-
just askin.....
-
The Church has, for the vast majority of its history, (fallibly) taught the Ptolemaic system, that being geocentric globe earth.
-
The Church has, for the vast majority of its history, (fallibly) taught the Ptolemaic system, that being geocentric globe earth.
TOTAL LIE,.
You are a LIAR because you have seen the quotes which prove the opposite.
CULPABLE.
probably a heretic.
-
It is physically painful to imagine that someone could be so ignorant as to be completely unaware of the Galileo affair, where the Church condemned him not for round-earthism but for Heliocentrism.
The medieval and renaissance Catholic Church were entirely geocentrists.
-
It is physically painful to imagine that someone could be so ignorant as to be completely unaware of the Galileo affair, where the Church condemned him not for round-earthism but for Heliocentrism.
The medieval and renaissance Catholic Church were entirely geocentrists.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
It is physically painful to imagine that someone could be so ignorant as to be completely unaware of the Galileo affair, where the Church condemned him not for round-earthism but for Heliocentrism.
The medieval and renaissance Catholic Church were entirely geocentrists.
That's not what the text says. Could go either way. In fact when you take in the later condemnation of agreda for saying the earth was a globe, then you are most likely wrong.
-
That's not what the text says. Could go either way. In fact when you take in the later condemnation of agreda for saying the earth was a globe, then you are most likely wrong.
No, it could not go either way. There is nothing whatsoever in the text that even hints at any problem with the idea of a spherical earth. It is a clear, specific condemnation of the proposition that the earth orbits the sun. Also, we know from history that the dominant position among Catholics at that time was the Ptolemaic model which included a spherical earth.
The "condemnation" of Sor Maria was for saying that the earth was egg-shaped rather than a perfect sphere as commonly believed at that time. This event does not show Catholic support for flat earth.
The Church has never taught against spherical earth. Rather, this has been the dominant belief throughout most of our history. Some (but not all) Church Fathers thought the earth was flat but the belief was virtually non-existent after the Patristic period. To question the Catholicity of those who believe in a spherical earth is to question the majority of Catholics. This includes Saints like Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Robert Bellarmine.
That flat-earthers see themselves as some sort of superior Catholic with the right to judge the faith of "globers" is probably the most pernicious aspect of this phenomenon. It is not merely factually incorrect but spiritually dangerous.
-
No, it could not go either way. There is nothing whatsoever in the text that even hints at any problem with the idea of a spherical earth. It is a clear, specific condemnation of the proposition that the earth orbits the sun. Also, we know from history that the dominant position among Catholics at that time was the Ptolemaic model which included a spherical earth.
The "condemnation" of Sor Maria was for saying that the earth was egg-shaped rather than a perfect sphere as commonly believed at that time. This event does not show Catholic support for flat earth.
The Church has never taught against spherical earth. Rather, this has been the dominant belief throughout most of our history. Some (but not all) Church Fathers thought the earth was flat but the belief was virtually non-existent after the Patristic period. To question the Catholicity of those who believe in a spherical earth is to question the majority of Catholics. This includes Saints like Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Robert Bellarmine.
That flat-earthers see themselves as some sort of superior Catholic with the right to judge the faith of "globers" is probably the most pernicious aspect of this phenomenon. It is not merely factually incorrect but spiritually dangerous.
Although some may have entertained the notion of a spherical earth, it was made clear that belief in those spheres was for mathematical purposes, not reality. This statement predates the Church's condemning of heliocentrism so while the globe earth wasn't specifically condemned, the pagan heliocentric doctrine was stated to be altogether heretical and dangerous to the Faith.
“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”
-Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588
-
Although some may have entertained the notion of a spherical earth, it was made clear that belief in those spheres was for mathematical purposes, not reality. This statement predates the Church's condemning of heliocentrism so while the globe earth wasn't specifically condemned, the pagan heliocentric doctrine was stated to be altogether heretical and dangerous to the Faith.
