From Newsgroup: talk.origins

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that
it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal
heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be
a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You are pointing to a highly sophisticated and accurate piece of legal
history regarding Galileo's trial in 1633 (assuming the "1534" in your
prompt was a slight typo for his actual trial year). [1, 2]

The distinction you highlighted between heresy (as an abstract
theological category) and a formal heresy conviction for a specific
individual is entirely correct. The legal maneuvering by the Roman
Inquisition was specifically designed to execute a plea bargain that
avoided a formal heresy conviction, largely to protect the geopolitical
and theological authority of Pope Urban VIII. [1, 2]

The strategic legal nuances behind why the Church and the Pope avoided a formal heresy charge in the final 1633 sentencing include the following:

1. The Legal Loophole: "Vehement Suspicion of Heresy"
Galileo was not convicted of being a formal heretic. Instead, his
official sentence declared him "vehemently suspect of heresy"
(vehementer suspectus de haeresi). Under inquisitorial canon law, this
was a critical distinction: [1, 3]

rCo Formal Heresy: To be a formal heretic, an individual had to stubbornly hold a belief after knowing it was condemned by the Church. If Galileo
were convicted of formal heresy, the law required severe penalties, up
to and including execution by burning if he did not repent. [1]

rCo Vehement Suspicion: This lesser category meant the court found overwhelming evidence that Galileo likely believed the heretical idea,
but it stopped short of declaring that he definitively held it as
personal dogma. It allowed Galileo to "abjure" (renounce) the suspicion, receive a lighter sentence (house arrest instead of a dungeon), and keep
his life. [1, 2, 4]

2. Protecting Papal Infallibility

In 1616, a committee of theological qualifiers under the Inquisition
declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." However, a decree
issued by a committee or Congregation of the Inquisition was not an ex cathedra papal definition of faith. [1, 2]

If Pope Urban VIII had allowed Galileo to be formally convicted of
heresy in a trial directly tied to papal decrees, it would have tied the supreme office of the papacy permanently to a highly specific, evolving scientific dispute. By keeping the trial focused on Galileo's disobediencerCospecifically violating a 1616 injunction not to hold or
teach the theoryrCothe Church framed the conviction as a disciplinary
matter rather than an absolute, infallible declaration of faith. [1, 2]

3. Urban VIII's Personal Embarrassment and Political Cover []

Pope Urban VIII had a complex, direct hand in the trial. He had
previously been a patron and friend of Galileo. He was deeply humiliated
when Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems, putting the PoperCOs own arguments into the mouth of a character named "Simplicio" (which sounded like "simpleton"). [, 2]

Urban VIII wanted Galileo punished and silenced to assert his authority. However, a public, spectacular trial ending in a formal heresy
conviction for Italy's most famous scientist would have made the Pope
look vindictive and scientifically ignorant to northern European intellectuals, particularly during the politically volatile Thirty
Years' War. [1, 3]

4. The Engineered Plea Bargain

Recognizing that a trial over literal physical truth would be messy and difficult to legally prove without a confession, the chief inquisitor,
Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, brokered a deal. [1, 2]
Galileo agreed to confess that he had "gone too far" in his book and
gave arguments for heliocentrism that were too convincing, while
maintaining that he did not actually believe the theory himself. In
exchange for this confession, the Inquisition dropped any pursuit of a
formal heresy charge and settled on the "vehement suspicion" compromise.
[1, 2]



Would you like to explore how the 1616 injunction against Galileo was discovered (and debated as potentially falsified) during the 1633 trial,
or shall we look at which cardinals refused to sign Galileo's final
sentencing document?

