had >heliocentrism condemned in 1616.
I put up the Jesuit web link that
stated what the Pope had done,
and they had quoted extensively from the
condemnation document.
The Inquisition was not the only church body
that had condemned heliocentrism.
Even the admission that the
Inquisition had condemned heliocentrism demonstrated that you had always >been wrong.
The Inquisition had the job of dealing with heresy. The
fact that the Pope had agreed with the Inquisition meant that there was
no way that you could possibly be correct in your denial of reality as
it existed when Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616.
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:08:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:11:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>>>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the >>>>> scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
You seem to be insane and cannot deal with reality. You just snipped
your claims out.
From the initial REPOST 1 before more of your prevarications had been
added to the REPOST:
QUOTE
END QUOTE:The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
This quote comes from a post where you were running from your source
having been found to be wrong. You then snipped and ran when I put up
the evidence that your source had lied in my response to your initial
running.
You claimed that the quote came from von Gebler.
It turned out that von Gebler had lied, and that the Pope had, had
heliocentrism condemned in 1616.
No Gerber didn't lie, he was totally correct in what he said. You have
so badly understood so much of this whole affair that it Is hard to
know where to start but I'll just deal with a some main issues.
First of all, the only people who ever claimed that heliocentrism was heretical were the 'Qualifiers' who were appointed to consider the
matter. Leaving aside the ambiguity in their conclusions, those
conclusions were simply an *opinion* given by them and carried no
authority of any kind whatseover.
The Pope never condemned heliocentrism; all he did was first of all to verbally inform Galileo of the Qualifiers' conclusions and tell him to
stop making his claims about heliocentrism. There is no official
record of exactly what was said by the Pope or Bellarmine but it is
clear from everything that followed that what was banned was claiming
that heliocentrism was conclusive rather than hypothetical.
The Pope then gave permission for publication of the decree by the Congregation of the Index.to be published. That decree made no
condemnation of heliocentrism or any reference to it being heretical -
it's role was simply to decide what books should be added to the Index
and it banned a number of books at its meeting, only two of which were related to heliocentrism but were not banned because of that; they
were banned because they sought to interpret Scripture which was a
right strictly preserved to the Vatican and its appointed authorities.
In regard to Copernicus, it simply *suspended* his book 'Revolutions'
pending a number of edits; none of those edits changed the core
arguments of the book, they only involved removal of some passing
references to Scripture and some minor text edits to clarify that it
was the work was hypothetical (which it was at that stage).
I put up the Jesuit web link that
stated what the Pope had done,
Just like with the Wiki site, you read this site completely wrong. The
only reference to the Pope was that he had ordered this decree to be published.
and they had quoted extensively from the
condemnation document.
As explained above, the decree did not condemn heliocentrism.; it
simply banned it being presented as conclusive and used to reinterpret Scripture by unauthorised people.
After quoting the decree, the authors of the site point out that:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
You ignored that when I pointed it out to you before.
The Inquisition was not the only church body
that had condemned heliocentrism.
Except they didn't condemn it provided it was presented as
hypothetical.
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that
so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
(* Previous complaints made by two Dominicans against Galileo and his supporters which had been investigated and dismissed by the
Inquisition.)
Even the admission that the
Inquisition had condemned heliocentrism demonstrated that you had always
been wrong.
The Inquisition had the job of dealing with heresy. The
fact that the Pope had agreed with the Inquisition meant that there was
no way that you could possibly be correct in your denial of reality as
it existed when Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616.
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that
so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:08:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 13:11:18 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 9:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 08:43:28 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/21/2026 12:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Another esteemed scholar bites the dust rCa. our Ron knows better than >>>>>>> any of them.
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the >>>>> scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
You seem to be insane and cannot deal with reality. You just snipped
your claims out.
From the initial REPOST 1 before more of your prevarications had been
added to the REPOST:
QUOTE
END QUOTE:The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
This quote comes from a post where you were running from your source
having been found to be wrong. You then snipped and ran when I put up
the evidence that your source had lied in my response to your initial
running.
You claimed that the quote came from von Gebler.
It turned out that von Gebler had lied, and that the Pope had, had
heliocentrism condemned in 1616.
No Gerber didn't lie, he was totally correct in what he said. You have
so badly understood so much of this whole affair that it Is hard to
know where to start but I'll just deal with a some main issues.
First of all, the only people who ever claimed that heliocentrism was heretical were the 'Qualifiers' who were appointed to consider the
matter. Leaving aside the ambiguity in their conclusions, those
conclusions were simply an *opinion* given by them and carried no
authority of any kind whatseover.
The Pope never condemned heliocentrism; all he did was first of all to verbally inform Galileo of the Qualifiers' conclusions and tell him to
stop making his claims about heliocentrism. There is no official
record of exactly what was said by the Pope or Bellarmine but it is
clear from everything that followed that what was banned was claiming
that heliocentrism was conclusive rather than hypothetical.
The Pope then gave permission for publication of the decree by the Congregation of the Index.to be published. That decree made no
condemnation of heliocentrism or any reference to it being heretical -
it's role was simply to decide what books should be added to the Index
and it banned a number of books at its meeting, only two of which were related to heliocentrism but were not banned because of that; they
were banned because they sought to interpret Scripture which was a
right strictly preserved to the Vatican and its appointed authorities.
In regard to Copernicus, it simply *suspended* his book 'Revolutions'
pending a number of edits; none of those edits changed the core
arguments of the book, they only involved removal of some passing
references to Scripture and some minor text edits to clarify that it
was the work was hypothetical (which it was at that stage).
I put up the Jesuit web link that
stated what the Pope had done,
Just like with the Wiki site, you read this site completely wrong. The
only reference to the Pope was that he had ordered this decree to be published.
and they had quoted extensively from the
condemnation document.
As explained above, the decree did not condemn heliocentrism.; it
simply banned it being presented as conclusive and used to reinterpret Scripture by unauthorised people.
After quoting the decree, the authors of the site point out that:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
You ignored that when I pointed it out to you before.
The Inquisition was not the only church body
that had condemned heliocentrism.
Except they didn't condemn it provided it was presented as
hypothetical.
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that
so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
(* Previous complaints made by two Dominicans against Galileo and his supporters which had been investigated and dismissed by the
Inquisition.)
Even the admission that the
Inquisition had condemned heliocentrism demonstrated that you had always
been wrong.
The Inquisition had the job of dealing with heresy. The
fact that the Pope had agreed with the Inquisition meant that there was
no way that you could possibly be correct in your denial of reality as
it existed when Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1616.
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:36:17 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that
so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
Ron runs away
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
And runs away again
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:36:17 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that
so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
Ron runs away
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
And runs away again
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:08:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
Why keep lying about reality. This is the second Harran REPOST that has >Harran quote mining the condemnation document that Harran has to lie
about it can't be identified. Harran knows that he quote mined the
document that he claims that I can't identify. The Jesuits were pretty >matter of fact that the Pope had ordered this document to be produced.
The article also claimed that the initial draft version of this document >still exists,
and it was even worse than the final condemnation.
On 6/28/2026 11:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:36:17 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from
pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the
Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that >>>> so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
Ron runs away
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source >>>>> coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
And runs away again
[rCa]
There is nothing for me to run from
because your prevarications on the
issue do not change the reality that you have been lying about. You
named your source, so there was no reason for you to lie about me not
being able to name the source that lied about the issue. You quote
mined the document that you ran from that demonstrated that your source
had lied, so there was no reason to lie about the document not existing.
You are just a sad lying asshole at this time.
You are insane.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 19:43:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:36:17 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from >>>>> pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the >>>>> Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that >>>>> so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
Ron runs away
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source >>>>>> coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
And runs away again
[rCa]
There is nothing for me to run from
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
because your prevarications on the
issue do not change the reality that you have been lying about. You
named your source, so there was no reason for you to lie about me not
being able to name the source that lied about the issue. You quote
mined the document that you ran from that demonstrated that your source
had lied, so there was no reason to lie about the document not existing.
You are just a sad lying asshole at this time.
You are insane.
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support
them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
Insanity is dismissing recognised experts and claiming they were lying
or coming up short because they contradict you.
Insanity is persistently accusing someone of lying and quote mining
when you can't identify a single example of either.
Insanity is insisting a Wiki article says something when it is on
public view for anyone to see that it says no such thing.
Insanity is claiming that you know better than the authorities of the Catholic Church about the procedures and decisions of that church.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 19:43:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 11:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:36:17 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
If you are going to continue to insist that heliocentrism was
condemned, then you need to explain how come Cardinal Bellarmine
issued Galileo with a certificate stating that he wasn't banned from >>>>> pursuing heliocentrism; how come the Inquisition didn't ban
'Revolutions' outright as it did with Foscarini's book; how come the >>>>> Pope told Galileo that "the entire Congregation of the Holy Office
knew about his unjust persecutions*, and added the unusual remark that >>>>> so long as he, Paul V, lived, Galileo remained secure"; how come
Paul's successor, Pope Urban regularly debated heliocentrism with
Galileo and authorised him to write a book laying out the arguments
for and against it.
Ron runs away
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source >>>>>> coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
And runs away again
[rCa]
There is nothing for me to run from
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
because your prevarications on the
issue do not change the reality that you have been lying about. You
named your source, so there was no reason for you to lie about me not
being able to name the source that lied about the issue. You quote
mined the document that you ran from that demonstrated that your source
had lied, so there was no reason to lie about the document not existing.
You are just a sad lying asshole at this time.
You are insane.
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support
them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
Insanity is dismissing recognised experts and claiming they were lying
or coming up short because they contradict you.
Insanity is persistently accusing someone of lying and quote mining
when you can't identify a single example of either.
Insanity is insisting a Wiki article says something when it is on
public view for anyone to see that it says no such thing.
Insanity is claiming that you know better than the authorities of the Catholic Church about the procedures and decisions of that church.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 12:03:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/28/2026 8:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:08:29 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
When you had to face that you had lied about running from your source
coming up short you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation
Pity you can't identify any such Papal condemnation.
Why keep lying about reality. This is the second Harran REPOST that has
Harran quote mining the condemnation document that Harran has to lie
about it can't be identified. Harran knows that he quote mined the
document that he claims that I can't identify. The Jesuits were pretty
matter of fact that the Pope had ordered this document to be produced.
The Pope didn't order the document to be *produced*, he ordered it to
be *published*. The difference is probably too subtle for you to
understand.
The article also claimed that the initial draft version of this document
still exists,
It wasn't a draft version, it was a report from the Qualifiers which
the Inquisition chose to ignore
and it was even worse than the final condemnation.
You still haven't shown where the final decree condemned heliocentrism
or declared it a heresy; or dealt with the issue of why they didn't
ban Copernicus's book outright as they did with Foscarini's.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued
to lie about the stupidest things.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued
to lie about the stupidest things.
So you don't care about looking silly when you can't explain why they
didn't ban Copernicus's book outright or that despite continually
dumping 70k+ of garbage, you can't identify a single lie I told.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued
to lie about the stupidest things.
So you don't care about looking silly when you can't explain why they
didn't ban Copernicus's book outright or that despite continually
dumping 70k+ of garbage, you can't identify a single lie I told.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/2/2026 7:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why
the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued
to lie about the stupidest things.
So you don't care about looking silly when you can't explain why they
didn't ban Copernicus's book outright or that despite continually
dumping 70k+ of garbage, you can't identify a single lie I told.
Projection is insane.
Just go up the thread
a few posts and try to deal honestly with how you tried to lie about the >situation. You gave the name of the source that lied about the
condemnation of heliocentrism. There was no reason to lie about me not >knowing the name of the source.
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support
them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/2026 7:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why >>>>> the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued >>>> to lie about the stupidest things.
So you don't care about looking silly when you can't explain why they
didn't ban Copernicus's book outright or that despite continually
dumping 70k+ of garbage, you can't identify a single lie I told.
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why
they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
One of your esteemed scholars lied about the situation in 1616.
So you keep saying rCa. pity you have never been able to identify the
scholar or the lie.
You just snipped it out and ran from you putting up the quote, and
running from finding out that your source had lied.