“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”
-Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588
"I say that it appears that you (Foscarini and Galileo) have acted prudently in being satisfied with speaking of Copernicanism as a hypothesis…for to say that the assumption that the earth moves..saves all appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well. But to wish to assert that the sun is really located in the center of the world…[is] making the Holy Scripture false…and the Council of Trent has prohibited the interpretation of Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the Holy Fathers" (Bellarmine to Foscarini, 12 April 1615)
Notice how Bellarmine refers to epicycles, which exist under the Ptolemaic system but not in any other(and certainly not the flat earth). And notice again how he says that saying the sun is the centre of the world is what is contrary to scripture, NOT saying the earth is round. He doesn't even mention the fact that Galileo believed in a sphere earth, because EVERYONE did.
-
Even wiki admits:
From publication until about 1700, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system, though the book was relatively widely circulated (around 500 copies of the first and second editions have survived,[34] which is a large number by the scientific standards of the time).
So much for Jayne's theory it was widely accepted that earth was a globe. And how could it be widely accepted? They didn't have TV, books or Internet back then.
Copernican heliocentrism wiki
-
Even wiki admits:
From publication until about 1700, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system, though the book was relatively widely circulated (around 500 copies of the first and second editions have survived,[34] which is a large number by the scientific standards of the time).
So much for Jayne's theory it was widely accepted that earth was a globe. And how could it be widely accepted? They didn't have TV, books or Internet back then.
Copernican heliocentrism wiki
Wipes out forlorn's argument too.
-
Although some may have entertained the notion of a spherical earth, it was made clear that belief in those spheres was for mathematical purposes, not reality. This statement predates the Church's condemning of heliocentrism so while the globe earth wasn't specifically condemned, the pagan heliocentric doctrine was stated to be altogether heretical and dangerous to the Faith.
“There really are not any spheres in the heavens… Those of which have been devised by the experts to save the appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose of enabling the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course and, by the aid of geometry, to determine the motion numerically through the use of arithmetic.”
-Tycho Brahe, On the Most Recent Phenomena of the Aetherial World, 1588
In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is a sphere which is the center of a system of concentric spheres holding various heavenly bodies. In the Tychonic system, the earth is also a sphere (because everybody believed the earth was a sphere) with a sphere around it holding the sun, while some other heavenly bodies are in spheres centered on the sun.
The quote above does not refer to the sphericity of the earth, but, as it plainly says, to "spheres in the heavens". Brahe was saying that the spheres which hold heavenly bodies are not physical objects but mathematical constructs to understand their movement.
St. Bede, back around 800 AD, gave proofs to show that the earth is a sphere in reality and that has been the dominant belief among Catholics since that time at least.
There is nothing in the Brahe quote to indicate that the condemnation of heliocentrism should be understood to include a spherical earth.
-
It is physically painful to imagine that someone could be so ignorant as to be completely unaware of the Galileo affair, where the Church condemned him not for round-earthism but for Heliocentrism.
The medieval and renaissance Catholic Church were entirely geocentrists.
They were not spherical geocentrists. Tycho Brahe admittedly only used the "spheres" for mathematical purposes prior to the Church's condemnations. The Church didn't condemn the sphere specifically because it wasn't widely accepted. Also, the absurdity that people walked around upside down from each other on a sphere preceded itself and canceled the need. St. Augustine destroyed the notion a sphere in rejecting the notion of the anti-podes. It remains Catholic teaching that Jerusalem sits in the center of the earth. If earth were a ball, Jerusalem would have to been where they say hell is.
-
Even wiki admits:
From publication until about 1700, few astronomers were convinced by the Copernican system, though the book was relatively widely circulated (around 500 copies of the first and second editions have survived,[34] which is a large number by the scientific standards of the time).
So much for Jayne's theory it was widely accepted that earth was a globe. And how could it be widely accepted? They didn't have TV, books or Internet back then.
Copernican heliocentrism wiki
Few astronomers were convinced that the earth orbited the sun. This is not surprising, since neither Copernicus nor Galileo made a compelling case for that view.