Yes

The administrative and internal politics of the 1633 trial perfectly illustrate the legal gymnastics the Church used to manage the crisis.
Two major historical anomalies from the trial highlight how contentious
this case was behind closed doors: the discovery of a highly suspicious "secret injunction" and a historic rebellion among the presiding
cardinals. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. The Mysterious 1616 Injunction: Real or Forgery?
During the 1633 trial, the prosecutors blindsided Galileo with an
unsigned memorandum found deep within the InquisitionrCOs 1616 files. This document altered the entire legal landscape of his case. [1]

rCo The Discrepancy: Galileo arrived in Rome in 1633 carrying an official certificate written in 1616 by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This
certificate explicitly stated that Galileo had only been warned not to
hold or defend heliocentrism as a proven fact, but that he was still
permitted to discuss it as a mathematical hypothesis. [1, 2, 3]

rCo The Secret Precept: The InquisitionrCOs newly unearthed 1616 memorandum
claimed something far stricter. It stated that the Commissary-General
had stepped in and issued an absolute command (precept) ordering Galileo
to abstain altogether from teaching, defending, or treating it in any
way, whether verbally or in writing. [1, 2]

rCo The Forgery Theory: Historians have long debated whether this document was a backdated forgery planted by hardliners in the Curia to entrap
Galileo. The memorandum was highly irregular: it lacked the mandatory signatures of Galileo, the notary, and the witnesses. If Galileo had
truly been given that absolute ban in 1616, publishing his Dialogue in
1632 was an open-and-shut act of defiance. By relying on this unverified
note, the Inquisition forced Galileo into the plea bargain. [1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6]

2. The Cardinals' Rebellion: Refusal to Sign
The tension over how Galileo was treated extended to the highest ranks
of the Church tribunal itself. Ten cardinal-inquisitors judged Galileo's
case, but three of them refused to sign his final sentencing document on
June 22, 1633. [1, 2]

A direct breakdown of the 10 tribunal judges shows how the vote fractured:

Cardinal Status [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Name(s) Historical and Political Context
Signed the Sentence (7) Cardinals of Ascoli, Gessi, Bentivoglio,
Verospi, Cremona, Ginetti, and S. Onofrio Represented the conservative majority acting on Pope Urban VIII's demands to suppress the book and
punish the defiance.

Refused to Sign (1) Cardinal Francesco Barberini The PoperCOs own nephew.
He led a moderate faction trying to secure a lenient compromise that
would allow Galileo's book to be published with minor revisions. He
boycotted the final signature in protest of the harsh house-arrest sentence.

Refused to Sign (2) Cardinal Caspar Borgia A Spanish cardinal embroiled in fierce geopolitical rivalries with Pope Urban VIII over the Thirty
Years' War. His refusal was heavily driven by anti-papal political maneuvering.

Refused to Sign (3) Cardinal Laudivio Zacchia A respected canon lawyer
who likely held deep reservations about the legal validity of using an unsigned, unverified 1616 memorandum to convict a man of a crime as
severe as "vehement suspicion of heresy."

This internal rift proves that even within the Roman Inquisition, the
ruling against Galileo was not viewed as a unified theological
certainty, but rather as a highly polarized political maneuver. [1]

For a deeper look into the biblical passages that sparked this entire astronomical conflict in the 17th century, you can watch this
explanation of the theological debate:

Would you like to examine how Galileo's house arrest was carried out in
his final years, or should we look into when the Catholic Church finally removed heliocentric books from its Index of Prohibited Books? [1]
END Google QUOTE:



I asked how the Council of Trent ruling affected the 1616 formal heresy charge.

Google QUOTE:
Evidence confirms that the Council of TrentrCOs mandates were a primary
legal and theological framework for the 1616 condemnation of heliocentrism.

The findings factored into the decision in the following specific ways:

The Rule of Biblical Interpretation: The Council of Trent established a disciplinary decree on scriptural interpretation intended to protect
against radical innovations in doctrine. It decreed that in matters of
faith and morals, exegetes could not interpret Scripture contrary to the
sense held by the Church, or contrary to the "unanimous consent of the Fathers".

Application to Galileo: In the 1616 deliberations, theologians and
Inquisitors applied this Tridentine decree directly to the heliocentric
model. Because passages like Joshua 10:12-13 (where the sun is made to
stand still) were traditionally understood as literal, and because the
Church Fathers universally interpreted these passages within an
Earth-centric framework, Church officials argued that departing from
this established consensus amounted to a violation of the Council of
TrentrCOs rules.

