Author Topic: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video. (Read 9189 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #90 on:** May 02, 2025, 07:35:28 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on December 22, 2021, 12:29:18 PM

Artwork is not proof of the shape of the earth.

It is for those who want the earth to be a globe ... it's called confirmation bias.

Matthew · « **Reply #91 on:** May 02, 2025, 10:48:18 AM »

And dare I say, many "good Catholics" were deceived by the Globe deception. I'm sure quite a few artists were among them.

You can go to heaven and have objectively wrong ideas about the shape of the earth. That wouldn't derail any beatification or canonization process, or example. Especially considering virtually EVERYONE believed that at the time.

Now if this were a time period where everyone knew the earth was flat, and there were no mass deception in place, then YES, you should look askance and wonder what's their problem believing something as crazy as "the earth is a spinning ball hurtling through the vacuum of space in no special location in the hinterlands of the universe".

You do realize the "Big Bang" only has credibility in the context of spinning planets, gravity, and all that. Right?

Imagine them trying to push "we all just happened by random chance" if the earth was a closed system, a world under a dome, with no "outer space" to visit or explore. A much tougher sell, don't you think?

My last point: even when you point to respectable minds and souls (Aristotle, etc.) suggesting that the earth was a globe, they never, not for a moment, got on board the full NASA package. You have to keep that in mind. It's like they never went down that road, or took it that far. Do you think St. Thomas Aquinas would believe in a pressurized system with no container? Atmosphere on the earth, right next to a near-perfect vacuum of space -- with no container in between the two? Somehow I doubt it. He was a rational man, and believing in pressurized gasses being contained without a container is simply not reasonable. It has never been observed. Nor can it be demonstrated or proven by experiment that it's even *possible*, much less that it actually happens.

Or airplanes. There was no flight of any kind back then. Did anyone even believe that the earth moved or rotated? That's a pretty big part of the "NASA package" that I doubt anyone would believe back then.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #92 on:** May 02, 2025, 09:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 02, 2025, 10:48:18 AM

And dare I say, many "good Catholics" were deceived by the Globe deception. I'm sure quite a few artists were among them.

You can go to heaven and have objectively wrong ideas about the shape of the earth. That wouldn't derail any beatification or canonization process, or example. Especially considering virtually EVERYONE believed that at the time.

Now if this were a time period where everyone knew the earth was flat, and there were no mass deception in place, then YES, you should look askance and wonder what's their problem believing something as crazy as "the earth is a spinning ball hurtling through the vacuum of space in no special location in the hinterlands of the universe".

You do realize the "Big Bang" only has credibility in the context of spinning planets, gravity, and all that. Right?

Imagine them trying to push "we all just happened by random chance" if the earth was a closed system, a world under a dome, with no "outer space" to visit or explore. A much tougher sell, don't you think?

My last point: even when you point to respectable minds and souls (Aristotle, etc.) suggesting that the earth was a globe, they never, not for a moment, got on board the full NASA package. You have to keep that in mind. It's like they never went down that road, or took it that far. Do you think St. Thomas Aquinas would believe in a pressurized system with no container? Atmosphere on the earth, right next to a near-perfect vacuum of space -- with no container in between the two? Somehow I doubt it. He was a rational man, and believing in pressurized gasses being contained without a container is simply not reasonable. It has never been observed. Nor can it be demonstrated or proven by experiment that it's even *possible*, much less that it actually happens.

Or airplanes. There was no flight of any kind back then. Did anyone even believe that the earth moved or rotated? That's a pretty big part of the "NASA package" that I doubt anyone would believe back then.

That if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat, For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm. - St Thomas Aquinas.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #93 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:39:51 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on May 02, 2025, 09:09:25 PM

That if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat, For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm. - St Thomas Aquinas.

This quote is out of context. St. Thomas is writing this an example of an incorrect claim. He believed in a globe earth.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #94 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:47:03 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Yesterday at 04:39:51 PM

This quote is out of context. St. Thomas is writing this an example of an incorrect claim. He believed in a globe earth.

So what. St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong about this matter of physical science. Do you think canonized saints aren't wrong about anything?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #95 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:00:02 PM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Yesterday at 04:39:51 PM

This quote is out of context. St. Thomas is writing this an example of an incorrect claim. He believed in a globe earth.