I couldn't snip what doesn't exist. Do you really not grasp how
pathetic it makes you look when you insist that an esteemed scholars
lied but you can't identify the scholar in question?
END QUOTE:The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/2026 7:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/1/2026 10:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
The why don't you deal with those contradictions?
Because they are not contradictions.
Does it not bother you at all how silly it make you look when you
can't even make an attempt to offer any explanation, for example, why >>>>> the Inquisition, if they were condemning heliocentrism, didn't ban
Copernicus's book outright like they did Foscarini's?
[rCa]
Just go up the thread a few posts to demonstrate how you have continued >>>> to lie about the stupidest things.
So you don't care about looking silly when you can't explain why they
didn't ban Copernicus's book outright or that despite continually
dumping 70k+ of garbage, you can't identify a single lie I told.
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why
they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:07:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just go up the thread
a few posts and try to deal honestly with how you tried to lie about the
situation. You gave the name of the source that lied about the
condemnation of heliocentrism. There was no reason to lie about me not
knowing the name of the source.
I asked you several times to identify the source and you declined
every time. When you eventually did identify the source you claimed
was lying, it turned out that they weren't lying at all, it was you
not understanding what their point, just as you have misunderstood
just about everything relating to the Galileo affair.
[rCa]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support
them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that
note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric
mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract
below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or
coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER
TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione
objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which
is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the
council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters
of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith
because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of
faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not
move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves.
The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would
be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world
who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men.
But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern
his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
It took you 5 days wrestling with your demons before responding to the >evidence that you had lied. Nothing that you can ever do will change >reality. You need to apologize for what you have continued to do and
stop doing it.
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why
they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >hypothetical proposition.
You quote mined that part of the condemnation
because other heliocentric writings were banned outright
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support
them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that
note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric
mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract
below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or
coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER
TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione
objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which
is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the
council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters
of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith
because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of
faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not
move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves.
The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would
be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world
who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men.
But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the
stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern
his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
No
amount of prevarication will change that fact, nor the fact that you
have done stupid and dishonest junk to continue to prevaricate about
this issue.
It is well known and came up years ago that the Council of Trent was
used to determine that heliocentrism was formally heretical by the time
that Galileo faced the charge the first time in 1616.
It is one of the
things that you ran from and could not deal with. Galileo's argument
failed to convince the Inquisition and the Pope. What the Pope agreed
with was that just because Galileo had presented evidence supporting the >heliocentric heresy, that, that did not mean that he believed the
Heresy. The Inquisition wanted Galileo to confess and he was retained
in Rome until the matter was settled, but Galileo refused to confess and >maintained that he did not believe the heliocentric heresy. Galileo was >only released after he swore an oath that he did not believe in the >heliocentric heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future.
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
It took you 5 days wrestling with your demons before responding to the
evidence that you had lied. Nothing that you can ever do will change
reality. You need to apologize for what you have continued to do and
stop doing it.
LOL, making a claim based on somebody not posting to Usenet for 5 days
has to be about as lame as it gets.
Usenet and TO may play a dominant role in your life but other people
have other things to get on with. In my own case, family activities
with 5 children and 11 grandchildren keep me pretty busy and then
there's other things like my religious and other activities. Believe
me, dealing with your stupid claims on TO is way down my list of
priorities.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
It took you 5 days wrestling with your demons before responding to the
evidence that you had lied. Nothing that you can ever do will change
reality. You need to apologize for what you have continued to do and
stop doing it.
LOL, making a claim based on somebody not posting to Usenet for 5 days
has to be about as lame as it gets.
Usenet and TO may play a dominant role in your life but other people
have other things to get on with. In my own case, family activities
with 5 children and 11 grandchildren keep me pretty busy and then
there's other things like my religious and other activities. Believe
me, dealing with your stupid claims on TO is way down my list of
priorities.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why
they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a
hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was hypothetical.
You quote mined that part of the condemnation
So you still haven't learned what quote mining is.
because other heliocentric writings were banned outright
So why not Copernicus?
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why
they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a
hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was hypothetical.
You quote mined that part of the condemnation
So you still haven't learned what quote mining is.
because other heliocentric writings were banned outright
So why not Copernicus?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that
note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric
mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract
below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or
coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER
TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione
objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which
is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the
council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters
of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith
because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of
faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not
move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves.
The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would
be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world
who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men.
But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the
stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern
his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
Seeing that you are convinced that you and your geocentrist mentor
know better than the most respected Galileo experts, I should not be surprised that you reckon you and he know better than Galileo.
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
Pity that you have never been able to identify my "trusted source"
that says that; pity that you can't identify a single source that says
it. You thought you had it with the Wiki article until I pointed out
that the Wiki article says no such thing at which stage you tried to
make out that it had been edited but it hadn't.
No
amount of prevarication will change that fact, nor the fact that you
have done stupid and dishonest junk to continue to prevaricate about
this issue.
It is well known and came up years ago that the Council of Trent was
used to determine that heliocentrism was formally heretical by the time
that Galileo faced the charge the first time in 1616.
Funny how the most respected Galileo experts missed it when it was so
well known
It is one of the
things that you ran from and could not deal with. Galileo's argument
failed to convince the Inquisition and the Pope. What the Pope agreed
with was that just because Galileo had presented evidence supporting the
heliocentric heresy, that, that did not mean that he believed the
Heresy. The Inquisition wanted Galileo to confess and he was retained
in Rome until the matter was settled, but Galileo refused to confess and
maintained that he did not believe the heliocentric heresy. Galileo was
only released after he swore an oath that he did not believe in the
heliocentric heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future.
What an incredibly weird take on what actually happened. Not a single
part of it matches reality.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that
note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric
mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract
below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or
coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER
TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione
objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which
is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the
council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters
of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith
because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of
faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not
move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves.
The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would
be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world
who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men.
But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the
stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern
his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
Seeing that you are convinced that you and your geocentrist mentor
know better than the most respected Galileo experts, I should not be surprised that you reckon you and he know better than Galileo.
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
Pity that you have never been able to identify my "trusted source"
that says that; pity that you can't identify a single source that says
it. You thought you had it with the Wiki article until I pointed out
that the Wiki article says no such thing at which stage you tried to
make out that it had been edited but it hadn't.
No
amount of prevarication will change that fact, nor the fact that you
have done stupid and dishonest junk to continue to prevaricate about
this issue.
It is well known and came up years ago that the Council of Trent was
used to determine that heliocentrism was formally heretical by the time
that Galileo faced the charge the first time in 1616.
Funny how the most respected Galileo experts missed it when it was so
well known
It is one of the
things that you ran from and could not deal with. Galileo's argument
failed to convince the Inquisition and the Pope. What the Pope agreed
with was that just because Galileo had presented evidence supporting the
heliocentric heresy, that, that did not mean that he believed the
Heresy. The Inquisition wanted Galileo to confess and he was retained
in Rome until the matter was settled, but Galileo refused to confess and
maintained that he did not believe the heliocentric heresy. Galileo was
only released after he swore an oath that he did not believe in the
heliocentric heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future.
What an incredibly weird take on what actually happened. Not a single
part of it matches reality.
[rCa]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
He wasn't charged with *anything* in 1616. Two Domicican friars,
Caccini and Lorini, had submitted complaints to the Inquisition about
Galileo and his supporters but both complaints were dismissed by the Inquisition. They continued, however, to agitate for heliocentrism to
be made heretical. Galileo knew about this and, against the advice of
his friends, went to Rome to fight against them.
In 1633, he wasn't initially charged with heresy, he was investigated
for disobeying an order he was falsely alleged to have been given in
1616 to stop defending heliocentrism. In regard to the guilty
verdict, as Fanoli points out (cited in the Wiki article that you got
all wrong):
<quote>
[the verdict] "Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of
canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition
considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical.
The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had
been subject only to the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith" </quote>
(Fantoli, 2005, p. 140; Heilbron, 2005, pp. 282-284)
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
He wasn't charged with *anything* in 1616. Two Domicican friars,
Caccini and Lorini, had submitted complaints to the Inquisition about
Galileo and his supporters but both complaints were dismissed by the Inquisition. They continued, however, to agitate for heliocentrism to
be made heretical. Galileo knew about this and, against the advice of
his friends, went to Rome to fight against them.
In 1633, he wasn't initially charged with heresy, he was investigated
for disobeying an order he was falsely alleged to have been given in
1616 to stop defending heliocentrism. In regard to the guilty
verdict, as Fanoli points out (cited in the Wiki article that you got
all wrong):
<quote>
[the verdict] "Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of
canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition
considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical.
The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had
been subject only to the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith" </quote>
(Fantoli, 2005, p. 140; Heilbron, 2005, pp. 282-284)
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the >heresy charge in 1616.
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that
note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric
mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or
coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not
"matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione
objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de
fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which
is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the
council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters
of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith
because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of
faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not
move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that >>>> someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence
there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in
such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men.
But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your
geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your >posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have >consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue
in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from
what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS,
but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you
have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in
order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with
the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in
the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure. >Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order
to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and
no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear. >Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not >considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that >other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no >editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:09:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your
posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have
consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue
in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from
what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS,
but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you
have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in
order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with
the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in
the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure.
Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order
to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both
times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that
years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:09:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your
posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have
consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue
in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from
what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS,
but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you
have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in
order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with
the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in
the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure.
Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order
to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both
times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that
years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:30:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and >>>>> no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not
considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that
other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no
editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
Well you are the one that can offer no explanation for why one was the
banned and the other wasn't whereas I have done so previously. Just
like with other things, you have a rather weird idea about what
qualifies as stupid.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:30:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and >>>>> no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not
considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that
other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no
editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
Well you are the one that can offer no explanation for why one was the
banned and the other wasn't whereas I have done so previously. Just
like with other things, you have a rather weird idea about what
qualifies as stupid.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:59:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that >>>>> note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric >>>>> mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or >>>>> coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not >>>>> "matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione >>>>> objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de >>>>> fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which >>>>> is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the >>>>> council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters >>>>> of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith >>>>> because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of >>>>> faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not >>>>> move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that >>>>> someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence >>>>> there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in >>>>> such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men. >>>>> But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your
geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
Are you now dropping your endorsement of the geocentrist blogger that heliocentrism was heresy because it went against the Church Fathers
and the Council of Trent?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:59:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that >>>>> note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric >>>>> mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or >>>>> coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not >>>>> "matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione >>>>> objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de >>>>> fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in
the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which >>>>> is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and
thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the >>>>> council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council
ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters >>>>> of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it
seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith >>>>> because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of >>>>> faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog,
because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not >>>>> move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some-
one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that >>>>> someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence >>>>> there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in >>>>> such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men. >>>>> But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the
Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the
capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your
geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
Are you now dropping your endorsement of the geocentrist blogger that heliocentrism was heresy because it went against the Church Fathers
and the Council of Trent?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the
heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the
heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/8/2026 6:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:09:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your
posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have
consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue
in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from
what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS,
but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you
have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in
order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with
the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in >>> the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure.
Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order >>> to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both
times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran
from years ago?
On 7/8/2026 6:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:30:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and >>>>>> no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>>>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not
considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that >>> other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no
editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
Well you are the one that can offer no explanation for why one was the
banned and the other wasn't whereas I have done so previously. Just
like with other things, you have a rather weird idea about what
qualifies as stupid.
This is insanity. The unedited Coperican documents were banned. The
claim was that the documents could be edited and avoid the condemnation
and addition to the Index, but the Copernican documents were never
edited and published so they remained in the Index until they were
removed hundreds of years later.
On 7/8/2026 6:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:59:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that >>>>>> note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric >>>>>> mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or >>>>>> coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not >>>>>> "matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione >>>>>> objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de >>>>>> fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in >>>>>> the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which >>>>>> is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and >>>>>> thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the >>>>>> council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council >>>>>> ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters >>>>>> of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it >>>>>> seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith >>>>>> because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of >>>>>> faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog, >>>>>> because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not >>>>>> move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some- >>>>>> one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that >>>>>> someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence >>>>>> there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in >>>>>> such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men. >>>>>> But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the
apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the >>>>>> Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the >>>>>> capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your >>>> geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
Are you now dropping your endorsement of the geocentrist blogger that
heliocentrism was heresy because it went against the Church Fathers
and the Council of Trent?
