Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Silent3

(15,909 posts)
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 11:27 AM Dec 2011

Geocentrism? Really? Galileo not yet forgiven by *all* Catholics. [View all]

May I introduce Robert Sungenis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Sungenis has become known for his advocacy of geocentrism. He believes that physics and the Bible prove that the sun and all the planets orbit the Earth and that the Earth does not rotate. In support of his beliefs, Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong in the hope that people will "give Scripture its due place and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."

I'd like to say that 99% or more of Catholics would consider this guy nuts, but over the years I've discovered that it's very difficult to come up with an idea so crazy, odious, or both that you can't find at least 5-10% support for it. Lacking real statistics, I'll still give at least 90% of Catholics credit that they'd probably disavow Sungenis' craziness if and when they ever might hear about it.

More disturbing than geocentrism is Sungenis' antisemitism, but with antisemitism being, sadly, a fairly common vice, geocentrism stands out as a more jaw-dropping eccentricity. These two extreme views are perhaps not unrelated, however, as both rely on a very conspiratorial world view.

Oddly enough, I find one thing to like about this bizarre man: "Sungenis is known for his apologetic works critiquing the Protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura." Not that I believe in religious salvation at all, but I've always particularly disliked the idea, now common among many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, that "faith, not deeds" is what's important.
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you say you have faith and then don't follow up with deeds Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #1
And then, there are atheists who beieve in reincarnation. rug Dec 2011 #2
Does reincarnation require a deity? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #3
It requires a supernatural explanation. Skinner Dec 2011 #4
There is nothing supernatural about a blow fly's eggs, larva, pupa, and adult which.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6
But reincarnation, by definition, applies to the soul or spirit of something. cbayer Dec 2011 #7
If one looks at the root of that word, ... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #9
Now do a search for reincarnate and see if you can find a definition that cbayer Dec 2011 #10
OKAY! Let's look together! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11
Interesting. The same site gives a different definition when used as a noun. cbayer Dec 2011 #12
Hey look! You are BOTH right! cleanhippie Dec 2011 #15
What is your definition of the word "reincarnation"? cbayer Dec 2011 #16
Does it matter? Unless you are stating that one needs a deity for reincarnation... cleanhippie Dec 2011 #19
It only matters insofar as I am interested in whether cbayer Dec 2011 #21
Me personally? I don't believe any such thing exists at all. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #22
Thanks for that reply. I would also be interested in the views cbayer Dec 2011 #23
Buddhist view on rebirth: tama Dec 2011 #43
While recycling of biomaterials... Silent3 Dec 2011 #27
Haster bin readin' "On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at"? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #41
Belief in the supernatural has nothing to do with atheism. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #8
Not at all. mr blur Dec 2011 #13
Most, but not all, atheists are skeptics about the supernatural Silent3 Dec 2011 #26
Depends on whether you believe karma is divine. rug Dec 2011 #5
I concur Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #42
The bible is "proof" of nothing. nt mr blur Dec 2011 #14
Well, its "proof" if you are able to use your "other ways of knowing"!!! cleanhippie Dec 2011 #17
That must be the same proof for reincarnation. rug Dec 2011 #18
Agreed, but I'm not seeing your point. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #20
That "proof" has no essential relevance to belief ot nonbelief. rug Dec 2011 #24
Atheism is typically, even if not by definition... Silent3 Dec 2011 #28
No it isn't. rug Dec 2011 #30
A rejection based upon logic, or? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #32
It's a rejection based on a logical conundrum. rug Dec 2011 #33
It is a rejection of *a* God concept... Silent3 Dec 2011 #40
Nothing in science or rational inquiry skepticscott Dec 2011 #29
That's obviously true. rug Dec 2011 #31
That's only true skepticscott Dec 2011 #35
The topic is the relevance, or irrelevance, of science to atheism and theism. rug Dec 2011 #36
Uh, this old argument, for one skepticscott Dec 2011 #38
I remember that well, although what your post had to do with it eludes me. rug Dec 2011 #39
"We cannot teach people anything; we can only... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #25
I wonder his thoughts on the number pi... Taverner Dec 2011 #34
Doubtless irrational. rug Dec 2011 #37
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Geocentrism? Really? Gali...»Reply #0