It was however widely accepted that the earth was a globe because that belief existed independently of the Copernican system. It was widely accepted because it was taught at universities (which were Catholic institutions throughout the middle ages). There were books, although not as common before the invention of the printing press, and copies exist of the medieval university texts which taught the earth is a globe. Being educated was practically synonymous with believing the earth was a globe.
The highest levels of the Church hierarchy would mostly have had this sort of education.
-
St. Augustine destroyed the notion a sphere in rejecting the notion of the anti-podes.
St. Augustine argued against the notion of people living on the other side of the earth (such people are often referred to antipodes). His argument did not destroy the notion that the earth is a sphere.
-
In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is a sphere which is the center of a system of concentric spheres holding various heavenly bodies. In the Tychonic system, the earth is also a sphere (because everybody believed the earth was a sphere) with a sphere around it holding the sun, while some other heavenly bodies are in spheres centered on the sun.
The quote above does not refer to the sphericity of the earth, but, as it plainly says, to "spheres in the heavens". Brahe was saying that the spheres which hold heavenly bodies are not physical objects but mathematical constructs to understand their movement.
St. Bede, back around 800 AD, gave proofs to show that the earth is a sphere in reality and that has been the dominant belief among Catholics since that time at least.
There is nothing in the Brahe quote to indicate that the condemnation of heliocentrism should be understood to include a spherical earth.
Here we go again. If earth is a 'sphere', then it would have to be one of the 'spheres' imagined. With Jerusalem taught to be at the center of earth courtesy of a consensus of saint's writings based on Scripture, and the rejection of the anti-podes for more than a thousand years, not to mention the absurdity of people and things sticking to the outside of a sphere prior to the invention of gravity by Newton, a man born after the Galileo Affair, your premise doesn't fly. Turns out gravity fails too, but how fascinating it showed up just in time to save Galileo's false science.
-
St. Augustine argued against the notion of people living on the other side of the earth (such people are often referred to antipodes). His argument did not destroy the notion that the earth is a sphere.
Australians are on the other side of the theoretical spherical earth and walk with their feet opposite of those on opposite land masses. Hence the term anti-podes. Condemned.
-
Few astronomers were convinced that the earth orbited the sun. This is not surprising, since neither Copernicus nor Galileo made a compelling case for that view.
It was however widely accepted that the earth was a globe because that belief existed independently of the Copernican system. It was widely accepted because it was taught at universities (which were Catholic institutions throughout the middle ages). There were books, although not as common before the invention of the printing press, and copies exist of the medieval university texts which taught the earth is a globe. Being educated was practically synonymous with believing the earth was a globe.
The highest levels of the Church hierarchy would mostly have had this sort of education.
Please. The globe was ALWAYS part of the Copernican system. But not always part of the Geocentric system. Extremely ancient drawings of flat earth from every corner and people of the earth prior to Galileo prove the ancients believed earth was flat. Wikipedia favors the heliocentric globe and still admits all nations of antiquity, that is prior to Copernicus, were flat earthers. That is, until it was all polluted by the Revolution. The term "Copernican Revolution" is quite telling because it shows that a 'revolution' (pun) took place in the minds of people who once believed one thing, but now believe another.
-
They were not spherical geocentrists. Tycho Brahe admittedly only used the "spheres" for mathematical purposes prior to the Church's condemnations. The Church didn't condemn the sphere specifically because it wasn't widely accepted. Also, the absurdity that people walked around upside down from each other on a sphere preceded itself and canceled the need. St. Augustine destroyed the notion a sphere in rejecting the notion of the anti-podes. It remains Catholic teaching that Jerusalem sits in the center of the earth. If earth were a ball, Jerusalem would have to been where they say hell is.
And yet St. Bellarmine never condemned Galileo for his belief in a globe, or even mentioned it. St. Bellarmine also referred to the Church's belief in epicycles, which only existed in the Ptolemaic system.