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know >exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to >quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation >document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and
you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally >heretical.
Your own sources wanted to claim that the Inquisition was
wrong in what they did, and they had to prevaricate about the difference >between "consent" and "teaching". Your sources were wrong. The Council
of Trent did not claim "teaching" as the prevaricators wanted to lie
about the issue in order to claim that the Inquisition was wrong in how
they had used the Council of Trent. Why try to lie about the Council of >Trent issue, when the sources that I used noted the use of the Council's >findings, and even your sources understood that the Inquisition had used
the Council of Trent.
It is just stupid to keep snipping and running from reality when reality >will never change.
On 7/8/2026 6:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the
heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
You can't face the REPOSTS where you are running and snipping and
running from your source being wrong about the Inquisition being the
only church body to have condemned heliocentrism. You know that >heliocentrism had been deemed "formally heretical" in 1616
when Galileo was retained in Rome over the issue.
He was not formally charged
because he would not confess to believing in the heliocentric heresy.
Galileo was only released
when he swore that he did not believe in the
heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future. You
know that the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616
and that he had
agreed with the Inquisition's findings. There is no sane reason for you >continue your stupid trollish harassment. Nothing will ever change reality.
You need to apologize for what you have been doing for years and quit
doing it
On 7/8/2026 6:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the
heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
Why lie about something this stupid? It turns out that your sources
came up short.
You have never demonstrated that my sources were wrong.
All that has ever been established is that they supported each other,
and that your prevarications
on the issue have never demonstrated
otherwise. Your own trusted source told you that you were wrong and all
you did was run.
You named the source and put up the link to it.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:23:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:09:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your >>>> posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have
consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue >>>> in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from >>>> what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS, >>>> but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you >>>> have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in >>>> order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with >>>> the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in >>>> the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure. >>>> Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order >>>> to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >>>> times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran >>from years ago?
Poor attempt at running away from the fact that you can't identify any
such "trusted source".
Plus, of course, the fact that you can't identify a single lie I have
told.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:23:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:26 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:09:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 8:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[snip for focus]
Why lie about why you need to snip the material out. Just look at your >>>> posts where you are snipping and running from the REPOSTS. You have
consistently lied about the situation, and prevaricated about the issue >>>> in stupid and dishonest ways, so that you have had to snip and run from >>>> what you did. You are not just snipping and running from the REPOSTS, >>>> but you have had to snip and run from your assoholic behavior that you >>>> have put up to justify your stupid inability to deal with reality.
Really, you need to go through your past posts that you have put up in >>>> order to snip and run from the REPOSTS. You obviously can't deal with >>>> the REPOSTS, and what you have done like quote mine the Wiki and lie
about me not being able to name your source when you named the source in >>>> the REPOSTED material that you keep snipping and running from.
Nothing that you can possibly do will justify the failure of your
argument and your need to run and lie about running from that failure. >>>> Nothing will justify you quote mining the condemnation document in order >>>> to justify your lies about running from the document.
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >>>> times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran >>from years ago?
Poor attempt at running away from the fact that you can't identify any
such "trusted source".
Plus, of course, the fact that you can't identify a single lie I have
told.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:39:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:30:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>>>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and >>>>>>> no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only >>>>>> banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>>>>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not
considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that >>>> other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no >>>> editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
Well you are the one that can offer no explanation for why one was the
banned and the other wasn't whereas I have done so previously. Just
like with other things, you have a rather weird idea about what
qualifies as stupid.
This is insanity. The unedited Coperican documents were banned. The
claim was that the documents could be edited and avoid the condemnation
and addition to the Index, but the Copernican documents were never
edited and published so they remained in the Index until they were
removed hundreds of years later.
WOW, yet again you demonstrate how little you know about the things
upon which you pontificate. Manual correction of existing copies was perfectly acceptable and allowed those copies to be circulated as
shown in this article where the author has access to a copy it which
those manual edits were made
https://www.library.rochester.edu/rbscp/blog/copernicus
Then again, maybe it's just another reputable scholar telling lies.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:30:42 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:02:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/2026 8:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:57:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
Projection is insane.
It would be so easy for you to show it is projection by explaining why >>>>> they didn't ban Copernicus's book outright. Problem is you can't and >>>>> no amount of evasion can hide that.
[,,,]
You are just nuts. You know that it doesn't matter that they only
banned Copernicus' writings until they were edited to change things to a >>>> hypothetical proposition.
They didn't change it to a hypothetical proposition, it already was
hypothetical.
You know that they wanted it edited so that point would be clear.
Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy, but speculation was not
considered to be heresy. You know due to your quote mining efforts that
other heliocentric writings were condemned and banned outright with no
editing possible. That is how stupid you are being on this issue.
Well you are the one that can offer no explanation for why one was the
banned and the other wasn't whereas I have done so previously. Just
like with other things, you have a rather weird idea about what
qualifies as stupid.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:04:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:59:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that >>>>>>> note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric >>>>>>> mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>>>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or >>>>>>> coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>>>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not >>>>>>> "matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione >>>>>>> objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de >>>>>>> fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in >>>>>>> the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which >>>>>>> is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and >>>>>>> thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the >>>>>>> council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council >>>>>>> ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters >>>>>>> of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it >>>>>>> seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith >>>>>>> because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of >>>>>>> faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog, >>>>>>> because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not >>>>>>> move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>>>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>>>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>>>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some- >>>>>>> one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence >>>>>>> there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in >>>>>>> such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men. >>>>>>> But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>>>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the >>>>>>> apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the >>>>>>> Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the >>>>>>> capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>>>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your >>>>> geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
Are you now dropping your endorsement of the geocentrist blogger that
heliocentrism was heresy because it went against the Church Fathers
and the Council of Trent?
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know
exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to
quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation
document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and
you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally
heretical.
It wasn't the Inquisition that did that, it was the Qualifiers who
came up with that opinion and the Inquisition rejected it.
But I guess you know better than the Inquisition just like you know
better than all the reputable researchers who have studied this, even
better than Galileo himself.
Your own sources wanted to claim that the Inquisition was
wrong in what they did, and they had to prevaricate about the difference
between "consent" and "teaching". Your sources were wrong. The Council
of Trent did not claim "teaching" as the prevaricators wanted to lie
about the issue in order to claim that the Inquisition was wrong in how
they had used the Council of Trent. Why try to lie about the Council of
Trent issue, when the sources that I used noted the use of the Council's
findings, and even your sources understood that the Inquisition had used
the Council of Trent.
It is just stupid to keep snipping and running from reality when reality
will never change.
I really, really wish you would take your own advice.
Who do you think you are impressing or convincing by continually
posting 70+k of text that nobody is going to read?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:04:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:59:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 9:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/4/2026 9:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:17:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/30/2026 3:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
Insanity is persisting with claims without a single source to support >>>>>>>>> them except an anonymous blogger promoting geocentrism.
[rCa]
You are insane. Look what you have to snip and run from.
[rCa]
Discussion elsethread has brought up a 1615 note by Galileo. In that >>>>>>> note, he completely demolishes the arguments made by your geocentric >>>>>>> mentor for heliocentrism being heresy. I've given the relevant extract >>>>>>> below. So what do you reckon? Do you still want to stand by the
geocentrists's claims and dismiss Galileo as another person lying or >>>>>>> coming up short?
====================================================
Galileo's Unpublished Notes 1615) A: ON BELLARMINE'S "LETTER >>>>>>> TO FOSCARINI"
4 The Council [of Trent] speaks "of matters of faith and
morals," etc. It is then said that if the disputed proposition is not >>>>>>> "matter of faith because of its subject matter" [de fide ratione >>>>>>> objecti], it is still a "matter of faith because of who said it" [de >>>>>>> fide ratione dicentis], and that therefore it would be included in >>>>>>> the decree of the council. It is replied that then everything which >>>>>>> is in Scripture is a "matter of faith because of who said it," and >>>>>>> thus in this respect ought to be included in the regulations of the >>>>>>> council. But this is clearly not the case, because then the council >>>>>>> ought to have said, "The interpretations of the Fathers must be
followed for every word in the Scriptures," rather than "in matters >>>>>>> of faith and morals." Thus having said "in matters of faith," it >>>>>>> seems that the council's intention was to mean "in matters of faith >>>>>>> because of the subject matter." It would be much more a "matter of >>>>>>> faith" to hold that Abraham had sons, and that Tobias had a dog, >>>>>>> because the Scriptures say so, than to hold that the earth does not >>>>>>> move, granting that the latter is found in the Scriptures themselves. >>>>>>> The reason why the denial of the former, but not of the latter, would >>>>>>> be a heresy is the following. Since there are always men in the world >>>>>>> who have two, four, six, or even no sons, and likewise since some- >>>>>>> one might or might not have dogs, it would be equally credible that
someone has sons or dogs and that someone else does not. Hence >>>>>>> there would be no reason or cause for the Holy Spirit to state in >>>>>>> such propositions anything other than the truth, since the
affirmative and the negative would be equally credible to all men. >>>>>>> But this is not the case concerning the mobility of the earth and the >>>>>>> stabilityof the sun, which are propositions far removed from the >>>>>>> apprehension of the common man. As a result it has pleased the >>>>>>> Holy Spirit to accommodate the words of Sacred Scripture to the >>>>>>> capacities of the common man in such matters which do not concern >>>>>>> his salvation, even though in nature the fact be otherwise.
None of this matters to the fact that the Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned.
It matters because your claim of heresy is based on the arguments your >>>>> geocentrist mentor put forward. The exact claims that Galileo
demolishes above.
None of this matters.
Are you now dropping your endorsement of the geocentrist blogger that
heliocentrism was heresy because it went against the Church Fathers
and the Council of Trent?
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know
exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to
quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation
document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and
you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally
heretical.
It wasn't the Inquisition that did that, it was the Qualifiers who
came up with that opinion and the Inquisition rejected it.
But I guess you know better than the Inquisition just like you know
better than all the reputable researchers who have studied this, even
better than Galileo himself.
Your own sources wanted to claim that the Inquisition was
wrong in what they did, and they had to prevaricate about the difference
between "consent" and "teaching". Your sources were wrong. The Council
of Trent did not claim "teaching" as the prevaricators wanted to lie
about the issue in order to claim that the Inquisition was wrong in how
they had used the Council of Trent. Why try to lie about the Council of
Trent issue, when the sources that I used noted the use of the Council's
findings, and even your sources understood that the Inquisition had used
the Council of Trent.
It is just stupid to keep snipping and running from reality when reality
will never change.
I really, really wish you would take your own advice.
Who do you think you are impressing or convincing by continually
posting 70+k of text that nobody is going to read?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[snip for focus]
Even your trustedHe was charged with heresy *neither* time.
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times. >>>>>
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the >>>> heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
You can't face the REPOSTS where you are running and snipping and
running from your source being wrong about the Inquisition being the
only church body to have condemned heliocentrism. You know that
heliocentrism had been deemed "formally heretical" in 1616
How could I know something that didn't happen?
when Galileo was retained in Rome over the issue.
He was never "retained" over any issue in 1616; he went there of his
own accord and was free to leave any time he wanted.
He was not formally charged
because he would not confess to believing in the heliocentric heresy.
You have been insisting all along that he was charged, now you're
saying he wasn't "formally" charged. Tr4ying to change horses in
midstream is not recommended.
Galileo was only released
He was never "released" because he was never held for anything in
1616.
when he swore that he did not believe in the
heresy, and that he would not promote the heresy in the future. You
know that the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616
Another thing you keep claiming without a source to back it up.
and that he had
agreed with the Inquisition's findings. There is no sane reason for you
continue your stupid trollish harassment. Nothing will ever change reality. >>
You need to apologize for what you have been doing for years and quit
doing it
I don't need an apology from you, I just wish would quit posting this rubbish, it's become embarrassing watching you making such a fool of yourself.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/9/2026 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:23:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >>>>> times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>>>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran >>>from years ago?