The Decree of the Index: When the Sacred Congregation of the Index
formally declared heliocentrism to be "contrary to Holy Scripture" in
March 1616, it explicitly cited the need to enforce these Tridentine boundaries regarding scriptural authority and patristic tradition.

Consequently, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and other theologians required absolute, irrefutable scientific proof (a "demonstration") that the
Earth moved before they would allow Scripture to be reinterpreted allegorically. Because Galileo Galilei could not definitively prove the physical truth of heliocentrism at the time, the Church fell back on its traditional, patristic-based interpretation.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the >sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that
it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and >Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal >heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be
a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the >sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

I will com back later (if necessary) to 1634 but first, let's ask
Google about your persistent claim that Galileo was charged with
heresy in 1616.

====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?

A: 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.

=======================================

Now will you admit that you got that wrong or would you prefer to
dismiss Google as another lying asshole?

[rCa]

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the
sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that
it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and
Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal
heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be
a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the
sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

Prevarication about the issue will never change the facts. Galileo
faced a formal heresy charge in 1616. Even Bellarmine was aware of that
and the Pope agreed with the Inquisition's findings on the matter. You
are currently running and lying about the Papal condemnation of
heliocentrism in 1616. Snipping and running from reality is just your assoholic means of continuing your stupid harassment over an issue that
was settled years ago. Nothing that you have ever put up since has
changed reality.

Nothing that you can possibly do will undo the dishonest crap that you
have produced and your years of lying about my sources.

First Harran REPOST that he will continue to get until he apologizes for
what he has been doing and stops doing 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:

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

insane.

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

snipped and

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:

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:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

[rCa]

No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they

are lying".

and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments

(no matter

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

reality,

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

short?

Look 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

matched by

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 supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never

been

condemned 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

same

evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from

what

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]

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

claiming you

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:

[...]

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

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 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.

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]

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.

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 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")]

[..]

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

I will com back later (if necessary) to 1634 but first, let's ask
Google about your persistent claim that Galileo was charged with
heresy in 1616.

====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?

A: 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.

=======================================

Now will you admit that you got that wrong or would you prefer to
dismiss Google as another lying asshole?

[rCa]

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the
sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that
it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and
Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal
heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be
a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the
sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

I will com back later (if necessary) to 1634 but first, let's ask
Google about your persistent claim that Galileo was charged with
heresy in 1616.

====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?

A: 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.

=======================================

Now will you admit that you got that wrong or would you prefer to
dismiss Google as another lying asshole?

[rCa]

Snipping and running from reality will not change reality. You need to apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.

Second Harran REPOST that I promised him that he would get whenever he
came back to lie about this issue.

Second Harran 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:


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:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
[rCa]


No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
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 reality,
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 short?
Look 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 matched by
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 supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been condemned 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 same evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
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.




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



This the other thread string that was in the "Chimp to human evolution-Sandwalk perspective" thread. This posts demonstrates that
Harran tried to quote mine the condemnation. If you go to other posts
in this thread string you will find Harran having memory lapse of his
running from the Vatican observatory link. This was his attempt to try
to claim that he did not have to run. He literally tried to quote mine
the document so that it would not have been considered to be a
condemnation of heliocentrism by only quoting a bit of what was being condemned.

REPOST:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
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

what you

did. 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

was not

the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was

ordered by

the 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

sources have

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.

You did run, twice in that thread. You would not address your source
getting caught lying.

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.

He did more than allow, he directed that it should be published. Why
deny what the source claimed? The source admits that it was a Papal condemnation. They just claim that it was a toned down condemnation
compared to the first draft of the document that still exists.

There is no reason to try to weasel out of the fact that you ran and
would not even try to lie about the situation the first time you were
given this link. It did just what I claimed at the time. Your source
was found to have lied about the situation, and could not be trusted.
You can't say that about any of my sources. You just keep lying about
those sources being unreliable when it has always been your sources that
came up short.

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.

Your source lied about the Inquisition being the only church arm to have condemned heliocentrism. It was a false statement and should have been
known to be a false statement. Lying about the Pope only allowing the publication when he wanted it to be published, and directed that it
should be written up and published. The Jesuits are pretty matter of
fact that it was a Papal condemnation of heliocentrism. They note that
it is the only instance of any Pope directly condemning heliocentrism.