-
Here is what St. Augustine actually wrote about antipodes:
As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm). For Scripture, which confirms the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm), teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) descended from that one first man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm)."
Note that he explicitly allows for the possibility that the earth is a sphere. Nor does he condemn the belief in antipodian people; he merely says there is no good reason to believe they exist. It seems likely that he would consider the discovery of people in Australia a good reason.
As it turns out, even secular science would claim that the aboriginal people in Australia descended from the same human stock as Europeans, although they would not put it in terms of Adam and Eve as we would.
-
Please. The globe was ALWAYS part of the Copernican system. But not always part of the Geocentric system. Extremely ancient drawings of flat earth from every corner and people of the earth prior to Galileo prove the ancients believed earth was flat. Wikipedia favors the heliocentric globe and still admits all nations of antiquity, that is prior to Copernicus, were flat earthers. That is, until it was all polluted by the Revolution. The term "Copernican Revolution" is quite telling because it shows that a 'revolution' (pun) took place in the minds of people who once believed one thing, but now believe another.
Wikipedia says no such thing. You cannot give a quote of it saying that everyone prior to Copernicus was a flat earther.
Yes, many ancient people believed in a flat earth but Aristotle and Ptolemy were highly influential teachers of spherical earth. This belief dominated the West for most of the time since Christ.
-
Wikipedia says no such thing. You cannot give a quote of it saying that everyone prior to Copernicus was a flat earther.
Yes, many ancient people believed in a flat earth but Aristotle and Ptolemy were highly influential teachers of spherical earth. This belief dominated the West for most of the time since Christ.
That's not quite what I said. Wiki says most ancients were flat earthers and the multitude of drawings and maps proving that are readily available on Wiki and the Internet. Aristotle and Ptolemy are just two guys out of billions. Without the benefit of media, its doubtful their notions were of much benefit to most people living between BC and the 1600's. Ultimately, after the Galileo Affair attesting to the contrary, the notion caught on because they were also guys respected for other things. Despite the acceptance of the Pythagorean doctrine and Copernican Revolution they started, they have been contested along the way by many Catholics and even a fair number of Protestants. It took centuries, but indeed, their pagan doctrine is now fully espoused by a largely pagan world who's leaders are known as globalists, Freemasons, Communists, etc. How apropos.
-
That's not quite what I said. Wiki says most ancients were flat earthers and the multitude of drawings and maps proving that are readily available on Wiki and the Internet. Aristotle and Ptolemy are just two guys out of billions. Without the benefit of media, its doubtful their notions were of much benefit to most people living between BC and the 1600's. Ultimately, after the Galileo Affair attesting to the contrary, the notion caught on because they were also guys respected for other things. Despite the acceptance of the Pythagorean doctrine and Copernican Revolution they started, they have been contested along the way by many Catholics and even a fair number of Protestants. It took centuries, but indeed, their pagan doctrine is now fully espoused by a largely pagan world who's leaders are known as globalists, Freemasons, Communists, etc. How apropos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Wrong. Most of the Greeks accepted a spherical earth by 300 BC, and it quickly spread to Rome and the rest of Europe and the Near-East. By 1000 AD, belief in a sphere Earth was universal among the educated(read: the clergy and the nobility).
If they believed in a flat earth, then explain to me why priests such as Gautier de Metz were never condemned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Metz
Saint Thomas also believed in a spherical earth and assumed the reader did too, remarking on how all the different types of professionals and educated had their own ways of observing the roundness of the earth. In Summa Theologiae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae) he wrote: "The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e. g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e. g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."
Blessed(or St. if you're NO) Hildegaard also believed in a spherical earth, and again did not present it as a novel idea or cutting edge science, but as well-accepted fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg/220px-Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg
And last, but certainly not least, medieval Europe's foremost astronomical textbook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_sphaera_mundi
This book(written by a Catholic monk btw) which taught a SPHERICAL EARTH was made in 1230 and was used as a textbook in universities(which were, again, run by Catholic monks) for hundreds of years.