Poor attempt at running away from the fact that you can't identify any
such "trusted source".
Plus, of course, the fact that you can't identify a single lie I have
told.
It isn't running away.
On 7/9/2026 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:04:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know
exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to
quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation >>> document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and
you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally >>> heretical.
It wasn't the Inquisition that did that, it was the Qualifiers who
came up with that opinion and the Inquisition rejected it.
But I guess you know better than the Inquisition just like you know
better than all the reputable researchers who have studied this, even
better than Galileo himself.
Heliocentrism was heresy no matter what the official claims were.
Everyone knows that they were wrong, but the changes to the Qualifier's >initial report
did not have anything to do with the rejection of theThe Inquisition continued to use the Council of Trent
Council of Trent.
as justification for their condemnation of heliocentrism. That is all
that matters. Your own trusted source told you that years ago. Galileo >faced the charge of heresy both times he faced the issue. Nothing that
you could possibly come up with will change that fact. You had to run
from your own source years ago, and you have to run from the REPOSTS now.
Your own sources wanted to claim that the Inquisition was
wrong in what they did, and they had to prevaricate about the difference >>> between "consent" and "teaching". Your sources were wrong. The Council >>> of Trent did not claim "teaching" as the prevaricators wanted to lie
about the issue in order to claim that the Inquisition was wrong in how
they had used the Council of Trent. Why try to lie about the Council of >>> Trent issue, when the sources that I used noted the use of the Council's >>> findings, and even your sources understood that the Inquisition had used >>> the Council of Trent.
It is just stupid to keep snipping and running from reality when reality >>> will never change.
I really, really wish you would take your own advice.
Who do you think you are impressing or convincing by continually
posting 70+k of text that nobody is going to read?
You need to stop your assoholic trolling, apologize for what you have
done for years and quit doing it. You will always get the REPOSTS that
you have to snip and run from. It has to be like punching yourself in
the face because you know how dishonest and stupid you have to be in
order to continue to do what you are doing.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts
from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running from
and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that he >can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
insane.On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon, >>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All >>> that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple >>> quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen >>> or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have >consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to
your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it
has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner.
Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about
what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response
that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for
your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying >about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short
and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of >your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when
I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face
what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated >that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have
continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as
you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are
just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics
that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have >consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you
are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is
never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always >been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies.
In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only
snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up >short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that
demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize
and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied
about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco.
There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have
already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and >honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could
you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied
about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show
you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and
running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the >repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not >running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that >demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the
situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are
doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of
what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what
you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and
see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out
the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to
lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior
is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
are lying".On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who >>>>>>> disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
dealingLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not
matched bywith your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote >>>>> mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is >>>> just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine >>>> for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being >>>> deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned >>>> out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it. >>>
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying, >> you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you >> resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of
moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from
the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism >never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran >from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
claiming youThe links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be >>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute >>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued >>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give >>>>> them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities >>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in >>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion >>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The >Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim
that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That
is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be >denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special >pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be >scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about
this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make
such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for >scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church.
The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti >geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not >state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope
only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They >know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that >there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that >somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the >issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent. >> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the >> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church >> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council >> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy >charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality >just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists
have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to
make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was
a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with
the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge
the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican >Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post >backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when >Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the >Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I
just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The
first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. MindOops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it. >>>
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor, >>> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything
worth you attempting.
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of >your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this >round should count as three strikes against you.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that
you got last time.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >> formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.
What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made >heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo >faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a >formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but
the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy
of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to
be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they
admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to >claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not >convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but
that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you
are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around
the heresy conviction.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >> change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple >sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same
sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree
removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing
restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or >planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were
still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was
stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what >they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists
contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of
the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any >documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that >there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the
decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would >have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to >condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge.
You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the
anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to >interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted
what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about
the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your
entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you
had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had done.
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
heliocentrism toYour claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post. >https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on >Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican >writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned
the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican >Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you >eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what
you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another >thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying
to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted
two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the
fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published
by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your
source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other
than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what
the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what
you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and >spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti >geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with
the same material and historical events and agreed with the
geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a >formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a
formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the
Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the >Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and >scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been >resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists
claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in
1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like
planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics >heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that
the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they
quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to >check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to
publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into
denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your >trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually
OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.
They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.
You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not
calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site
had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the >heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you
had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been >condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a
stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you
could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much ?
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they
noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the
intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican >Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the >Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo
did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was >convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the >Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and >punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti >geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the
Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that
it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this
post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been >verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying
about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with >reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out >that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The >next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go
back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting
more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third >party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue.
The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually >happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source >lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was
relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when
it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You >ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality.
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should >apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to
keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal >honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient.
Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by
putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy >instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my
sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what
your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied >about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not >bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal
act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence
for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced
to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Your source claimed that the Inquisition had
been the only church body to have condemned heliocentrism
On 7/9/2026 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:04:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know
exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to
quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation >>> document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and
you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally >>> heretical.
It wasn't the Inquisition that did that, it was the Qualifiers who
came up with that opinion and the Inquisition rejected it.
But I guess you know better than the Inquisition just like you know
better than all the reputable researchers who have studied this, even
better than Galileo himself.
Heliocentrism was heresy no matter what the official claims were.
Everyone knows that they were wrong, but the changes to the Qualifier's >initial report
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 14:49:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:23:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >>>>>> times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>>>>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran
from years ago?
Poor attempt at running away from the fact that you can't identify any
such "trusted source".
Plus, of course, the fact that you can't identify a single lie I have
told.
It isn't running away.
So why don't you just identify the source you are talking about?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 14:49:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:23:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
It remains a fact that Heliocentrism was considered to be a heresy both >>>>>> times Galiloe faced the issue. Your own trusted source admitted to that >>>>>> years ago and you just ran from what your source had told you.
Again we have this "trusted source" that you can never identify.
Again, why lie about something that you know happened and that you ran
from years ago?
Poor attempt at running away from the fact that you can't identify any
such "trusted source".
Plus, of course, the fact that you can't identify a single lie I have
told.
It isn't running away.
So why don't you just identify the source you are talking about?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:23:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:04:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Nothing that you can possibly do will change the reality that you know >>>> exists. You know what you have had to run from, and what you needed to >>>> quote mine in order to justify lying about running from the condemnation >>>> document. It isn't just the geocentric source that made the claim and >>>> you know that even your sources make the claim that the Inquisition
relied on the Council of Trent to verify that heliocentrism was formally >>>> heretical.
It wasn't the Inquisition that did that, it was the Qualifiers who
came up with that opinion and the Inquisition rejected it.
But I guess you know better than the Inquisition just like you know
better than all the reputable researchers who have studied this, even
better than Galileo himself.
Heliocentrism was heresy no matter what the official claims were.
Sorry, never mind Galileo and the reputable researchers, *you* know
the rules of the Catholic Church better than the Church itself.
Everyone knows that they were wrong, but the changes to the Qualifier's
initial report
What changes were made to it?
did not have anything to do with the rejection of theThe Inquisition continued to use the Council of Trent
Council of Trent.
as justification for their condemnation of heliocentrism. That is all
that matters. Your own trusted source told you that years ago. Galileo
faced the charge of heresy both times he faced the issue. Nothing that
you could possibly come up with will change that fact. You had to run >>from your own source years ago, and you have to run from the REPOSTS now.
Your own sources wanted to claim that the Inquisition was
wrong in what they did, and they had to prevaricate about the difference >>>> between "consent" and "teaching". Your sources were wrong. The Council >>>> of Trent did not claim "teaching" as the prevaricators wanted to lie
about the issue in order to claim that the Inquisition was wrong in how >>>> they had used the Council of Trent. Why try to lie about the Council of >>>> Trent issue, when the sources that I used noted the use of the Council's >>>> findings, and even your sources understood that the Inquisition had used >>>> the Council of Trent.
It is just stupid to keep snipping and running from reality when reality >>>> will never change.
I really, really wish you would take your own advice.
Who do you think you are impressing or convincing by continually
posting 70+k of text that nobody is going to read?
You need to stop your assoholic trolling, apologize for what you have
done for years and quit doing it. You will always get the REPOSTS that
you have to snip and run from. It has to be like punching yourself in
the face because you know how dishonest and stupid you have to be in
order to continue to do what you are doing.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts >>from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running from
and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that he
can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon, >>>>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a >>>>>>> heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All >>>>> that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple >>>>> quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen >>>>> or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard >>>>> can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have
consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to
your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it
has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner.
Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about
what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response
that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for
your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying
about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short
and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of
your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when
I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face
what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated
that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have
continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as
you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are
just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics
that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have
consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you
are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is
never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always
been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies.
In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only
snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up
short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that
demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize
and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied
about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco.
There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have
already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and
honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could
you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied
about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show
you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and
running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the
repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not
running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that
demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the
situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are
doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of
what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what
you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and
see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane. >>
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out
the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to
lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior
is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who >>>>>>>>> disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
dealingLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not
matched bywith your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were >>>>>>> caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote >>>>>>> mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is >>>>>> just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine >>>>>> for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being >>>>>> deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned >>>>>> out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have >>>>>> lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example >>>>> of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it. >>>>>
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I >>>> found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying, >>>> you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam. >>>>
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you >>>> resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of
moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from
the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism
never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran >>from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be >>>>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute >>>>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued >>>>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give >>>>>>> them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities >>>>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether >>>>> false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) >>>>> declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who >>>>> knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not >>>>> of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in >>>>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I >>>>> guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion >>>>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back >>>>> you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for >>>> the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The
Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim
that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That
is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be
denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special
pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be
scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about
this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make
such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for
scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church.
The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti
geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not
state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope
only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They
know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that
there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that
somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the
issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the
proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure
whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going
against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent. >>>> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did >>>> not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and >>>> the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing. >>>> The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the >>>> heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the >>>> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church >>>> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the >>>> church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting >>>> scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this >>>> to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of >>>> the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council >>>> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense >>>> and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such >>>> interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused >>>> the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric >>>> beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to
persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy
charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality
just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists
have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo
presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error. >>
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to
make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was
a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with
the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge
the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican
Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post
backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I
just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The
first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. MindOops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it. >>>>>
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor, >>>>> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I >>>>> figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew >>>>> nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions >>>>> and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything
worth you attempting.
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of
your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this
round should count as three strikes against you.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site. >>>> The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed >>>> with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy >>>> charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when >>>> Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to >>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that
you got last time.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >>>> formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.
What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made
heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo
faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a
formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but
the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy
of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to
be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they
admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to
claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not
convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but
that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you
are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around
the heresy conviction.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >>>> change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple
sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same
sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree
removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing
restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or
planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were
still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was
stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what
they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists
contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of
the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any
documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that
there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the
decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would
have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to
condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge.
You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the
anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted
what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about
the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your
entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you
had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had done.
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". >>>>>> END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did >>>>> was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me >>>>> who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>>>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>>>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up >>>> and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on
Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >> and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican
writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned
the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican
Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you
eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what
you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another
thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying
to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted
two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the
fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published
by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your
source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other
than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what
the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what
you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and
spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti
geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with
the same material and historical events and agreed with the
geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a
formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a
formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the
Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the
Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and
scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been
resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists
claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in
1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like
planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics
heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that
the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they
quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to
check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to
publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into
denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your
trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually
OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.
They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.
You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not
calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site
had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the
heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you
had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been
condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a
stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you
could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I
respect so much ?
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they
noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the
intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican
Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the
Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo
did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was
convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the
Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and
punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti
geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the
Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that
it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this
post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been
verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying
about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with
reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out
that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The
next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go
back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting
more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third
party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue.
