"Galileo was wrong; the Church was right" — UPDATED

That seems to be the argument put forth by some members of the Church, who are evidently affiliated with SSPX, and it gained some attention this weekend in the Chicago Tribune:

Some people believe the world revolves around them — and their belief is born not of selfishness but of faith.

A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church’s original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church’s clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.

The relatively obscure movement has gained a following among those who find comfort in knowing there are still staunch defenders of early church doctrine.

“This subject is, as far as I can see, an embarrassment to the modern church because the world more or less looks upon geocentrism, or someone who believes it, in the same boat as the flat Earth,” said James Phillips ofCicero, Ill.

Phillips attends Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Church in Oak Park, Ill., a parish run by the Society of St. Pius X, which rejects most of the modernizing reforms made by the Vatican II council from 1962 to 1965.

But by challenging modern science, proponents of a geocentric universe are challenging the very church they seek to serve and protect.

“I have no idea who these people are,” said Brother Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites and spokesman for the Vatican Observatory. “Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”

Those promoting geocentrism argue that heliocentrism, or the centuries-old consensus among scientists that Earth revolves around the sun, is a conspiracy to squelch the church’s influence.

“Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system,” said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. “False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her.”

Sungenis is no Don Quixote. Hundreds of curiosity seekers, skeptics and supporters attended a conference last fall titled “Galileo Was Wrong. The Church Was Right” near the University of Notre Dame campus inSouth Bend, Ind.

Astrophysicists at Notre Dame didn’t appreciate the group hitching its wagon to America’s flagship Catholic university and resurrecting a concept that’s extinct for a reason.

“It’s an idea whose time has come and gone,” astrophysics professor Peter Garnavich said. “There are some people who want to move the world back to the 1950s when it seemed like a better time. These are people who want to move the world back to the 1250s.”

Garnavich said the theory of geocentrism violates what he believes should be a strict separation of church and science. One answers why, the other answers how, and never the twain should meet, he said.

But supporters contend there is scientific evidence to support geocentrism, just as there is evidence to support the six-day story of creation in Genesis.

Read more.

UPDATE: One of people quoted in the article above left the following in the combox:

“I am the James Phillips quoted in the article. I am a Roman Catholic, but as was correctly noted by Louis Tofari I do “not belong to the Society of St. Pius X.” It should additionally be noted that I have never represented to anyone in anyway that I belong to the the Society of St. Pius X.

It is unfortunate that so many, including Catholics, resort to all kinds of derision, ridicule, mockery, sarcasm, and slandering (even calumny) when the subject of Galileo and geocentrism comes up. This is not always seen on Catholic sites, but it is abundantly so on secular ones. Ironically, it is often the case that in the name of science these skeptics of geocentrism approach what they would like to consider as a strictly scientific subject in a most unscientific way.

For those who have not strictly closed their mind to accepting the possibility (and indeed the probability!) of geocentrism via a close examination of the scientific evidence a visit to http://www.galileowaswrong.com as well as http://www.geocentrism.com may well prove most welcoming and beneficial. In the book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (seen at these sites) Drs. Sungenis and Bennett analyze and thoroughly refute every major objection to geocentrism put forth by the scientific establishment (that same scientific establishment that has so pretentiously delivered to us the frog to prince evolution fairytale).

Christians especially would do well to pay a visit to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html the site of eminent Catholic Apologist John Salza. In finishing my post here I can do no better than quote from a section of that site: “While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one. Nota Bene: I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith.”

Comments

  1. Are we actually really discussing this? God have mercy on us all, send us all the Holy Wisdom dear God.

    God has, of course, always is – sending Holy Wisdom. Whether we respond, how we respond as God’s people, this is another matter indeed.

  2. Setting aside that the forgotten fact that the Church and mankind did know the earth physically revolved around the Sun before Gallileo, that windbag, the question of whether the Earth is the center of the *universe* is more of a metaphysical question than one of celestial mechanics.

    On one hand, is it morally at the center? In terms of importance is it? After all, this is where God became flesh, lived, suffered and died. Must we only think in terms of physicality?

    But as for the physical universe itself, we can show that the earth is in relative movement around the sun, and in turn a galaxy, etc… But the universe’s boundaries are still a matter of dispute (we have no information of what is outside of the universe besides conjecture and religion). Is the Earth the center? Relative to known boundaries or something outside of it?