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

reality.

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.

It was not put up to claim heresy even though that is what it did. That document condemned heliocentrism and supported heliocentric writings
being added to the Index. Those writings were deemed to be heretical
and against scripture. Lying about something else does not change the
fact that your source was caught lying. You know what condemning means
so why try to lie about the situation in this way? What was your source trying to lie about by claiming that heliocentrism had only been
condemned by the Inquisition? You know why your source told that lie,
so why try to weasel out of the fact that they lied?

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.

The decree doesn't need to reference Trent in terms of scriptural interpretation because that had already been decided by the Inquisition
when it added the writings to the Index. Those writings would not have
been added to the Index if it were not for the Council of Trents
determination about scriptural interpretation. The Pope agreed with
those additions to the Index, so he must have agreed with the
Inquisitions scriptural interpretation.

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".

The Books by Copernicus were never corrected and republished, so his
writings were banned until removed from the index centuries later. I
see that you left out the book that could not be corrected and would be permanently banned. Why did you do that? Isn't this quote mining? Heliocentrism was condemned and heliocentric writings were added to the
Index. End of that story.

QUOTE:
Decree
of the Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church especially charged by Our Holy Lord Pope Paul V and by the
Holy Apostolic See with the Index of books and their licensing,
prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom, to be
published everywhere.
In regard to several books containing various heresies and errors, to
prevent the emergence of more serious harm throughout Christendom, the
Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman
Church in charge of the Index has decided that they should be altogether condemned and prohibited, as indeed with the present decree it condemns
and prohibits them, wherever and in whatever language they are printed
or about to be printed.
END QUOTE:

This is no quote mine, but you can find your quote in the following
paragraph:

QUOTE:
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and
acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether
contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus CopernicusrCOs On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zu|#igarCOs On Job.
This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite
Father whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio
Foscarini on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the EarthrCOs
Motion and SunrCOs Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that
the above-4mentioned doctrine of the sunrCOs rest at the center of the
world and of the earthrCOs motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation
has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended until corrected;
but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which
teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the
present Decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.
END QUOTE:

It looks like you tried to quote mine what had been quoted on the site.

There is no reason to try to weasel out of why you ran from this link
before.

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.

So what? Copernicus' writings remained on the Index for centuries, and
the heliocentric writings of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini was
"completely prohibited and condemned" for the same period of time.

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.

Galileo was not found guilty in 1616, but he was facing a formal heresy charge. The Inquisition's condemnation was backed up by the Pope in
1616. That is what you are currently waffling about. Your source lied.

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.

I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You clearly quote mined above, so why lie about who has an issue with dealing with reality?

Ron Okimoto

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

END REPOST:

Harran should apologize and stop lying about the past.

Ron Okimoto


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:46:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the
sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that >>> it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and
Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal
heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be >>> a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the >>> sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

Prevarication about the issue will never change the facts. Galileo
faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.

Your beloved Google Ai says the direct opposite - "Galileo was not
charged or convicted of heresy in 1616".

You really need to grow a pair of balls and face up to the fact that
you got this wrong instead of trying to run from it.

[...]

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:48:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the
sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that >>> it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all
the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and
Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal
heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be >>> a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the >>> sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

I will com back later (if necessary) to 1634 but first, let's ask
Google about your persistent claim that Galileo was charged with
heresy in 1616.

====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?

A: 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.

=======================================

Now will you admit that you got that wrong or would you prefer to
dismiss Google as another lying asshole?

[rCa]

Snipping and running from reality will not change reality. You need to >apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.

You are the one running away from the reality that Google directly
contradicts you about Galileo facing a heresy charge in 1616.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 6/10/2026 9:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:46:30 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the >>>> sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that >>>> it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all >>>> the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and >>>> Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal >>>> heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be >>>> a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the >>>> sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

Prevarication about the issue will never change the facts. Galileo
faced a formal heresy charge in 1616.

Your beloved Google Ai says the direct opposite - "Galileo was not
charged or convicted of heresy in 1616".