The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually
happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source
lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was
relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when
it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You
ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality. >>
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should
apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to
keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal
honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient.
Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by
putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy
instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my
sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what
your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied
about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not
bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal
act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to >>>> continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence
for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but
once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced
to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 16:15:25 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
Your source claimed that the Inquisition had
been the only church body to have condemned heliocentrism
My source said no such thing, he said the *Qualifiers* were the ones
who condemned it, not the Inquisition and that the Qualifiers opinion
was not authoritative. Here is the exact quote that I gave from von
Gebler:
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:27:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
faced the
[snip for focus]
Even your trusted
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times.
He was charged with heresy *neither* time.
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he
heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
Why lie about something this stupid? It turns out that your sources
came up short.
Except you have never shown how they "came up short".
You have never demonstrated that my sources were wrong.
The only source you have come up with was your anonymous blogger
trying to argue the case for geocentrism. I doubt if anyone but you
would give the time of day to such a source.
All that has ever been established is that they supported each other,
WOW, reputable sources supporting each other through their independent research is a negative thing! This coming from a career scientist is
real crazy land.
and that your prevarications
on the issue have never demonstrated
otherwise. Your own trusted source told you that you were wrong and all
you did was run.
Yet again we get b this "trusted source" that you cannot identify.
You named the source and put up the link to it.
Nope, I have never put up a source that contradicted me in this
discussion. That's why you can't identify this "trusted source" that
you keep yammering about.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence >>> for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >>> once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced
to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that.
It is just what I assumed
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope agreed >with Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running
from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:55:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence >>>> for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >>>> once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced >>>> to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that.
It is just what I assumed
And there is your problem right there - you have *assumed* far too
much in regard to the Galileo affair. There is nothing wrong with
misreading something or making to a false assumption, the problem
comes when it is clearly demonstrated that that assumption is wrong
but you try to maintain the assumption and that is what you have been
doing all along.
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope agreed
with Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running
from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
You're now claiming the Pope condemned heliocentrism but he agreed
with Galileo and allowed him to continue putting up evidence
supporting it. You *really* need to stop and think about the stuff you
are arguing.
[...]
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:55:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence >>>> for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >>>> once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced >>>> to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that.
It is just what I assumed
And there is your problem right there - you have *assumed* far too
much in regard to the Galileo affair. There is nothing wrong with
misreading something or making to a false assumption, the problem
comes when it is clearly demonstrated that that assumption is wrong
but you try to maintain the assumption and that is what you have been
doing all along.
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope agreed
with Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running
from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
You're now claiming the Pope condemned heliocentrism but he agreed
with Galileo and allowed him to continue putting up evidence
supporting it. You *really* need to stop and think about the stuff you
are arguing.
[...]
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/14/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:55:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence >>>>> for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >>>>> once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced >>>>> to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that. >>>>
It is just what I assumed
And there is your problem right there - you have *assumed* far too
much in regard to the Galileo affair. There is nothing wrong with
misreading something or making to a false assumption, the problem
comes when it is clearly demonstrated that that assumption is wrong
but you try to maintain the assumption and that is what you have been
doing all along.
So the assumption doesn't change the fact that heliocentrism was
considered to be a heresy both times Galileo faced the issue. Your own >trusted source told you that.
It was definitely bad for Galileo in 1616
because he understood that his efforts had failed and that heliocentrism
was found to be formally hereitical in 1616.
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Heliocentrism was condemned. You quote mined the Papal document that
agreed with the Inquisition's findings. There is no reason to keep >prevaricating about the issue because you know that your source lied
about the Inquisition being the only church body to have condemned >heliocentrism.
You are currently snipping and running from the REPOSTS that demonstrate >that you had to snip and run from the evidence that your source had been >caught lying about the issue. That is how senseless your continued >prevarication on the topic is at this time.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope agreed >>> with Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running >>>from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
You're now claiming the Pope condemned heliocentrism but he agreed
with Galileo and allowed him to continue putting up evidence
supporting it. You *really* need to stop and think about the stuff you
are arguing.
[...]
The Pope obviously agreed with the Inquisition and had heliocentrism >condemned in 1616. He is likely the reason that Galileo got off the
hook as he did. The Inquisition believed that Galileo was a heretic,
but Galileo claimed that he did not believe in the heliocentric heresy,
and that just putting up evidence that supported the heresy did not mean >that he believed in the heresy. The Pope agreed on that point, and
wanted the situation resolved without finding Galileo to be a heretic.
No amount of your further prevarications will ever change the reality
that the Inquisition had determined that heliocentrism was heretical,
and had condemned heliocentric writings. The Pope agreed with the >Inquisition and condemned heliocentrism and added heliocentric writings
to the Index. You tried to quote mine the condemnation document by only >quoting the Copernican writings that had been provisionally condemned,
while your quote excluded the writings that had been banned outright.
It was a stupid quote mining attempt because it was never going to
change the fact that heliocentrism had been condemned in that document.
Your snipping and running effort is winding down to being so pathetic
that you have to be insane to continue your dishonest efforts.
It looks like you can't deal with your stupid screw up of accidentally >responding to the second REPOST where you quote mined the Papal >condemnation. You should reflect on why you can't deal honestly with
what you did and why you did it. Nothing that you can possibly do will
ever change what you have been wrong about for years.
You need to apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.
First Harran REPOST where you are running from the Papal condemnation of >heliocentrism. You eventually started lying about running from what you >could not deal with, and it resulted in the second Harran REPOST where
you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation in order to justify lying >about running from it.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts
from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running from
and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that he >can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
insane.On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon, >>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All >>> that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple >>> quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen >>> or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have >consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to
your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it
has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner.
Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about
what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response
that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for
your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying >about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short
and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of >your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when
I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face
what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated >that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have
continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as
you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are
just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics
that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have >consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you
are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is
never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always >been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies.
In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only
snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up >short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that
demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize
and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied
about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco.
There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have
already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and >honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could
you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied
about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show
you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and
running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the >repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not >running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that >demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the
situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are
doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of
what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what
you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and
see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out
the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to
lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior
is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
are lying".On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who >>>>>>> disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
dealingLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not
matched bywith your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote >>>>> mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is >>>> just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine >>>> for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being >>>> deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned >>>> out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it. >>>
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying, >> you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you >> resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of
moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from
the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism >never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran >from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
claiming youThe links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be >>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute >>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued >>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give >>>>> them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities >>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in >>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion >>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The >Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim
that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That
is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be >denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special >pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be >scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about
this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make
such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for >scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church.
The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti >geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not >state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope
only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They >know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that >there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that >somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the >issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent. >> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the >> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church >> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council >> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy >charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality >just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists
have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to
make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was
a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with
the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge
the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican >Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post >backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when >Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the >Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I
just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The
first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. MindOops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it. >>>
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor, >>> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything
worth you attempting.
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of >your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this >round should count as three strikes against you.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that
you got last time.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >> formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.
What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made >heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo >faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a >formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but
the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy
of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to
be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they
admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to >claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not >convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but
that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you
are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around
the heresy conviction.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >> change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple >sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same
sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree
removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing
restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or >planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were
still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was
stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what >they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists
contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of
the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any >documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that >there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the
decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would >have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to >condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge.
You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the
anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to >interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted
what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about
the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your
entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you
had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had done.
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
heliocentrism toYour claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post. >https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on >Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican >writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned
the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican >Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you >eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what
you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another >thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying
to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted
two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the
fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published
by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your
source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other
than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what
the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what
you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and >spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti >geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with
the same material and historical events and agreed with the
geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a >formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a
formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the
Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the >Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and >scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been >resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists
claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in
1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like
planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics >heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that
the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they
quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to >check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to
publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into
denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your >trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually
OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.
They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.
You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not
calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site
had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the >heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you
had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been >condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a
stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you
could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much ?
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they
noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the
intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican >Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the >Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo
did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was >convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the >Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and >punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti >geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the
Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that
it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this
post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been >verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying
about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with >reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out >that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The >next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go
back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting
more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third >party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue.
The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually >happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source >lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was
relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when
it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You >ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality.
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should >apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to
keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal >honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient.
Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by
putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy >instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my
sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what
your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied >about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not >bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal
act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On 7/14/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Heliocentrism was condemned. You quote mined the Papal document that
agreed with the Inquisition's findings.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:39:50 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:55:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence >>>>>> for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against scripture, but >>>>>> once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced >>>>>> to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay >>>>> in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed that. >>>>>
It is just what I assumed
And there is your problem right there - you have *assumed* far too
much in regard to the Galileo affair. There is nothing wrong with
misreading something or making to a false assumption, the problem
comes when it is clearly demonstrated that that assumption is wrong
but you try to maintain the assumption and that is what you have been
doing all along.
So the assumption doesn't change the fact that heliocentrism was
considered to be a heresy both times Galileo faced the issue. Your own
trusted source told you that.
Here we go again, no source of your own (except the geocentrist guy),
all you can offer is this "trusted source" of mine that you can never identify.
It was definitely bad for Galileo in 1616
because he understood that his efforts had failed and that heliocentrism
was found to be formally hereitical in 1616.
It wasn't. Beats me why you keep claiming this when you have nothing
to back it up and every reputable source disagrees with you.
[...]
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in >>>> his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Heliocentrism was condemned. You quote mined the Papal document that
agreed with the Inquisition's findings. There is no reason to keep
prevaricating about the issue because you know that your source lied
about the Inquisition being the only church body to have condemned
heliocentrism.
You are currently snipping and running from the REPOSTS that demonstrate
that you had to snip and run from the evidence that your source had been
caught lying about the issue. That is how senseless your continued
prevarication on the topic is at this time.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope agreed >>>> with Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running
from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
You're now claiming the Pope condemned heliocentrism but he agreed
with Galileo and allowed him to continue putting up evidence
supporting it. You *really* need to stop and think about the stuff you
are arguing.
[...]
The Pope obviously agreed with the Inquisition and had heliocentrism
condemned in 1616. He is likely the reason that Galileo got off the
hook as he did. The Inquisition believed that Galileo was a heretic,
but Galileo claimed that he did not believe in the heliocentric heresy,
and that just putting up evidence that supported the heresy did not mean
that he believed in the heresy. The Pope agreed on that point, and
wanted the situation resolved without finding Galileo to be a heretic.
No amount of your further prevarications will ever change the reality
that the Inquisition had determined that heliocentrism was heretical,
and had condemned heliocentric writings. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition and condemned heliocentrism and added heliocentric writings
to the Index. You tried to quote mine the condemnation document by only
quoting the Copernican writings that had been provisionally condemned,
while your quote excluded the writings that had been banned outright.
It was a stupid quote mining attempt because it was never going to
change the fact that heliocentrism had been condemned in that document.
Your snipping and running effort is winding down to being so pathetic
that you have to be insane to continue your dishonest efforts.
It looks like you can't deal with your stupid screw up of accidentally
responding to the second REPOST where you quote mined the Papal
condemnation. You should reflect on why you can't deal honestly with
what you did and why you did it. Nothing that you can possibly do will
ever change what you have been wrong about for years.
You need to apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.
First Harran REPOST where you are running from the Papal condemnation of
heliocentrism. You eventually started lying about running from what you
could not deal with, and it resulted in the second Harran REPOST where
you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation in order to justify lying
about running from it.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts >>from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running from
and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that he
can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon, >>>>>>> Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a >>>>>>> heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All >>>>> that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple >>>>> quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen >>>>> or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard >>>>> can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have
consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to
your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it
has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner.
Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about
what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response
that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for
your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying
about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short
and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of
your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when
I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face
what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated
that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have
continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as
you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are
just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics
that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have
consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you
are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is
never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always
been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies.
In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only
snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up
short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that
demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize
and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied
about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco.