    If these people aren’t thinking of all these questions – and do believe the sun revolves around the earth – well, ok – as long as they don’t try to send up a space probe or create a planetary calendar, they can still live moral lives in the grace of God – have happy families and live a full life in this and the next.

  3. This is so silly that the Church ought to keep on its guard against being “punked.” I think I see Sacha Baron Cohen’s fine hand in this! If the SSPX “scientist” is lanky and has an accent of any kind, run, don’t walk, from the interview!

  4. Louis Tofari says:

    Mr. Philips attends Mass at one of its chapels, but he does not belong to the Society of St. Pius X.

    Also, the geocentric vs. heliocentric matter is one of science, not of doctrine, thus Catholics are not required to assent to either theory.

  5. Mr. Sungenis, who used to be a good apologist but long ago succumbed to anti-Semitism and other non-good things, is one of the geocentrists. And there are SSPX and sedevacantists out there who are geocentrists. But there are others who are just a bit on the wacky side and otherwise seem to be just typical literalists or flat-earthers, except that they happen to be Catholic instead of Protestant or atheist.

  6. The moral problem is that as Catholics, we do worship Truth Himself, and we are supposed to be using our brains. Denying observable experimental truth, and objecting to poetic interpretations of poetic Bible expressions (especially since said interpretations are as old as the Fathers and even go back to Jewish times) is folly, and a sort of narrowing of God into the confines of easy understanding. It’s also a condemnation of science education in this country; if we based education more on observation and experimentation for true understanding, there’d be less of this sort of thing.

    But there’s no moral problem with being insane on a topic; or indeed with being badly mistaken but honestly so.

  7. For Christians the center of the universe in a theological sense is neither man nor the sun, but God. This should not be confused and applied to empirical science, since its an spiritual concept.

    “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.”

    Secular Humanism puts man at the center of the universe and makes him the measure of all things. While heliocentric from an astronomical empirical view, secularism is anthropocentric from a philosophical perspective.

  8. OY!!!!

    The truth of the matter is that the universe revolves around the very small minds of the geocentrists…

    or so it seems.

  9. Funny, but I was just reading something this week pointing out that the anthropomorphic global warming True Believers are the 21st century’s version of geocentrists. And since Karl Marx was right about one thing (no human is perfect after all), that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, the AGW geocentrists are getting smacked around by the data showing that the global climate is heliocentric. First sunspots were shown to have a huge effect on earth’s climate, and now cosmic rays (the stream of subatomic particles pouring out of the sun and other stars) turn out to cause most clouds on earth.

  10. Cathyf, with multiple studies showing that nearly all climate researchers agree that humans are currently the key cause of global warming and therefore our current climate change (97 percent, as I point out here, I would suggest that the sources you have been reading are misleading at best. If you want to learn what climate scientists actually say about such things as sunspots and cosmic rays, etc. etc., I would suggest going to the extremely well-done Skeptical Science website.

    It is important to realize that some of the leading deniers of climate change, such as Fred Singer, have used the same strategies for decades to say that “junk science” was behind the link between tobacco and cancer, behind the evidence of acid rain, the ozone hole, etc. etc. These people are paid merchants of doubt.

  11. The “deniers”? That smacks me more like religious fervor than scientific objectivity. I guess we forgot already about the scandal of the global warming e-mails of only a couple of years back.

  12. Deacon David,

    Your admonishment of Cathy is a bit too stern, given the corruption in the global warming crowd and given the data.

    CO2 levels have risen steadily over the past century (supposedly).

    Global temperatures declined by roughly 1 degree F from the 1930′s to the late 70′s. Then, when we entered a period of prolonged sunspot activity, the temperature rose roughly 1 degree F. When the sunspot activity died down, the temperature plateaued and then has begun to decline slightly.

    That, by definition, is called a cycle. It has all taken place against steadily rising CO2 levels, discrediting any causal relationship.

    Note too, how in this period of time we were cautioned about global cooling until the temperatures began to climb.

    Then we were cautioned about global warming, until the temperature plateaued and then started to decline.

    Now we are fed the new catch-all “Climate Change”.

    I’m too much of a scientist to believe the hype in the face of:

    1: The data scandals.
    2: The constant nomenclature shifts to keep pace with global epicyclic behavior
    3: The long and sullied history of science to cling to orthodoxies, and the destruction of iconoclastic junior scientists who establish the prevailing orthodoxy.

    Now the US Supreme Court rule that CO2, emitted with every breath we exhale, is an environmental pollutant.

