Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?  (Read 151098 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1355
  • Reputation: +863/-287
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
« Reply #270 on: December 06, 2021, 11:09:15 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • I don't think using the word "flat" is a clear way to convey the historical Catholic understanding of the earth, no matter how much one qualifies it.  Catholics of the past used the word "sphere" and I think that we should too.
    Some Catholics did use sphere, but not all. That's why we have to rely on description, context and other criteria. One can see how the word became interchangeable with circle. A delve into that subject would be profitable simply because the Evil One relies on obfuscation and manipulation on the unsuspecting to deceive.  

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #271 on: December 06, 2021, 11:19:32 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church model at odds with Galileo and Copericus was a stationary spherical earth.  This form of geocentrism corresponds to the dominant historical (non-dogmatic) belief of Catholics.

    Current belief in flat earth can usually be traced to Protestant heretics or occultists like Dubay.  In terms of history, one can make a good case for traditional geocentrism, but not for flat earth.

    Spherical earth is not a masonic idea.  Masons, however, are a major source of the falsehood that Catholics historically believed the earth was flat. 
    Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay.  No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan, except for where the science cited assists in discerning truth. Just like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine probed the minds of pagans like Aristotle and expounded on their writings to verify Catholic teaching.  Truth is truth no matter where it's found.  


    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #272 on: December 06, 2021, 11:24:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some Catholics did use sphere, but not all. 
    As I said, there are records of a few Church Fathers who may have believed in flat earth, but there is no question that this idea had virtually disappeared from Catholic thinking from the time of St. Bede on.  If you know of some medieval flat earth believers, please give me more information about them.  I would like to find out more about something so unusual.

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #273 on: December 06, 2021, 11:28:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • As I said, there are records of a few Church Fathers who may have believed in flat earth, but there is no question that this idea had virtually disappeared from Catholic thinking from the time of St. Bede on.  If you know of some medieval flat earth believers, please give me more information about them.  I would like to find out more about something so unusual.
    It may have virtually disappeared, but that doesn't make it false. Seems there is enough of a difference of models to bother to find out such details.   

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #274 on: December 06, 2021, 11:29:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay.  No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan, 

    I don"t know that Rowbotham is much better than Dubay.  They both seem to be charlatans.

    Quote
    In 1856, Rowbotham married for a second time and had two children, one of whom died in infancy. In 1861 when he was 46, Rowbotham married a 15 year old girl (with whom he was living at the time of the marriage) and settled in London, producing 15 known children, of whom only four survived. He was named in numerous cases of wrongful deaths, including a "death by misadventure" for accidentally poisoning one of his own children. He was named responsible for other deaths using his quack cures of phosphorus. He was also alleged to be using the name "Dr. Samuel Birley", living in a beautiful 12-roomed house, selling the secrets for prolonging human life and curing every disease imaginable.[6] Augustus De Morgan refers to him as S. Goulden.[3] He patented a number of inventions, including a "life-preserving cylindrical railway carriage". He is not known to have held any medical degrees and his professions are named at different times "chemist, physician, journalist, soap boiler".



    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #275 on: December 06, 2021, 11:33:27 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • It may have virtually disappeared, but that doesn't make it false.
     It does not not necessarily make FE false, but there is no basis for claiming that it is a historically Catholic belief.  That claim is provably false and originated from anti-Catholics.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6792
    • Reputation: +3470/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #276 on: December 06, 2021, 11:41:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Samuel Rowbotham, a science-based observer of all things regarding earth, was born in the 19th century, quite a bit prior to Eric Dubay.  No Catholic takes much time with that little pagan, except for where the science cited assists in discerning truth. Just like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine probed the minds of pagans like Aristotle and expounded on their writings to verify Catholic teaching.  Truth is truth no matter where it's found. 

    I agree. Truth is truth no matter where it is found, since even pagans can sometimes discern the Natural Law. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #277 on: December 06, 2021, 12:08:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • I don"t know that Rowbotham is much better than Dubay.  They both seem to be charlatans.
    Yea, he was a Prot.  Still, his scientific acuмen has merit independent of all that.  Again, like Plato and Aristotle.  


    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #278 on: December 06, 2021, 12:20:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yea, he was a Prot.  Still, his scientific acuмen has merit independent of all that.  Again, like Plato and Aristotle. 
    Rowbotham's ignorance of science led him to accidentally poison multiple people, including one of his own children.  I see no reason to put him in the same class as Plato and Aristotle.  I think that even to say that "his scientific acuмen has merit" is giving him more credit than he is due.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12963
    • Reputation: +8191/-2538
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #279 on: December 06, 2021, 12:21:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I don't think using the word "flat" is a clear way to convey the historical Catholic understanding of the earth, no matter how much one qualifies it.  Catholics of the past used the word "sphere" and I think that we should too.

    Perhaps the expressions "stationary sphere" or "geocentric sphere" would work.
    You are still missing the problem with all of the descriptions.  When you say "sphere" are you talking about

    1) the shape of the physical land/terrain? 
    2) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere?
    3) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land, when viewed from above (i.e. looking down from the heavens, viewing land like a map)?
    4) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere + what's below the land (i.e. inner core)?

    Most people that i've run across use "flat earth" to ONLY describe the physical land mass that we stand on.  They aren't talking about the atmosphere or the shape of the earth BELOW the walking-surface (i.e. inner core).