There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have
already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and
honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could
you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied
about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show
you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and
running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the
repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not
running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that
demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the
situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are
doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of
what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what
you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and
see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane. >>
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out
the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to
lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior
is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who >>>>>>>>> disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is >>>>>>>> pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you >>>>>>>> could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
dealingLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not
matched bywith your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were >>>>>>> caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote >>>>>>> mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is >>>>>> just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine >>>>>> for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being >>>>>> deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported >>>>>> my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did >>>>>> not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned >>>>>> out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your >>>>>> lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have >>>>>> lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did. >>>>>> An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try >>>>>> not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example >>>>> of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it. >>>>>
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I >>>> found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying, >>>> you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam. >>>>
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you >>>> resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of
moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from
the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism
never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran >>from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be >>>>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute >>>>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued >>>>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give >>>>>>> them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities >>>>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether >>>>> false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) >>>>> declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who >>>>> knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not >>>>> of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in >>>>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I >>>>> guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion >>>>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back >>>>> you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for >>>> the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The
Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim
that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That
is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be
denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special
pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be
scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about
this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make
such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for
scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church.
The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti
geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not
state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope
only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They
know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that
there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that
somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the
issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the
proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure
whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going
against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent. >>>> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did >>>> not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and >>>> the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing. >>>> The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the >>>> heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the >>>> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church >>>> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the >>>> church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting >>>> scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this >>>> to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of >>>> the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council >>>> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense >>>> and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such >>>> interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused >>>> the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric >>>> beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to
persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy
charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality
just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists
have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo
presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error. >>
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to
make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was
a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with
the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge
the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican
Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post
backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I
just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The
first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. MindOops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it. >>>>>
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor, >>>>> it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I >>>>> figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew >>>>> nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions >>>>> and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything
worth you attempting.
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of
your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this
round should count as three strikes against you.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site. >>>> The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed >>>> with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy >>>> charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when >>>> Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to >>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that
you got last time.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >>>> formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.
What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made
heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo
faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a
formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but
the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy
of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to
be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they
admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to
claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not
convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but
that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you
are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around
the heresy conviction.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >>>> change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple
sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same
sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree
removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing
restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or
planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were
still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was
stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what
they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists
contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of
the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any
documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that
there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the
decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would
have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to
condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge.
You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the
anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted
what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about
the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your
entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you
had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had done.
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". >>>>>> END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did >>>>> was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me >>>>> who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>>>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>>>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up >>>> and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on
Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >> and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican
writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned
the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican
Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you
eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what
you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another
thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying
to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted
two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the
fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published
by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your
source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other
than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what
the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what
you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and
spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti
geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with
the same material and historical events and agreed with the
geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a
formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a
formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the
Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the
Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and
scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been
resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists
claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in
1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like
planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics
heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that
the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they
quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to
check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to
publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into
denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your
trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually
OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.
They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.
You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not
calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site
had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the
heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you
had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been
condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a
stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you
could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I
respect so much ?
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they
noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the
intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican
Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the
Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo
did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was
convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the
Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and
punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti
geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the
Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that
it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this
post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been
verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying
about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with
reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out
that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The
next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go
back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting
more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third
party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue.
The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually
happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source
lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was
relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when
it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You
ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality. >>
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should
apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to
keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal
honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient.
Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by
putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy
instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my
sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what
your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied
about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not
bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal
act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to >>>> continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
Sorry, I forgot again to dump the garbage
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:39:50 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[continuation from previous post - I clicked 'Send' by mistake.
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in >>>> his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Heliocentrism was condemned. You quote mined the Papal document that
agreed with the Inquisition's findings.
The only one here who has quote mined is you. You put up the Vatican Observatory link where the author started by quoting the 1616 decree.
You tried to make out that was them agreeing it was heretical and
ignored the conclusion where they said:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote> https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You have tried to claim they agreed it was declared heresy when they
said the exact opposite - *that* is what quote-mining is.
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:39:50 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>wrote:
wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:55:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/10/2026 6:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:42:51 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
scripture, but
On 7/9/2026 7:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:16:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
It is well known that Galileo went to Rome to defend presenting evidence
for heliocentrism. He believed that that was not against
that.once he was there the Inquisition did not believe him and he was forced
to remain in Rome until the matter was settled.
Wheer on earth are you getting that claim that he was forced to stay
in Rome from? I don't think even your geocentrist mentor claimed
It is just what I assumed
And there is your problem right there - you have *assumed* far too
much in regard to the Galileo affair. There is nothing wrong with
misreading something or making to a false assumption, the problem
comes when it is clearly demonstrated that that assumption is wrong
but you try to maintain the assumption and that is what you have been
doing all along.
So the assumption doesn't change the fact that heliocentrism was
considered to be a heresy both times Galileo faced the issue. Your own
trusted source told you that.
Here we go again, no source of your own (except the geocentrist guy),
all you can offer is this "trusted source" of mine that you can never identify.
It was definitely bad for Galileo in 1616
because he understood that his efforts had failed and that heliocentrism
was found to be formally hereitical in 1616.
It wasn't. Beats me why you keep claiming this when you have nothing
to back it up and every reputable source disagrees with you.
[...]agreed
because he went there voluntarily, but had to
stay in Rome for an extended length of time. Google claims that the
stay was voluntary because Galileo wanted the matter to be resolved in
his favor, but it was not. Heliocentism was condemned.
No it wasn't. What was condemned was claiming heliocentrism was true
without proof or using it to challenge the interpretation of
Scripture. Just another thing that you don't want to face up to which
is why you cannot deal with the contradictions in your arguments e.g.
why Foscarini's book was banned outright but Copernicus's wasn't.
Heliocentrism was condemned. You quote mined the Papal document that
agreed with the Inquisition's findings. There is no reason to keep
prevaricating about the issue because you know that your source lied
about the Inquisition being the only church body to have condemned
heliocentrism.
You are currently snipping and running from the REPOSTS that demonstrate
that you had to snip and run from the evidence that your source had been
caught lying about the issue. That is how senseless your continued
prevarication on the topic is at this time.
Galileo
continued to claim that just putting up evidence supporting
heliocentrism was not the same as believing the heresy. The pope
from and lying about the posts existing, and the Quote mining REPOST that hewith Galileo, but as you know from what you are snipping and running
from the Pope had heliocentrism condemned in 1616, and Galileo was
supposed to end his support for heliocentrism.
You're now claiming the Pope condemned heliocentrism but he agreed
with Galileo and allowed him to continue putting up evidence
supporting it. You *really* need to stop and think about the stuff you
are arguing.
[...]
The Pope obviously agreed with the Inquisition and had heliocentrism
condemned in 1616. He is likely the reason that Galileo got off the
hook as he did. The Inquisition believed that Galileo was a heretic,
but Galileo claimed that he did not believe in the heliocentric heresy,
and that just putting up evidence that supported the heresy did not mean
that he believed in the heresy. The Pope agreed on that point, and
wanted the situation resolved without finding Galileo to be a heretic.
No amount of your further prevarications will ever change the reality
that the Inquisition had determined that heliocentrism was heretical,
and had condemned heliocentric writings. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition and condemned heliocentrism and added heliocentric writings
to the Index. You tried to quote mine the condemnation document by only
quoting the Copernican writings that had been provisionally condemned,
while your quote excluded the writings that had been banned outright.
It was a stupid quote mining attempt because it was never going to
change the fact that heliocentrism had been condemned in that document.
Your snipping and running effort is winding down to being so pathetic
that you have to be insane to continue your dishonest efforts.
It looks like you can't deal with your stupid screw up of accidentally
responding to the second REPOST where you quote mined the Papal
condemnation. You should reflect on why you can't deal honestly with
what you did and why you did it. Nothing that you can possibly do will
ever change what you have been wrong about for years.
You need to apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.
First Harran REPOST where you are running from the Papal condemnation of
heliocentrism. You eventually started lying about running from what you
could not deal with, and it resulted in the second Harran REPOST where
you tried to quote mine the Papal condemnation in order to justify lying
about running from it.
Harran REPOST 1:
SNIP:
There seems to be a limit on post length, so Harran will get two posts
from now on. The REPOST that he is currently snipping out, running
C'mon,can't bring himself to even address by snipping out the material.
First REPOST:
On 5/1/2026 8:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support.
read. Allsnipped andRon, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to
simplethat's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a
dozenquote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A
it isor so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
All that you will get are the reposts demonstrating that you have
consistently lied about this topic, gotten caught lying, and added to
your stupid dishonest behavior by quote mining in order to deny that it
has always been your sources that have come up short in this manner.
Your continued stupid and assoholic behavior of continuing to lie about
what you have done is just insane.
I am going to add the quote mining repost and this is all the response
that you will ever get from me on this topic until you apologize for
your lying harassment and stop doing it.
REPOST that you are going to get from now on:
It contains what you have lied about doing in your current bout of lying
about what you could never deal honestly with. Your source came up short
and lied about the topic. You ran and would not deal with the reality of
your source coming up short yet again. You snipped and ran from it when
I put it up again. You lied about doing that, and when you had to face
what you had done you tried to quote mine the document that demonstrated
that your source had lied. It is just what you did, and you have
continued to lie about not quote mining and snipping and running even as
you have been snipping and running in this series of posts.
REPOST of material that you just snipped out demonstrating that you are
just a lying harassing asshole:
Third time for you. Can you possibly be worse than Nyikos?
REPOST of the REPOST:
REPOST:
It has already been countered. Look what bogus and dishonest tactics
that you have had to employ to put up the additional stupidity. You have
consistently lied about your past exploits. You can't deal with what you
are currently lying about. Trying to further obfuscate the issue is
never going to undo what you have already done. Your sources have always
been found to be deficient. You have had to run from the deficiencies.
In this latest example of you lying about the past you have not only
snipped and run from dealing honestly with how your sources have come up
short, but you have resorted to quote mining the document that
demonstrated that your source had lied about the situation.
What you are doing is just stupid and dishonest. You need to apologize
and quit doing it. You are currently running from posts that you lied
about ever existing, and you can't face your own quote mining fiasco.
There is nothing that I need to do, but make you face what you have
already done.
Apologize and quit doing what you are doing. That is the only sane and
honest thing that you can do at this time. What possible excuse could
you have for snipping out and running from the reposts that you lied
about never existing? They show your source coming up short. They show
you running from reality, and show you snipping out the evidence and
running again when I put up the material again. You can't even face the
repost that demonstrates that in order to justify your lies about not
running from the material you tried to quote mine the document that
demonstrated that your source was wrong and had lied about the
situation. Your stupidity and dishonesty have resulted in what you are
doing now. You should stop doing it. You can't deal with the reposts of
what you have done, so why keep adding to the stupidity?
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
Everything that you lie about being handwaving can be documented by what
you are currently running from. You just have to go up the thread and
see what you did. Lying about what you have done is just stupid and insane.
This is the post that started this thread string. You had to snip out
the reposts that you had lied about not existing in order to continue to
lie about the past as you are currently doing. Your dishonest behavior
is just insane.
REPOST
On 4/21/2026 10:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that
that youpretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources
supportedshort?could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
dealingLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not
matched bywith your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
the tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even
it didbeenmy sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
condemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because
yoursamenot negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with
did.whatlame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you
Just tryAn appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order.
believe it.not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually
lying,
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught
that youyou then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior
to beresorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
I was giving you a chance to demonstrate that you had some sense of
moral integrity, but you do not.
Here is the entire posts that resulted from you initially running from
the link that demonstrated that your source had lied about heliocentrism
never being condemned other than by the inquisition.
This is the post that I demonstrated that your source was wrong. You ran
from this evidence and did not acknowledge it.
REPOST 1:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue
refutegeocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to
givethem. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is
authoritiesclaiming youthem again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical
for thecommitted a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all,
to inQualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred
delusionit somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your
Trent.as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The
Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim
that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That
is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot be
denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by special
pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly be
scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about
this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make
such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for
scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church.