    This was followed by stepped-up efforts at promoting the concept of the “Carbon Footprint”.

    That was followed by a London School of Economics paper asserting that every dollar spent on condoms would save several more on cleaning up the environment.

    Now, Al Gore and the gang are promoting global population reduction vis-a-vis reducing the number of carbon footprints.

    It’s bad science, and the studies you cite were all bought and paid for by the Grand Panjandrums of the global warming orthodoxy. Many junior scientists have been crushed for suggesting otherwise, let alone not getting funded.

    There is an agenda here, Deacon, and you’re comments are playing right into it.

  13. When those ancient pagans threw some virgin into a volcano, nearly all of their “climate researchers” agreed that this would ensure propitious local weather. They didn’t have the hubris to suggest that humans could control global climate by means of human sacrifice. Although I bet the volume of the virgin compared to the volume of the lava flow was parts per million, too.

  14. Rudy, I’m not sure why “leading deniers of climate change” smacks of religious fervor, although it would have been more accurate if I had added the word “anthopogenic.” They do deny the conclusions of the 97 percent of the climate researchers.

    Gerard, there isn’t space in a post to respond to all or even most of your points. I would simply urge you and anyone who is open-minded to go to the skepticalscience.com website to learn how climate scientists respond to the many questions, concerns and charges made in the mass media and in blogs.

    But as a too-brief response to your numbered points:

    1. Multiple exhaustive investigations have been conducted, each of which has cleared the scientists involved of misconduct. But even if the investigations had gone the other way, the scandals involved a tiny percentage of climate researchers. And to dismiss the research of thousands of people in a variety of scientific disciplines and from most of the countries of the world as “bad science” is, to me, an astonishing conclusion. We don’t like it when priests are assumed to be pedophiles, when only a tiny percentage have been involved in it; we likewise shouldn’t tarnish the reputations of those in an entire field of science.

    2. The nomenclature shifts are primarily a media-driven phenomenon. The two terms refer to two different things. Global warming is the rise in average global temperature over time, and climate change is being driven by the warming.

    3. Yes, of course this happens. So what? I have seen claims of this going on in the climate research field, but no documentation (perhaps there is some and I simply haven’t seen it). And it is tough to judge, because people whose papers are denied publication often gripe about the bias of the reviewers. Most of the time, however, their work simply wasn’t up to par for that publication. Are you saying that we should never believe any scientific conclusions of a field whenever the consensus doesn’t reach 100 percent? And if so, who is to say that the 100 percent isn’t delusional, either? Your point simply seems to serve as an easy way to dismiss any scientific conclusions that you don’t want to accept.

    It is important to separate the science of climate change from the politics. I sense that many people don’t want to accept the science because they perceive that it will lead to certain policy implications that they don’t like. But this isn’t a sound way to go. Truth is truth. We need not fear it. And if people are using the true conclusions of science to promote bad agendas (and I agree with you that there certainly are people out there who are), then we fight the policy. But to fight the science as a strategy to avoid policy implications will not be convincing to open-minded people.

  15. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Please…

    This post is not about global warming. Or climate change. Stay on track. Or I’ll have to start shutting down or deleting comments.

    Dcn. G.

  16. James B. Phillips says:

    I am the James Phillips quoted in the article. I am a Roman Catholic, but as was correctly noted by Louis Tofari I do “not belong to the Society of St. Pius X.” It should additionally be noted that I have never represented to anyone in anyway that I belong to the the Society of St. Pius X.

    It is unfortunate that so many, including Catholics, resort to all kinds of derision, ridicule, mockery, sarcasm, and slandering (even calumny) when the subject of Galileo and geocentrism comes up. This is not always seen on Catholic sites, but it is abundantly so on secular ones. Ironically, it is often the case that in the name of science these skeptics of geocentrism approach what they would like to consider as a strictly scientific subject in a most unscientific way.

    For those who have not strictly closed their mind to accepting the possibility (and indeed the probability!) of geocentrism via a close examination of the scientific evidence a visit to http://www.galileowaswrong.com as well as http://www.geocentrism.com may well prove most welcoming and beneficial. In the book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (seen at these sites) Drs. Sungenis and Bennett analyze and thoroughly refute every major objection to geocentrism put forth by the scientific establishment (that same scientific establishment that has so pretentiously delivered to us the frog to prince evolution fairytale).

    Christians especially would do well to pay a visit to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html the site of eminent Catholic Apologist John Salza. In finishing my post here I can do no better than quote from a section of that site: “While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one. Nota Bene: I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith.”

