Is the Rotation of the Earth around the Sun another "Satanic" Theory?

[jgarden]

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
(Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo)

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
(Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei)

"Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it ..... Only atheists would accept this Satanic theory."
(Jimmy Swaggart)

Four centuries ago, the Church staked much of its reputation, including the credibility of the "virgin birth" on dismissing Galileo's assertion that the world was not only a sphere but rotated around the sun. Given the low esteem many Christians have toward science, why should we believe a "revolving earth" theory that the Church, in its wisdom, has already dismissed as "absurd," "erroneous" and "theologically false."

If one dismisses science, what possible reasons could we have for second guessing the Church's decision?

On what basis would we change our minds since most of us have never been able to view the world from space and any other evidence would be suspect because it would be associated with science?

Shouldn't the "flat earth," as a known fact, be in our scientific texts and curriculums as the only viewpoint accepted by the Church?

Do we have any reason to believe that Jimmy Swaggart has any more insight or knowledge of God's master plan that Cardinal Bellarmine?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Um... what exactly is your question?

The Church retracted their decision and made a public apology and then accepted Galileo's theory you know...

 

[billwald]

Einstein showed the phrase "rotation around" is one of convenience.

 

[KleinerApfel]

I'm with Dark_Lite - what exactly is the question?
BTW I disagree with your assertion that science is dismissed by many Christians. Do you have statistics for that?

Blessings, Susana

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The majority of Christians do not reject science. This is, of course, because the majority of Christians are not creationists.

The point of the OP is that in the same way that some sections of the church insisted on geocentricity - and were wrong, so some sections of the church today insist on YEC - and they, also, are wrong.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Hello Karl,

Some kind of discussion would be helpful - not just: "you're wrong!"

The creationists I've spoken to, read or listened to, do not reject science, but view the evidence through the biblical worldview rather than the secular worldview.

How is likening creationist views to geocentricity relevant?

Many of the theistic evolutionists I've come into contact with, like yourself, refuse to accept that the creationist view is valid, and seem to find it expedient to dismiss us as unscientific and not too bright.

Just doesn't seem a very fair way to label us all.

Blessings, Susana

 

[gluadys]

How is likening creationist views to geocentricity relevant?

Blessings, Susana

It is relevant because creationist views are based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

But creationists do not seem to apply the same standard of literal interpretation to scriptures which contradict science which they accept.

If a literal interpretation of scripture is flexible enough to change a bibilical description of an earth at the centre of the universe solidly fixed to foundations so that it cannot move, into an earth orbiting the sun....
why is it not flexible enough to accomodate evolution?

Conversely, if it is too rigid to accommodate evolution, why is it not too rigid to accommodate a heliocentric solar system?

How does a literalist determine consistently what is literal and what is not?

 

[mythbuster]

A creationist is someone who believes in a creator, a creator-ist.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hello Karl,

Some kind of discussion would be helpful - not just: "you're wrong!"

I was explaining the thrust of the OP. Reasons why YEC is wrong are legion and many are discussed on this forum. Any particular reason interest you? My favourite is retroviral insertions, and I did promise septate uteri on my return after Lent.

The creationists I've spoken to, read or listened to, do not reject science, but view the evidence through the biblical worldview rather than the secular worldview.

No, they reject science. Not all of it, of course, but they do reject the ToE, which is part of science.

How is likening creationist views to geocentricity relevant?

Both are positions held despite the evidence because of a particular literal interpretation of Scripture.

Many of the theistic evolutionists I've come into contact with, like yourself, refuse to accept that the creationist view is valid, and seem to find it expedient to dismiss us as unscientific and not too bright.

No - we reject YECism, not YECs, as unscientific. That is because in our analysis it is. I'll grant you I reckon (and the statistics bear this out) that creationists are over-represented by the less educated groups within society, but this is not a comment on their intelligence.

Just doesn't seem a very fair way to label us all.

Blessings, Susana

Sorry, but I speak as I find. YEC has no credible evidential support outside of literalism.

 

[gluadys]

A creationist is someone who believes in a creator, a creator-ist.

Yes, as a theistic evolutionist I believe in a Creator and in creation, so logically I should be entitled to call myself a creationist.

I sometimes think those who believe in creationism (as opposed to creation) should be referred to as creationismists. But I agree that terminology, though correct, is difficult to get one's tongue around.

 

[ThePhoenix]

A creationist is someone who believes in a creator, a creator-ist.

Well then I'm a creatorist (what a stupid word).

 

[Curt]

It is relevant because creationist views are based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

But creationists do not seem to apply the same standard of literal interpretation to scriptures which contradict science which they accept.

If a literal interpretation of scripture is flexible enough to change a bibilical description of an earth at the centre of the universe solidly fixed to foundations so that it cannot move, into an earth orbiting the sun....
why is it not flexible enough to accomodate evolution?