The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti
geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not
state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope
only noted what could be published. So that question is still open. They
know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is that
there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is that
somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the
issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the
proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure
whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going
against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge
of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of
just didThey were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they
heresy andnot call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be
sentencing.the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the
of theThe anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs
churchchurch fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the
of thecame up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs
interpretingchurch fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for
Use ofscripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the
Councilthe Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the
suchof Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though
causedinterpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent
geocentricthe Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the
about it.beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to
persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy
charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about reality
just does not change reality. Even the guys against the geocentrists
have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo
presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error.
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 1:
You eventually snipped out the evidence and I had to put it back in to
make you deal with it.
REPOST 2:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before, so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again. You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it was
a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed with
the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy charge
the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The Vatican
Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of this post
backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 2
You at first tried to deny that you had put up the bogus quote, but I
just had to tell you that you were the one that put up the claim. The
first REPOST above has you doing just that.
REPOST 3
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim
mentor,
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist
site.it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
Your ability to keep lying is just lame and should be beneath anything
worth you attempting.
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
So you can just lie about it again. Those links were the second round of
your stupid denial of reality. Your denial of what has been put up this
round should count as three strikes against you.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric
agreedThe anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they
heliocentrism tohttps://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
was abe "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
The Vatican observatory and the wiki are just supporting the links that
you got last time.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it
anything toformal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
What does this matter. It was the Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.
What do you think that they charged him with? The Inquisition had made
heliocentrism into a formal heresy, and that is the charge that Galileo
faced, probably both times. The first time the Inquisition called it a
formal heresy, and the second time it was only put up as a heresy, but
the heresy was clearly defined, and it was the same as the formal heresy
of the previous incident. The anti geocentric Catholics want it not to
be a formal heresy conviction because the Pope was involved, but they
admit that it was obviously a conviction of heresy. Some of them want to
claim that the sentencing was poorly written, and that Galileo was not
convicted of heresy, but of breaking his oath to the Inquisition, but
that oath was to not commit the formal heresy in the future, so like you
are doing they have to shoot themselves in the head to try to get around
the heresy conviction.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect
done.change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
They had a whole web site to combat the geocentrists. It had multiple
sections that included the relevant documents. They cited the same
sources cited by the geocentrists. They had the full Papal decree
removing Copernican writings from the banned list and removing
restrictions on publishing Copernican notions concerning telling time or
planetary motions, but as the geocentrists contended restrictions were
still in place, they were not stated in the document. All that was
stated was that authors had to consult the church offices to see if what
they wanted to publish was right with the church. The geocentrists
contended that heliocentrism remained a heresy, and that the beliefs of
the church fathers could not be challenged, but no one could put up any
documents that could support what remained restricted. My guess is that
there is a document with the continued restrictions, otherwise, the
decree would not have mentioned that they existed. I doubt that it would
have been transmitted verbally to the church offices.
You just got the Council of Trent quote that allowed the Inquisition to
condemn the heresy and make heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge.
You ran from it, but the quote just supports both the geocentrists, the
anti geocentrists, and the wiki accounts.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 3
You snipped out the evidence that your source had lied. You admitted
what you had done, but tried to weasel out of your source lying about
the issue. This is my response to what you did, and it contains your
entire post. You should note what you snipped out. I just put what you
had snipped out back in, so you would fully understand what you had
since it
REPOST 4:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical
peopleexplicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it,
opinionlike De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on
Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one
and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican
writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition) banned
the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican
Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 4:
You continued to lie about the situation and in this thread string you
eventually ran continuing to lie about the situation. I note just what
you have done. In part of the response I am giving an account of another
thread string that was going on about this subject where you were trying
to deny what the Vatican observatory article had claimed. You resorted
two quote mining the condemnation. The quote mine did not change the
fact that it was called a condemnation, and was directed to be published
by the Pope. Your dishonest attempt did not change the fact that your
source had lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned other
than by the inquisition. The Jesuits were very matter of fact about what
the Pope had done.
REPOST 5:
On 11/22/2025 3:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
You are the one that has quote mined. You have always lied about what
you have been given. The original source was found to be trustworthy and
spot on in their interpretation. They were backed up by their anti
geocentric Catholic opponents because those opponents had to deal with
the same material and historical events and agreed with the
geocentrists. It turned out that they disagreed about Galileo facing a
formal heresy charge the second time, but agreed that it had been a
formal heresy charge the first time. They both agreed that the
Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy due to the findings of the
Council of Trent with respect to the beliefs of the Church fathers and
scriptural interpretation. They disagreed about the issue having been
resolved before the Papal apology in the 1990's. The geocentrists
claimed that heliocentrism remained a heresy after the Papal decree in
1820 only removed the prohibition for telling time and things like
planetary motions because there remained restrictions on what topics
heliocentrism could be applied to. The anti geocentrics countered that
the remaining restrictions were never stated in the decree and they
quoted the entire decree, and all that was said was that authors had to
check with the church offices to determine if what they wanted to
publish was allowed. Such was the efforts against the geocentrists.
You ran from the links and you lied about the sources and went into
denial. It turned out that you were the one that had quote mined your
trusted source because I was able to demonstrate that they were actually
OK with claiming that Galileo had faced the heresy charge both times.
They just did not make a distinction between formal heresy and heresy.
You tried to counter with a stupid quote about the sentencing not
calling it a formal heresy, but that didn't matter for what your site
had claimed. The sentencing called it a heresy and clearly defined the
heresy that Galileo was guilty of.
Running from what I put up in this thread that just supported what you
had been given years ago was stupid. Putting up your stupid "never been
condemned" quote to counter what you could not deal with was just a
stupid move. It turned out that your sources were the ones that you
could not depend on.
These are just the facts, and anyone can go up and see what you did.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I
respect so much ?
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
The Vatican Observatory demonstrated that quote to be a lie when they
noted that the condemnation came from Rome and was issued by the
intruction of the Pope. That is why you initially ran from the Vatican
Observatory link. It was not just the Holy Office that condemned the
Copernican system, and your quote doesn't even demonstrate that Galileo
did not face a charge of formal heresy the first time, nor that he was
convicted of heresy the second time. Your quote was only lying about the
Inquisition being the only bad boys. The Pope agreed with the
Inquisition in 1616. Another Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing and
punishment published and disseminated throughout the church. The anti
geocentric Catholics admitted that the Pope did this to quash the
Copernican issue that was festering in the church, but they claimed that
it was not an official Papal act.
The Vatican Observatory link is the link that you snipped out of this
post. Your source could not be trusted. My sources have always been
verified. You have just run and denied what you were given, and lying
about the trustworthiness of the sources when you could not deal with
reality. The Vatican observatory quoted the entire decree. It turned out
that your source was not trustworthy.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
You should reflect on what has happened. It should not happen again. The
next time that you want to start lying about the issue, you should go
back through how it has always ended up for you. You just keep getting
more evidence that you were wrong the first time. You represent a third
party of Catholics that just want the issue to have never been an issue.
The geocentrists and anti geocentrists have to deal with what actually
happened.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST 5:
In this round you were never able to accept the reality that your source
lied, and you wanted to continue to believe that the stupid lie was
relevant to your continued lies about my sources not being adequate when
it was your source that had been found to be far less than adequate. You
ended by snipping out what you could not deal with and running from reality.
You should stop lying about what happened years ago, and you should
apologize for being such an assoholic liar on this issue in order to
keep harassing me about something that you have never been able to deal
honestly with. My original sources were never found to be deficient.
Your own trusted source backed them up and you tried to deny this by
putting up a stupid quote about Galileo only being convicted of a heresy
instead of formal heresy. This had already been established by my
sources, and in no way was anything worth putting up to counter what
your own trusted source had agreed with. Your source in this round lied
about heliocentrism never being condemned other than by the Inquisition.
The Jesuits were matter of fact about this not being true. They did not
bother to try to claim whether the condemnation was an official Papal
act, they just stated what the Pope had done in 1616.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
END REPOST of the REPOST:
END of first of two REPOSTS:
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/16/2026 1:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the
controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
Just look what you just had to do in order to snip and run from the post >that you posted that did not conform to your delusional snipping and
running rules.
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >instead of snipping and running from them.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:06:23 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 1:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the
controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
Just look what you just had to do in order to snip and run from the post
that you posted that did not conform to your delusional snipping and
running rules.
Just look at you trying to run from being caught out on the quote
mining you accuse me of.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:06:23 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 1:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:20:08 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
You just tried to quote mine the Wiki that demonstrated
that heliocentrism was a heresy in 1616.
The article you quoted does NOT demonstrate that heliocentrism was a
heresy in 1616, it says the opposite:
<quote>
In the end, Galileo did not persuade the Church to stay out of the
controversy, but instead saw heliocentrism formally declared false. It
was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it
contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this
position was not binding on the Church.
</quote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Judgement
Giving the author's conclusion is not quote mining; you are the one
quote mining to make out the author says something they didn't.
Again, it beats me why you keep trying to claim something that is so
easily shown to be wrong; the link has been given several times, and
anyone can read it for themselves:
Just look what you just had to do in order to snip and run from the post
that you posted that did not conform to your delusional snipping and
running rules.
Just look at you trying to run from being caught out on the quote
mining you accuse me of.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS
instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS
instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged
with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTS
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about
All your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under
because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where
they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor
that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/18/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
You know the REPOSTSAll your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under >>>>>> because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims.
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about >>>>>>
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about.
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where >>>>>> they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it.
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor >>>>>> that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims. >>>>>>
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>>>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract
from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I
ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your
daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
Just look at how you have been unable to deal with the reality of this >thread.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:18:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/18/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
You know the REPOSTSAll your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under >>>>>>> because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims. >>>>>>>
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about >>>>>>>
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about. >>>>>>>
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where >>>>>>> they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it. >>>>>>>
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor >>>>>>> that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims. >>>>>>>
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>>>>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract >>>>> from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I >>>>> ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your >>>>> daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
Just look at how you have been unable to deal with the reality of this
thread.
Well, I have no wish to be part of *your* reality where you think
things in your imagination really do exist. I doubt if anyone else
still reads this thread but if they do, what do you think they will,
for example, make of your continuing insistence that I have told lies
when you cannot identify a single example of a lie I have told?
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 08:49:48 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>insane.
wrote:
On 4/30/2026 5:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 19:41:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/29/2026 1:13 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 12:43:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Snipping and lying about what you have done is just stupid and
snipped and
Not as stupid and insane as making a claim you can't support. C'mon,
Ron, give the link to the Wiki article that says Galileo faced a
heresy charge in 1616 rCa surely it can't be that difficult.
[snip desperation attempt to avoid issue]
What a lying asshole. This is the second time that you have
run from what you have lied about as being handwaving.
C'mon Ron, no need to repost 7000 words that nobody wants to read. All
that's needed to show me to be the lying asshole, not you, is a simple
quote from the Wiki article that says what you insist it says. A dozen
or so words should cover it or even a simple URL. Can't be that hard
can it?
[...]
You need to stop harassing me with your stupid lies about the past.
I'll gladly stop harassing you when you either give a specific example
of a lie told by either me or those I cited in support. Or else
withdraw your own stupid lies.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:40:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>are lying".
wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:06:53 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/18/2026 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:31:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/2026 11:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they
(no matterand probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments
reality,how valid) that failed to get through the first 50 times.
Tell that to RonO, he's the one who keeps calling everyone who
disagrees with him a liar.
Who got caught lying and quote mining? You need to deal with
short?and quit lying about it. Lying about me is just so stupid that it is
pretty much insane. You have always lied about the sources that you
could not deal honestly with. Who's sources have always come up
matched byLook at what you are doing now. Is there any excuse for you not dealing
with your own stupid dishonest behavior?
The tiresomeness of you continually claiming that my sources were
caught lying and that I have been lying and quote mining is
beenthe tiresomeness of your inability to ever identify what lie my
sources were caught in, what lies I have told or where I have quote
mined.
[... more big snip ...]