  17. In the context of empiricism which Galileo did much to found, Galileo was in fact wrong about lots of things. Some of his arguments assumed data which turned out to be true — but not for many decades later. His famous “proof” of the earth’s motion by mathematically deriving it from tidal motion was instead internally inconsistent and “concluded” that tides did not exist. Einstein’s comment:

    It was Galileo’s longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him.

    But while some of Galileo’s arguments were certainly wrong, the Church’s arguments were (to use a phrase coined by Pauli) not even wrong. The Enlightenment was, in part, about the Church extracting itself from pseudo-scientific proclamation, but it was also about scientists ceasing and desisting from doing theology. Galileo immediately started making theological conclusions from his astronomical calculations, and the Church had to assert her primacy in interpreting scripture and creating doctrine. Galileo was “not even wrong” about theology and doctrine, too.

    Phillips’s argument that the Church was “right” about things which she has no competence contains the hidden assumption that science and theology are not distinct from each other. What Galileo was wrong about was his initial assertion that heliocentrism was incompatible with faith. Where the Church went wrong was not in “defending” faith from heliocentrism, but in accepting Galileo’s premise that there was any conflict to begin with.

  18. James B. Phillips says:

    I don’t have the time nor the desire to address everything that people say here, but I will take exception to what cathyf says: “Phillips’s [sic] argument that the Church was “right” about things which she has no competence contains the hidden assumption that science and theology are not distinct from each other.” This whether cathyf knows it or not is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

    Aside from the fact that theology is a science, and at its apex it is the science of God and hence the highest in the order of sciences and the one which is due the most respect, I will concede the fact that for purposes of this discussion it need not enter into a necessary refutation of cathyf’s above assertion.

    What matters is that the Catholic Church in her official capacity has never taught (and never will teach) that there is a conflict between the truth of true science and the truth expressed by the Catholic Church. The reason is quite simple. The truth remains the same whether it is expressed by the natural sciences (those pertinent to our discussion here as opposed to, for example, the social sciences) or the Catholic Church.

    The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church, whether you agree with Her in this or not, claims by none other than the authority of Jesus Christ, Her founder and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, a right to speak infallibly in certain matters. One of those matters — again, whether you agree with Her or not — is the assertion of the total inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as canonically approved by Her. Those Scriptures as understood by the Catholic Church are most strongly indicative of a geocentric universe. They are as understood by the Church Fathers, Church tradition and the Magisterial teachings of the Church in no way indicative of a heliocentric universe.

    Arguments from authority, by the way, are only as strong as the authority relied upon. In this case that authority is God, Himself via His One, Holy, Catholic and Universal Church. (One need but take a good solid beginner’s course in Catholic Apologetics to learn beyond any reasonable doubt that: 1)God exists, 2) Jesus Christ is God, and 3) Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church.)

    Cathyf says I assume “that science [meaning natural sciences] and theology are not distinct from each other. She is wrong. I make no such assumption nor is there any need on my part to do so. The science which she speaks of and theology are obviously distinct from each other. One treats of the natural strictly in the context of the natural; the other, the supernatural in the context of both the natural and the supernatural.

    The arrogance of a scientists to presume to exclude from the study of creatures the Creator of those creatures including the scientists themselves (who so often through this forced arbitrary exclusion become blinded — as if by a punishment — to the very existence of God) is seemingly boundless.

    Those who say that the Catholic Church has no competence to determine matters of truth (such as geocentrism) when those matters of truth also happen to be subjects of science are simply wrong. To insist otherwise is to place limitations on the Catholic Church’s competence to proclaim the truth. To place limitations on the Catholic Church’s competence to proclaim the truth, any protestations of the “high priests” of modern day science notwithstanding, is to place limitations on God Himself.

    In this regard, the words of Dr. Robert Sungenis taken from his book on geocentrism bear repeating: “True science will never oppose God or his revelation to us, but today’s scientists desperately want us to believe otherwise. Separating science from God is the ultimate quest of modern man.” And as far as modern man even possessing true science the answer as Dr. Sungenis strongly demonstrates in the same book (often via the candid admissions of top scientists themselves) is quite often a resounding no, especially in the field of cosmology!

    The last two sentences of cathyf’s post, not surprisingly, assume that heliocentrism is true. The fact of the matter is that heliocentrism has never actually scientifically been proven nor has geocentrism ever actually been scientifically disproven. What has been proven, however, is the effectiveness and success of the propaganda on behalf of evolution, the “Big Bang,” and last but not least heliocentrism!