You really need to grow a pair of balls and face up to the fact that
you got this wrong instead of trying to run from it.

[...]

Snipping and running from what you can't deal with will never change
reality. You need to apologize for your assoholic behavior and stop
doing it. You could not deal with your sources coming up short for
years. Running never changed what you were running from. This last
episode had you lying about running because your source again came up
short. You had to quote mine the document that demonstrated that your
source had lied about heliocentrism only having been condemned by the Inquisition in order to cover up your lying about running from the
evidence. What have you done since? You quote mined the Wiki entry
that still plainly claimed that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in
the judgement section. Quote mining the Wiki was never going to change
the fact that the Pope had agreed with the Inquisition in 1616 and had heliocentrism condemned, and quote mining the condemnation was never
going to change reality. Now all that you can do is snip and run and
keep lying about the situation.

First Harran REPOST that he can't bring himself to deal honestly with.
You do need to apologize and quit doing what you have been 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:

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

insane.

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

snipped and

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:

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:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

[rCa]

No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they

are lying".

and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments

(no matter

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

reality,

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

short?

Look 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

matched by

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 supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never

been

condemned 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

same

evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from

what

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]

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

claiming you

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:

[...]

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

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 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.

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]

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.

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 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")]

[..]

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



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 6/10/2026 9:35 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:48:58 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/10/2026 5:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:05:55 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked Google directly about the Formal heresy charge in 1616 and the >>>> sentencing charge of heresy in 1634, and got this answer. I had the
typo of 1534 in my request. Google corrected it to 1633.

There is no reason for Harran to keep prevaricating about this issue.
The Bible is obviously wrong about geocentrism. Harran understands that >>>> it wasn't just the Inquisition that "misinterpreted" the Bible, but all >>>> the Church Fathers, and the two Popes involved in the Galileo affair.
The human beings responsible for writing the Bible were geocentrists.
That is why the Bible can be "misinterpreted" as it still is. There
remain flat earth and geocentrist Biblical creationists both Jewish and >>>> Christian in existence today.

Google has a slightly different take than the Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Google quote:
You said: The Catholic church wants to differentiate heresy from formal >>>> heresy in the Galileo affair. In 1616 heliocentrism was determined to be >>>> a formal heresy, but in 1534 Galileo was only convicted of heresy in the >>>> sentencing. No one wanted the Pope to be involved in a formal heresy charge.

You asked Google a loaded question. Even so, it confirms what I have
pointed out elsewhere your total confusion between what happened in
1616 and what happened in 1633 .

I will com back later (if necessary) to 1634 but first, let's ask
Google about your persistent claim that Galileo was charged with
heresy in 1616.

====================================
Q: Was Galileo charged with heresy in 1616?

A: 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.

=======================================

Now will you admit that you got that wrong or would you prefer to
dismiss Google as another lying asshole?

[rCa]

Snipping and running from reality will not change reality. You need to
apologize for what you have done and quit doing it.

You are the one running away from the reality that Google directly contradicts you about Galileo facing a heresy charge in 1616.

Why lie about the situation. We both know who is running and who has to
do the stupid and dishonest junk to keep up his assoholic harassment.
Who had to quote mine the Wiki in order to snip and run from the reposts
that he can't deal with?

Second Harran REPOST where he quote mines the document that demonstrated
that the Pope had condemned heliocentrism in 1616.

Second Harran 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:


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:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:59:56 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
[rCa]


No one is going to convince an opponent by stating that "they are lying".
and probably not by constant repetition of the same arguments (no matter
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 reality,
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 short?
Look 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 matched by
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 supported
my sources by putting up the lame lie that heliocentrism had never been condemned 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 same evidence that your source was lying. You tried to come back with your
lame quote mining efforts and trying to distract the argument from what
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.




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



This the other thread string that was in the "Chimp to human evolution-Sandwalk perspective" thread. This posts demonstrates that
Harran tried to quote mine the condemnation. If you go to other posts
in this thread string you will find Harran having memory lapse of his
running from the Vatican observatory link. This was his attempt to try
to claim that he did not have to run. He literally tried to quote mine
the document so that it would not have been considered to be a
condemnation of heliocentrism by only quoting a bit of what was being condemned.