Conversely, if it is too rigid to accommodate evolution, why is it not too rigid to accommodate a heliocentric solar system?

How does a literalist determine consistently what is literal and what is not?

Thats a no brainer. We believe The Bible as written, and know that God spoke and bang it happened. It only took Him 6 Days, and Christian science has prooved the facts of instant creation. There is no reason to accomodate a false doctrine which is what evolution is. Even the man who started it fessed up to that fact. When the total of Bible Scripture on any issue is taken there will be found no contradictions. True Circumcised in the heart Christians build our earthly lives, and our eternal lives on love, belief, faith, mercy, grace, hope and total trust in God on a non selective basis. These are those who will be in heaven with Him in The next pilgrimage, the rest will get to suffer eternally with satan, and his fallen angels.

 

[MSBS]

Thats a no brainer. We believe The Bible as written, and know that God spoke and bang it happened. It only took Him 6 Days, and Christian science has prooved the facts of instant creation. There is no reason to accomodate a false doctrine which is what evolution is. Even the man who started it fessed up to that fact. When the total of Bible Scripture on any issue is taken there will be found no contradictions. True Circumcised in the heart Christians build our earthly lives, and our eternal lives on love, belief, faith, mercy, grace, hope and total trust in God on a non selective basis. These are those who will be in heaven with Him in The next pilgrimage, the rest will get to suffer eternally with satan, and his fallen angels.

Actually, it's just this sort of opinion from some Christians that kept me from becoming a Christian for a very long time. The conflation of Christianity with an anti-scientific world view seemed to demand that I had to sacrifice all reason in order to be a Christian.

What it ultimately came down to for me is what the opening post of this thread is pointing out-- history is litered with people demanding that God conform to what they interpret the Bible as saying, and I could disreguard them today as much as most of us disreguard those whose opinions were quoted in the OP.

I like what St. Augustine said about it:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

St. Augustine 401 AD

http://www.christianmind.org/chr/history/Augustine1.htm

What about evolution then? Is it worth it to push people away from Christ in order to win an argument about a scientific theory?

 

[Biarien]

What about evolution then? Is it worth it to push people away from Christ in order to win an argument about a scientific theory?

I believe lucaspa made a thread about this that basically said the YEC view is that to accept evolution is to reject God, because their concept of God is so intertwined with their stance on evolution that the two have an inherent relationship.

 

[gluadys]

Thats a no brainer. We believe The Bible as written, and know that God spoke and bang it happened. It only took Him 6 Days, and Christian science has prooved the facts of instant creation. There is no reason to accomodate a false doctrine which is what evolution is. Even the man who started it fessed up to that fact. When the total of Bible Scripture on any issue is taken there will be found no contradictions. True Circumcised in the heart Christians build our earthly lives, and our eternal lives on love, belief, faith, mercy, grace, hope and total trust in God on a non selective basis. These are those who will be in heaven with Him in The next pilgrimage, the rest will get to suffer eternally with satan, and his fallen angels.

First, thanks for not responding to the point. How do you decide what is and is not literal in the biblical descriptions of earth and heaven? Do you or do you not believe that if you go up high enough you will bang your head against the sky? Why or why not?

And if you are referring to Darwin's death bed "confession" it never happened. Darwin's family made it clear that the person who claimed to have heard it (Lady Stanhope) had never visited him.

And would you like to offer one shred of evidence that instant creation has been proved?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Curt - are you saying that non-Creationists are not true Christians, and will go to hell?

I want to be very, very clear on this before I flame and shop your sorry @rse.

 

[Biarien]

Curt - are you saying that non-Creationists are not true Christians, and will go to hell?

If he was (not saying he was), he certainly wouldn't be the first...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Or the last, no doubt.

But I like to be sure what people are saying before I toast 'em.

 

[hesalive]

Or the last, no doubt.

But I like to be sure what people are saying before I toast 'em.

Sounds like a shoot out at the OK corral. I'm impressed.

 

[coulette]

Is it possible to believe that the Genesis was just a mythological poem, that the exodus came from somebody's immaginion, just like Illiad and odysee from Homer, and still call one self Christian.
Whatever Darwin "confessed" wrong has been overly proven. It is not a theory any more, it has become a science. Are all these scientists, like the one who identified Lucy as one of our ancesters, Satan's buddies?
What is wrong with that?
What is wrong in saying that God did not create the fossiles, just to fool us, that what we see with the Hubble telescope happened a few Billions year ago and not a picture God created in thin air so that it "appears" to come for so far and took so long.
Is is possible to say that the flood, as described, did not happen otherwise than in some people with a fertile immagination, without jeopardising eternal salvation.
During the byzanteen period scholars discussed how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle. Are we not falling in the same trap? Some people have spent "grey power" to calculate the day of the week of the creation. Is that the purpose of the Bible?