Vallhalla must be like Hell. No crawfish

I have heard about Swedish crawfish boils. Eat one crawfish and chug a shooter of Akavit. A commercial crawfisherman in Sweden might catch about 3000 crawfish in a season. In Louisiana that's about an hour's work

Good Lord, man. You introduced the word "dogma" into this discussion. FACT

I went back to look and find in post #367 you used the phrase "religious dogma". I had not used that word in any post prior. FACT

In post #374 I wrote "No dogma of the Catholic Church has ever been disproven by science. See if you can poke any holes in that". FACT

I should have continued to type out "Catholic Church dogma" every time after that but got lazy and condensed it to the "Catholic Church". I have already stated that I agree with you, the Italian Inquistion was way out of line using the term heresy. I don't understand how they could use that term. This is what caused me to stumble into this point, in the beginning. That is why, although I was aware they placed Galileo under house arrest I was not aware they had convicted him of heresy. It seems totally illogical.FACT

wikipedia:

The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.[5]​

It seems completely illogical because geocentrism has never been declared Catholic Dogma.FACT

I don't get to redefine heresy, I agree. Neither do you. Neither does the Italian Inquisition.FACT

We are not authorized define heresy for the Catholic Church. The Magisterium of the Church does that, which is seperate entity from the Italian Inquisition. FACT

The Magesterium has never declared heliocentrism or geocentrism dogma. FACT

Dogma from wikipedia:

The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[4]
​

also:

The faithful are only required to accept those teachings as dogma, if the Church clearly and specifically identifies them as infallible dogmata.[5]​

If you wanted to really get a good point in against a Catholic I would suggest you hammer away at Limbo. I think the Church has backed off of that one and at one point I think it was about as close to being doctrine as you can get.

Bet I know whats coming next, and I bet I can guess who will post it