REPOST:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:40:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
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

what you

did. 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

was not

the Church. I put up the Jesuit Observatory claim that the Papal
offices had condemned heliocentrism and this condemnation was

ordered by

the 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

sources have

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.

You did run, twice in that thread. You would not address your source
getting caught lying.

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.

He did more than allow, he directed that it should be published. Why
deny what the source claimed? The source admits that it was a Papal condemnation. They just claim that it was a toned down condemnation
compared to the first draft of the document that still exists.

There is no reason to try to weasel out of the fact that you ran and
would not even try to lie about the situation the first time you were
given this link. It did just what I claimed at the time. Your source
was found to have lied about the situation, and could not be trusted.
You can't say that about any of my sources. You just keep lying about
those sources being unreliable when it has always been your sources that
came up short.

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.

Your source lied about the Inquisition being the only church arm to have condemned heliocentrism. It was a false statement and should have been
known to be a false statement. Lying about the Pope only allowing the publication when he wanted it to be published, and directed that it
should be written up and published. The Jesuits are pretty matter of
fact that it was a Papal condemnation of heliocentrism. They note that
it is the only instance of any Pope directly condemning heliocentrism.

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

reality.

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.

It was not put up to claim heresy even though that is what it did. That document condemned heliocentrism and supported heliocentric writings
being added to the Index. Those writings were deemed to be heretical
and against scripture. Lying about something else does not change the
fact that your source was caught lying. You know what condemning means
so why try to lie about the situation in this way? What was your source trying to lie about by claiming that heliocentrism had only been
condemned by the Inquisition? You know why your source told that lie,
so why try to weasel out of the fact that they lied?

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.

The decree doesn't need to reference Trent in terms of scriptural interpretation because that had already been decided by the Inquisition
when it added the writings to the Index. Those writings would not have
been added to the Index if it were not for the Council of Trents
determination about scriptural interpretation. The Pope agreed with
those additions to the Index, so he must have agreed with the
Inquisitions scriptural interpretation.

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".

The Books by Copernicus were never corrected and republished, so his
writings were banned until removed from the index centuries later. I
see that you left out the book that could not be corrected and would be permanently banned. Why did you do that? Isn't this quote mining? Heliocentrism was condemned and heliocentric writings were added to the
Index. End of that story.

QUOTE:
Decree
of the Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church especially charged by Our Holy Lord Pope Paul V and by the
Holy Apostolic See with the Index of books and their licensing,
prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom, to be
published everywhere.
In regard to several books containing various heresies and errors, to
prevent the emergence of more serious harm throughout Christendom, the
Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman
Church in charge of the Index has decided that they should be altogether condemned and prohibited, as indeed with the present decree it condemns
and prohibits them, wherever and in whatever language they are printed
or about to be printed.
END QUOTE:

This is no quote mine, but you can find your quote in the following
paragraph:

QUOTE:
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and
acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether
contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus CopernicusrCOs On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zu|#igarCOs On Job.
This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite
Father whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio
Foscarini on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the EarthrCOs
Motion and SunrCOs Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that
the above-4mentioned doctrine of the sunrCOs rest at the center of the
world and of the earthrCOs motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation
has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended until corrected;
but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which
teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the
present Decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.
END QUOTE:

It looks like you tried to quote mine what had been quoted on the site.

There is no reason to try to weasel out of why you ran from this link
before.

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.

So what? Copernicus' writings remained on the Index for centuries, and
the heliocentric writings of Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini was
"completely prohibited and condemned" for the same period of time.

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.

Galileo was not found guilty in 1616, but he was facing a formal heresy charge. The Inquisition's condemnation was backed up by the Pope in
1616. That is what you are currently waffling about. Your source lied.

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.

I think that it is clear that your sources are as unreliable as you are.
You clearly quote mined above, so why lie about who has an issue with dealing with reality?

Ron Okimoto

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

END REPOST:

Harran should apologize and stop lying about the past.

Ron Okimoto


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2