Why keep lying about what your sources did and what you did? That is
just stupid and dishonest. Just look up your past posts to determine
for yourself what went down. You tried to lie about my sources being
deficient when your sources had always come up short or even supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never
samecondemned other then by the inquisition. It was stupid because it did
not negate what you and your sources had been wrong about. It turned
out that your source was lying and you ran. You ran twice from the
whatevidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from
it had been. You did that, and your source was demonstrated to have
lied about the issue. You need to go back and deal with what you did.
An appology for your disgraceful behavior would be in order. Just try
not to do it again. Continuing to lie about what happened is just
adding to how low you needed to go.
Yet again, you make all sorts of accusations without a single example
of something to support them.
What I cannot figure out is whether you just can't grasp that your
failure to produce a single example of supporting evidence portrays
*you* as the one telling lies; or whether you do grasp it and just
don't care; or whether, like a certain President, you think that if
you repeat a lie enough times that someone will eventually believe it.
You should apologize for what you have been doing and stop doing it. I
found the posts where you ran from your source having been caught lying,
you then snipped the evidence out of your response to your running.
The thread: There is no legitimate scientific support for the ID scam.
I can post your quote mining attempts and other stupid behavior that you
resorted to to defend your running and defense of your bogus source.
So why don't you instead of talking about it?
Specific examples, please, not reams and reams of obfuscatory cut'n
paste.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>claiming you
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be
geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute
them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued
denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give
them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by
gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own
trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities
committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether
false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes)
declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in
it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I
guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion
as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back
you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for
the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric
site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at
all" did you not understand?
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of
guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's
trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent.
They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got
reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy
charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did
not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were
still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and
the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing.
The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the
heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They
just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just
stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want
to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue.
They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself
should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism
into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics,
and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the
church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric
Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church
came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the
church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting
scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this
to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of
the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council
of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses,
presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or
even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such
interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished
with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused
the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric
beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation
bias.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was
one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>heliocentrism to
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much EfOU
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
You should not continue to add to your own dishonest stupidity.
Trusting your source was obviously a stupid thing to do, and trying to
continue to support that source was just stupid and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:18:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/18/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
You know the REPOSTSAll your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under >>>>>>> because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims. >>>>>>>
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about >>>>>>>
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about. >>>>>>>
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where >>>>>>> they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it. >>>>>>>
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor >>>>>>> that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy.
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but
Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims. >>>>>>>
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS >>>>>> instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract >>>>> from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I >>>>> ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your >>>>> daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
Just look at how you have been unable to deal with the reality of this
thread.
Well, I have no wish to be part of *your* reality where you think
things in your imagination really do exist. I doubt if anyone else
still reads this thread but if they do, what do you think they will,
for example, make of your continuing insistence that I have told lies
when you cannot identify a single example of a lie I have told?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/19/2026 4:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:18:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/18/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
You know the REPOSTSAll your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under >>>>>>>> because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims. >>>>>>>>
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about >>>>>>>>
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about. >>>>>>>>
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where >>>>>>>> they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it. >>>>>>>>
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor >>>>>>>> that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy. >>>>>>>>
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but >>>>>>>> Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims. >>>>>>>>
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS
instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract >>>>>> from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I >>>>>> ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your >>>>>> daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
Just look at how you have been unable to deal with the reality of this
thread.
Well, I have no wish to be part of *your* reality where you think
things in your imagination really do exist. I doubt if anyone else
still reads this thread but if they do, what do you think they will,
for example, make of your continuing insistence that I have told lies
when you cannot identify a single example of a lie I have told?
You are the only one maintaining your stupid and dishonest behavior. No
one else is affected by your bogus and dishonest behavior. It is just >something that I have had to endure for years. Your harassment on this >issue has always been unwarranted, and this stupid and dishonest
snipping and running behavior will never change that reality.
You have some delusional rules that allow you to snip and lie about
reality. You can't even bring yourself to apply those rules to the
second Harran REPOST.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:02:52 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/19/2026 4:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 14:18:27 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/18/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:15:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/17/2026 3:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:46:36 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:32:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
You know the REPOSTSAll your REPOSTS show is your pathetic attempt to snow people under >>>>>>>>> because you have nothing better to offer to support your claims. >>>>>>>>>
demonstrate that you never had anything worth prevaricating about >>>>>>>>>
You can't identify the "trusted source" you keep yammering about. >>>>>>>>>
You can't point to a single lie I told.
You can't point to single quote mine from me.
You can't identify a single lie told by any of my sources ort where >>>>>>>>> they "came up short".
You can't show where the Wiki article shows that Galileo was charged >>>>>>>>> with heresy in 1616; you can't produce *any* source that says it. >>>>>>>>>
You can't produce a single source apart from you geocentrist mentor >>>>>>>>> that supports your claim that heliocentrism was ever a heresy. >>>>>>>>>
You can't explain why Foscarini's book was banned outright but >>>>>>>>> Copernicus's wasn't.
You can't explain the numerous other contradictions in your claims. >>>>>>>>>
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the REPOSTS
instead of snipping and running from them.
Keep going, Ron. Your feeble attempts at dumping garbage to distract >>>>>>> from your inability to deal with any of the above shows better than I >>>>>>> ever could how much bullshit are your accusations against me and your >>>>>>> daft claims relating to Galileo.
If you are not lying you would be able to deal honestly with the
REPOSTS.
As I said, keep going Ron, you're doing an excellent job for me.
Just look at how you have been unable to deal with the reality of this >>>> thread.
Well, I have no wish to be part of *your* reality where you think
things in your imagination really do exist. I doubt if anyone else
still reads this thread but if they do, what do you think they will,
for example, make of your continuing insistence that I have told lies
when you cannot identify a single example of a lie I have told?
You are the only one maintaining your stupid and dishonest behavior. No
one else is affected by your bogus and dishonest behavior. It is just
something that I have had to endure for years. Your harassment on this
issue has always been unwarranted, and this stupid and dishonest
snipping and running behavior will never change that reality.
You have some delusional rules that allow you to snip and lie about
reality. You can't even bring yourself to apply those rules to the
second Harran REPOST.
I reckon you are too intelligent a person to not realise by this stage
how foolish your claims are. The only thing I can put your behaviour
down to is a stubborn immaturity where you simply cannot face up to
having screwed something up. I'm going to take a break from this; I
seriously recommend that you walk away from it. If you ever try to
resurrect this stuff in the future, you can be sure that I will remind
you of all the issues I listed above that you have been unable to deal
with.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:27:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/8/2026 6:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 10:46:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/6/2026 2:07 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2026 20:45:19 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[snip for focus]
Even your trustedHe was charged with heresy *neither* time.
source admitted that Galileo faced the charge of heresy both times. >>>>>
Why keep lying about the issue in this way. You know that he faced the >>>> heresy charge in 1616.
What do you think you are achieving by continuing with these claims
when you cannot identify a single source that agrees with you?
Why lie about something this stupid? It turns out that your sources
came up short.
Except you have never shown how they "came up short".
You have never demonstrated that my sources were wrong.
The only source you have come up with was your anonymous blogger
trying to argue the case for geocentrism. I doubt if anyone but you
would give the time of day to such a source.
All that has ever been established is that they supported each other,
WOW, reputable sources supporting each other through their independent research is a negative thing! This coming from a career scientist is
real crazy land.
and that your prevarications
on the issue have never demonstrated
otherwise. Your own trusted source told you that you were wrong and all
you did was run.
Yet again we get b this "trusted source" that you cannot identify.
You named the source and put up the link to it.
Nope, I have never put up a source that contradicted me in this
discussion. That's why you can't identify this "trusted source" that
you keep yammering about.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>Jesuits
wrote:
On 2/22/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:44:57 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/21/2026 11:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
What documents are you talking about that you keep saying the
what youput up?
You can keep lying about what has been discussed, but you know
condemneddid. You need to be the one that finds it and satisfy yourself with
what you did.
You put up your source lying about heliocentrism never being
was notby anyone but the Inquisition. You claimed that the Inquisition
ordered bythe Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was
sources havethe Pope. They put up the relevant document and stated what the Pope
did. Your source was caught lying and you ran. Go find it. It is
something that you should do because you will uncover all your other
evasions on this issue while doing it. Your quotes of your
havealways come up short. The sources that you claim are unreliable,
repeatedly been shown to be more reliable than what you come up with.
Oh, you mean the link you gave back in November, this one:
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
The one where they posted the full 1616 decree on it's 400th
anniversary and commented:
<quote>
The formulation here is much milder than the one found in the working
document of February 24. The Decree talks about the "false Pythagorean
doctrine" and declare it "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture".
This is not nearly as harsh as "foolish and absurd" philosophically,
and "formally heretical" because contrary to Scripture.
</quote>
How fucking dense can you be? It doesn't get much stupider than
posting something that contradicts what you are claiming.
If I am the dense one why did you run from what they admitted about the
document?
LOL, you post something that you think supports your claim but
actually rejects it and the best defence you can offer is to accuse me
of running away from it.
The Pope did condemn heliocentrism.
Beats me why you keep repeating this. The Pope did not personally
condemn heliocentrism, he allowed the Inquisition's condemnation of it
to be made public - that did not make it a heresy.
That is what your side was lying
about.
The only one telling lies here is you. For example, when you keep
insisting that all the "anti-geocentrists" in the Catholic
Encyclopaedia article agree with you that heliocentrism was a heresy
when they all say explicitly that it wasn't. Your lie is underlined by
the fact that you can't produce identify any source that agrees that heliocentrism was a heresy except your geocentrist mentors.
condemnedIt doesn't matter that the final wording was milder than the
initial draft. They admit that the Pope condemned heliocentrism, and
supported using the Council of Trent's scriptural interpretation on the
matter. It doesn't matter what it was called because the authors and
books are named. You ran from this link because your source was found
to have lied about heliocentrism never having been condemned except by
the Inquisition. The Pope obviously represents the Church and
to beheliocentrism. He supported the Inquisition in 1616, and their
additions to the Index in order to protect against heresy. The books
would not have been added to the Index if they were not considered
reality.heretical. The document even talks about the heretical parts of the
books, and indicates that after one of them is rewritten, so that it is
not against scripture, that it can be removed from the Index.
Keep lying to yourself about the issue. It isn't going to change
The Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy in 1615-1616.
The decree is given in full on the Vatican Observatory site that you
tried to claim supports you and the word 'heresy' or 'heretical' does
not even appear in it.
They
did this because of their interpretation of scripture as the Council of
Trent had decided.
The decree doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Trent regarding interpretation of scripture; the one and only reference is to the *punishment* under Trent for disobeying the decree.
They added heliocentric writings to the Index,
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
Index ofand
had their first encounter with Galileo. The Pope agreed with them and
condemned heliocentrism, and agreed with their additions to the
banned writings.
Before your source lied about "never being condemned" the Pope's
involvement in 1616 was not an issue between the geocentric and
anti-geocentric Catholics in terms of what you were lying about at the
time. Both sides agreed that it was a formal heresy charge faced by
Galileo in 1615-1616. They disagreed about it being a formal heresy
charge the second time because it was only written up as "heresy" and
not formal heresy in the sentencing. It remained a heresy charge.
You obviously struggle with grasping that a *charge* does not make
someone guilty. I hope I'm never on trial for something I didn't do
with you on the jury.
The
Pope had the Galileo case, sentencing, and punishment published and
distributed throughout the Church in order to quash the heliocentric
heresy, but the guys that want to maintain Papal infallibility claim
that that was not an official Papal action. They admitted that there
was an issue with helicentrism at the time, but they do not want the
Pope to have been on the wrong side of the issue.
You need to deal with reality.
I think it's very clear who has the problem with accepting reality and
it's not me.
It is well understood that the Bible is
just wrong about a lot of things that we can figure out for ourselves.
Your own quotes from Pope Francis makes that claim. The Bible can be
misinterpreted because the author's understanding of the creation was
faulty. Francis knows that the universe was not created in 6 magic
episodes. Only those in complete denial do not understand that the
order of creation described in the Bible is wrong. There are still
young earth, old earth day for agers, geocentric, and flat earth
Biblical creationists because they are in the same type of denial that
you are in. There are just different levels of denial.
Ron Okimoto
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 53:54:21 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,282 |