  19. Where’s the aspirin, I’ve got a headache!

  20. Mr. Phillips:

    I checked the websites you recommend in your other comment above. It is clear that to understand the position on those websites it requires some time to study them. So my question is for you is basic:

    Does the geocentric position claims that the earth actually does not rotate around the sun? Is the position that the earth is static and motionless in the center of the universe and the planets, sun, stars and galaxies revolve around it?

    How does the geocentric accounts for the seasons, day and night, the pictures from spacecraft that clearly show the earth rotating, the fact that spacecraft using heliocentric science can go into orbit around the earth or even make it to the moon or beyond? How about the length of the year, 365 days (and minutes and seconds plus or minus) to complete an orbit around the sun? Or the 24 rotation orbit of the earth on its own axis?

    I mean, I want to be open minded, but to believe that you are actually posing such a position in a material, actual way, its a stretch of what we know. Do you mean to tell us that all we have learn in schools for two hundred years or so is false?

    No sarcasm intended, these are sincere questions.

  21. Louis Tofari says:

    This press release was just posted on SSPX.ORG:

    PLATTE CITY, MO (8-30-2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.

    The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. As a religious congregation of the Catholic Church, the SSPX holds to these principles and does not teach any solar scientific theory. click here to read more: http://sspx.org/district_news/sspx_and_the_solar_system_8-30-2011.htm.

    Rather interesting information about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and the relation of it (and the Faith) to scientific theory.

  22. Elizabeth S says:

    When I took physics, we were taught that motion can be viewed as relative. You can hold any object as fixed, and view the other objects as moving around it. Is a car on the highway moving over the roadway, or is the car stationary and the road moving under it? It’s not quite as crazy as it sounds, when you think of movies and films that simulate people driving on the road by having a fixed shell, then project images of the roadway moving past. If I drive my car towards yours at 50 mph, and you drive toward me at 50 mph, my point of view is that you’re coming at me at 100 mph. So, there probably are ways to hold the earth as fixed with the sun rotating it.

  23. James B. Phillips says:

    Rudy,

    Thanks for your questions. Geocentrism posits that Earth would be motionless and at the center of the universe which goes around it approximately once ever 24 hours. To account for this extraordinary movement geocentrists point to very strong evidence of an all pervasive aether which would actually carry all the heavenly bodies in it.

    The professors and scientists who don’t wish to lose their jobs refer to this aether as dark matter, dark energy, etc.

    Here are a few things to chew on. You can look up Plank Particle and Planck Dimension. We are dealing here with an infinitesimal small size and measurement. Once you figure out the size that were dealing with here then try this out for size. Imagine we are both the size of Planck Particles and we are at the center of a bowling ball arguing about whether or not that thing (the bowling ball that we are at the center of could actually revolve around us once every 24 hours. Preposterous one of us might say while the other says, “Au contraire — not at all.”

    If we were the size of a Planck Particle that bowling ball would obviously with all kinds of atoms, etc. moving about in all kinds of ways as the bowling ball turned around. In fact compared to the 13 or so billion light years distance we seem to measure as a reach of our known universe the distance from the center of the bowling ball to its outer rim would by comparison be much, much farther out.

    You know that God can do all things. If he wants to revolve the entire universe around us every 24 hours He certainly can. As a matter of fact if He wanted to do it every microsecond he could do that as well!

    As for your other questions I am going to have to leave you on your own to do the research since time does not permit me to attempt to answer them adequately here.

    May our Good Lord help you in your efforts to try to learn what the scientific establishment is not about to teach you. They operate under an iron clad pre-supposition that the earth cannot have a “special place” at the center of the universe.

  24. I know what a Planck particle is, as well as the Planck length and I believe in God. I also can firmly assert, the earth moves. Around the sun. Evolution happens. And the earth’s temperature is going up, in much the way Arrhenius predicted it might as a result of increasing carbon dioxide long before Al Gore was born.

    Trained as both a scientist (quantum mechanic) and a theologian, I have no desire to remove the Creator from any of my equations. I do have every desire to enjoy the glorious and intricate nature of His creation using my intellect, which is also His gift.

    Intellectually, your argument that the physical universe revolves around the earth will not stand up.

    We have a “special place” in the universe as created in God’s own image, but we are not at its center. God is.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X