1. You made that up

2. He also compares the earth to a cathedral- FLAT EARTH

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:12:39 PM »

1) Quote was totally context-less. St. Thomas often presents objections, so this out-of-context quote is meaningless.
2) St. Thomas made most of his statements in his Commentaries on Aristotle. Those were "commentaries" and not necessarily his own opinions. That was considered part of the learnig process before you were permitted to teach, to comment on and explain the meaning of great teachers.
3) St. Thomas was not infallible regarding his assessment of science, or about anything else, for that matter, that did not simply reflect infallible Church teaching.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #97 on:** **Today** at 03:16:53 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:12:39 PM

1) Quote was totally context-less. St. Thomas often presents objections, so this out-of-context quote is meaningless.
2) St. Thomas made most of his statements in his Commentaries on Aristotle. Those were "commentaries" and not necessarily his own opinions. That was considered part of the learnig process before you were permitted to teach, to comment on and explain the meaning of great teachers.
3) St. Thomas was not infallible regarding his assessment of science, or about anything else, for that matter, that did not simply reflect infallible Church teaching.

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]He starts to say: Quidam, scilicet Pythagorici, posuerunt terram moveri circa medium mundi, ac si esset una stellarum,(the Pythagoreans, assumed that it is in motion about the middle of the world, as though it were one of the stars) ...dicunt eam revolvi circa medium cæli, idest circa axem dividentem cælum per medium,( assert that it is revolved about the "middle of the heavens," i.e., about the axis which divides the heaven through the middle) sed Philosophus ostendit quod impossibile est terram sic moveri.(but Aristotle shows that it is impossible for the earth to be thus in motion)[/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]In other words: the Philosopher (Aristotle) excluded the opinions that the earth could spin: excludit opiniones eorum qui falsas opiniones circa terram habebant,[/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]And also explains that all things move around the earth to the earth, so it must be stable and it can´t move in anyway: Assignat causam quietis terræ et dicit quod ex præmissis manifestum est quæ sit causa quietis ejus. Sicut enim dictum est, terra naturaliter est nata moveri ex omni parte ad medium :sicut sensibiliter apparet quod ignis naturaliter movetur a medio mundi ad extremum. Unde sequitur quod nulla particula terræ vel parva vel magna potest moveri a medio nisi per violentiam. Manifestum est quod multo impossibilis est quod tota terra moveatur a medio. (he assigns the cause of the earth's rest and he says that from the foregoing everything goes to the middle. For, as has been said, earth is naturally inclined to be borne to the middle from every direction, as our sense observations indicate — and similarly it is apparent to sense that fire is naturally moved from the middle of the world to the extreme. Hence it follows that no particle of earth, small or large, can be moved from the middle except by violence; so, it is plainly much more impossible that the entire earth be moved from the middle.)[/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]Concludit propositum: quod terra sit in medio mundi quia omnia corpora gravia moventur ad medium terræ. (That the earth is in the middle of the universe and all heavy bodies are moved per se to the middle of the earth ) Et sic, ex præmissis, nihil movetur in loco ad quem naturaliter movetur, quia ibi naturaliter quiescit. Sed terra aliquando movetur ad medium mundi, (from the foregoing as follows: Nothing is moved in the place toward which it is naturally moved. But the earth is naturally moved to the middle of the world.) ut probatum est, ergo, terra nullo modo movetur. (Therefore the earth is not in motion in any way)[/font][/size][/color]

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)[/font][/size][/color]

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #98 on:** **Today** at 07:02:40 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Today at 03:16:53 AM

[color=var(--ricos-custom-p-color,unset)]After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat: Necesse est terram, ad hoc quod quiescat, habere figuram latam:( that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.) nam figura sphærica facile mobilis est quia in modico tangit superficiem, sed figura lata secundum se totam tangit superficiem, et ideo est apta ad quietem. (For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest and to be firm.)[/font][/size][/color]

No, St. Thomas did not conclude with this passage quoted here. It is still part of the section on wrong ideas about the earth. St. Thomas reveals his own view a bit later in his commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo:

Book II Lecture 27
532. Having determined the truth about the earth's place and about its motion or rest, the Philosopher here determines the truth about its shape.  First he proves that the earth is spherical with natural reasons taken on the part of motion; Secondly, with mathematical and astronomical reasons based on sense observations.

Given that St. Thomas refers to Aristotle's (the Philosopher) view as "the truth" this is not mere commenting without agreement. St. Thomas would not call it true unless he believed it to be true.

Nobody has any obligation to believe the earth is a globe just because St. Thomas did, but we are obliged to be honest about what St. Thomas believed.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #99 on:** **Today** at 07:05:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:12:39 PM

1) Quote was totally context-less. St. Thomas often presents objections, so this out-of-context quote is meaningless.
2) St. Thomas made most of his statements in his Commentaries on Aristotle. Those were "commentaries" and not necessarily his own opinions. That was considered part of the learnig process before you were permitted to teach, to comment on and explain the meaning of great teachers.
3) St. Thomas was not infallible regarding his assessment of science, or about anything else, for that matter, that did not simply reflect infallible Church teaching.