    Based on my limited knowledge, the old "sphere" description is based on a side-view of the earth, including 3 things - physical land + atmosphere + inner core.  Like all the pictures that DigitalLogos posted.  That is a "sphere" shape of the WORLD, which includes flat land.

    Conclusion:  The modern-up-to-date description of the old, catholic, view should be re-named something like:
    a) (viewed from the side) Sphere-shaped world, with a flat land terrain
    b) (short expression) Sphere world, flat land

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #280 on: December 06, 2021, 12:30:58 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree. Truth is truth no matter where it is found, since even pagans can sometimes discern the Natural Law.
    Yea, pagans can see natural truth. We still need to be careful about research, mistakes are easy to make. I also rely on other clues independent of any particular source. Like the checklist for each model. For instance, I cannot ever find anything of substance in the globe model, no verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture, nothing reasonable. They have curved water, the illusory vacuum of space, fake astronauts, ridiculous "proofs" like the coreolis effect, they deny the horizon, deny sea level, deny the firmament, or at least attempt to explain those things away.  Flat earth information can be elusive, but not having all the info does not affect the info we do have, all of which makes way more sense than believing there are upside down people on the other side of earth.  :facepalm: 


    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #281 on: December 06, 2021, 12:35:19 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Rowbotham's ignorance of science led him to accidentally poison multiple people, including one of his own children.  I see no reason to put him in the same class as Plato and Aristotle.  I think that even to say that "his scientific acuмen has merit" is giving him more credit than he is due.
    Did not know that.  Do you have the source and details?  

    And I'm not putting him in the same class as P&A, Rowbotham was highly educated, even well received and well liked by those on the other side of the argument with whom he disagreed.  It's just the same principle that he had a handle on truth and reality like they did.  

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6792
    • Reputation: +3470/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #282 on: December 06, 2021, 12:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yea, pagans can see natural truth. We still need to be careful about research, mistakes are easy to make. I also rely on other clues independent of particular source. Like the checklist for each model. For instance, I cannot ever find anything of substance in the globe model, no verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture, nothing reasonable. They have curved water, the illusory vacuum of space, fake astronauts, ridiculous "proofs" like the coreolis effect, they deny the horizon, deny sea level, deny the firmament, or at least attempt to explain those things away.  Flat earth information can be elusive, but not having all the info does not affect the info we do have, all of which makes way more sense than believing there are upside down people on the other side of earth.  :facepalm: 

    Nicely stated. Yes, we do have to be careful about research, since, as you say, mistakes are easy to make.

    You mention a checklist for each model. It's quite telling that you cannot find anything of substance regarding the globe model, such as verifiable facts, no repeatable experiments, no support from scripture. And yes, they have to then try to explain away all of the problems that you cite for a supposed globe earth.

    I agree that not having all of the info does not affect what we DO have, which, IMO, doesn't seem like anything of real substance to them. But if it isn't anything, then why do they spend so much time trying to fight against a flat earth?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #283 on: December 06, 2021, 12:44:03 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • So what? The earth rotates at about .0007 RPM.

     honestly can't tell whether you're serious or joking.

    --

    I was driving on the highway recently. The speedometer said I was going 100 kph, but I had a cup of coffee in the beverage holder, and the coffee wasn't jumping out of the cup.

    So my car must have really been stationary and the earth moving under me at 100 kph.

    Fortunately for me, the earth stopped just as I drove into my garage.

    It must have been really difficult for you with the earth moving under you at 100 kph and suddenly stopping. Sorry about that.

    --

    Statements in this thread about water curving remind me of the Newfie* who wanted to water ski but couldn't find a lake with a slope.

    * Newfie is someone from Newfoundland. It's the Canadian version of a blonde joke.

    Yes, it's a bit disheartening to read these things here, it's hard to have a fact based discussion on that level.

    Water can't bend. It doesn't need to. It's just a bunch of molecules that alway get to the optimal shape with the lowest energy. So if you pour liquid on a ball that attracts it, it will conform to the shape of the ball, simple as that.

    The coffee cup analogy is very good!

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +238/-265
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?
    « Reply #284 on: December 06, 2021, 12:53:52 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • You are still missing the problem with all of the descriptions.  When you say "sphere" are you talking about

    1) the shape of the physical land/terrain? 
    2) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere?
    3) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land, when viewed from above (i.e. looking down from the heavens, viewing land like a map)?
    4) Or are you talking about the shape of the physical land + atmosphere + what's below the land (i.e. inner core)?

    Most people that i've run across use "flat earth" to ONLY describe the physical land mass that we stand on.  They aren't talking about the atmosphere or the shape of the earth BELOW the walking-surface (i.e. inner core).

    Based on my limited knowledge, the old "sphere" description is based on a side-view of the earth, including 3 things - physical land + atmosphere + inner core.  Like all the pictures that DigitalLogos posted.  That is a "sphere" shape of the WORLD, which includes flat land.

    Conclusion:  The modern-up-to-date description of the old, catholic, view should be re-named something like:
    a) (viewed from the side) Sphere-shaped world, with a flat land terrain
    b) (short expression) Sphere world, flat land

    He's definitely talking about a sphere-shaped terrain with a sphere-shaped atmosphere around it, so the viewing angle doesn't matter.

    I can't state often enough that a flat disc Earth is unscientific and unbiblical.