So, my point here was that ... not only can one not necessarily infer St. Thomas' opinion from a "Commentary" due to the nature of what it is (where it would have been considered hubris for a young academic to reject the teaching of Aristotle on a matter of philosophy, nor the place to do so), but that St. Thomas' opinion, since it's not even remotely related to doctrine, probably has no more weight than that of Eric Dubay. It St. Thomas opined about balancing a chemistry equation, would he have the authority of the "Angelic Doctor" on that matter? Of course not.

Basically, what I'm trying to say that it's a waste of time to debate what St. Thomas taught or, rather, in this case, believed, since it doesn't matter that much for this debate. So move along.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #100 on:** **Today** at 07:06:36 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Today at 07:02:40 AM

No, St. Thomas did not conclude with this passage quoted here. It is still part of the section on wrong ideas about the earth. St. Thomas reveals his own view a bit later in his commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo:

No, he does not "reveal his view". This is a COMMENTARY and what part "the Philosopher here determines" did you not read in your own citation?

You show your ignorance about what these commentaries were. These were not intended to, and it would have been considered hubris to, override the opinion of the person that you're commenting on, as it's neither the time nor the place.

Later, in the Summa, for instance, he "reveals his own view" when he says: "RESPONDEO" ... "I respond". That is when he's graduated to the point of having become a teacher. Outside these Commentaries he nowhere takes a position on the matter, probably considering that it was not his focus.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #101 on:** **Today** at 07:31:07 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 07:06:36 AM

No, he does not "reveal his view". This is a COMMENTARY and what part "the Philosopher here determines" did you not read in your own citation

I also read the next two words: "the Philosopher here determines the truth" is a statement that his position is true. Do you say that things are true when you disagree with them? Of course not. Why would St. Thomas be any different?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #102 on:** **Today** at 07:37:32 AM »

Quote from: Änσnymσus on Today at 07:31:07 AM

I also read the next two words: "the Philosopher here determines the truth" is a statement that his position is true. Do you say that things are true when you disagree with them? Of course not. Why would St. Thomas be any different?

... sigh, in the determination of the Philosopher. You read one part of the sentence that suits you but ignore the rest, which provides the context. St. Thomas indicates the truth whenever he goes into the "Respondeo" section. Saying that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him. Why exactly are you anonymous anyway? Just due to cowardice I imagine.

At this point in his "career" when doing "Commentaries", it would be considered hubris for him to interject his own opinions, even indirectly. That's contrary to the nature of a Commentary and the purpose it serves in his Academic Career. If I were writing a doctoral dissertation on, say, the teaching of St. Augustine on a particular subject, that would not be the place for me to present my own opinion. I could do that in some other context, later.

You just see what you want to see. No conclusion can be drawn from this passage one way or the other. And St. Thomas' opinion on the matter is meaningless, so stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #103 on:** **Today** at 07:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 11:12:39 PM

1) Quote was totally context-less. St. Thomas often presents objections, so this out-of-context quote is meaningless..

Exactly. That quote was not even a complete sentence. Here is the immediate context:

"493. He gives a second argument at [352] and says that they add a further argument for the same, namely, that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat. For a spherical shape is easy to move, because so little of it is in contact with a plane; but a wide shape is totally in contact with a plane, and is consequently apt for rest."
494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, namely, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."

"If the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat" is not the position of either St. Thomas or Aristotle. This is an argument ascribed to "they" i.e. others who held false theories. Using this as evidence that St. Thomas taught flat earth is like claiming the Bible teaches atheism and quoting the second half of the verse which says "The fool says in heart there is no God."

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #104 on:** **Today** at 07:53:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 07:37:32 AM

... sigh, in the determination of the Philosopher. You read one part of the sentence that suits you but ignore the rest, which provides the context. St. Thomas indicates the truth whenever he goes into the "Respondeo" section. Saying that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him..

This idea that people determine their own personal "truths" comes from modernism/ relativism. At the time of St. Thomas, the word "truth" referred only to objective truth. I'm surprised that your own use of language has been so influenced by modernism. I would have expected you to resist it.

Author Topic: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video. (Read 9189 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Matthew

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Ladislaus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Ladislaus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Ladislaus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.

Änσnymσus

Re: Earth is Flat. All evidence proves it. Watch the video.