-
That's not quite what I said. Wiki says most ancients were flat earthers and the multitude of drawings and maps proving that are readily available on Wiki and the Internet.
Your exact words were:
Wikipedia favors the heliocentric globe and still admits all nations of antiquity, that is prior to Copernicus, were flat earthers. That is, until it was all polluted by the Revolution.
Wikipedia does not say what you claim. The article may be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) It says that spherical earth was adopted long before Copernicus:
The earliest reliably docuмented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_philosophy)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-dicks-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-2) but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenic_world) established the spherical shape of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth) as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World) during Late Antiquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antiquity) and the Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Kr%C3%BCger:_Roman_and_medieval_continuation-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Ragep:_Islamic_adoption-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Pingree:_Indian_adoption-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Martzloff,_Cullen:_Chinese_adoption-6) A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan) and Juan Sebastián Elcano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Sebasti%C3%A1n_Elcano)'s expedition's circuмnavigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuмnavigation)(1519−1522).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-7)
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth):
From its Greek origins, the idea of a spherical earth, along with much of Greek astronomical thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_astronomy), slowly spread across the globe and ultimately became the adopted view in all major astronomical traditions.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Kr%C3%BCger:_Roman_and_medieval_continuation-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Ragep:_Islamic_adoption-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Pingree:_Indian_adoption-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Martzloff,_Cullen:_Chinese_adoption-6)
In the West, the idea came to the Romans through the lengthy process of cross-fertilization with Hellenistic civilization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization). Many Roman authors such as Cicero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero) and Pliny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder) refer in their works to the rotundity of the earth as a matter of course.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Reinhard_Kr%C3%BCger-30)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Reinhard_Kr%C3%BCger-30)
There is nothing on Wikipedia to support your claim that belief in a spherical earth was introduced by Copernicus.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Wrong. Most of the Greeks accepted a spherical earth by 300 BC, and it quickly spread to Rome and the rest of Europe and the Near-East. By 1000 AD, belief in a sphere Earth was universal among the educated(read: the clergy and the nobility).
If they believed in a flat earth, then explain to me why priests such as Gautier de Metz were never condemned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Metz
Saint Thomas also believed in a spherical earth and assumed the reader did too, remarking on how all the different types of professionals and educated had their own ways of observing the roundness of the earth. In Summa Theologiae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae) he wrote: "The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e. g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e. g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."
Blessed(or St. if you're NO) Hildegaard also believed in a spherical earth, and again did not present it as a novel idea or cutting edge science, but as well-accepted fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg/220px-Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg
Wiki:
The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) floating on water, heaven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven) above, underworld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld) below.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Aune2003p119-6)
The Hebrew Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) depicted a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim)) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol)) below.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWright200254-22) After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Aune2003p119-6)
In the Old Testament the word shamayim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim) represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-30) The raqia or firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-31) Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_flood) entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened.[32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-32)
More Wiki
In the Old Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) period, the earth was most commonly thought of as a flat disc floating on water.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Berlin_2011_189-17) The concept was apparently quite similar to that depicted in a Babylonian world-map from about 600 BCE: a single circular continent bounded by a circular sea,[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKeel199720–22-50) and beyond the sea a number of equally spaced triangles called nagu, "distant regions", apparently islands although possibly mountains.[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-51)
Medieval (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) European T and O maps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map) such as the Hereford Mappa Mundi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_Mappa_Mundi) were centred on Jerusalem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) with East at the top.
Azimuthal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection#Azimuthal_(projections_onto_a_plane)) or Gnomonic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomonic_projection) map projections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) are often used in planning air routes due to their ability to represent great circles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle) as straight lines.
Ha ha! One has to wonder about mapping out and planning air routes as straight lines? Certainly not because the earth is a globe.
-
Your exact words were:
Wikipedia does not say what you claim. The article may be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) It says that spherical earth was adopted long before Copernicus:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-Reinhard_Kr%C3%BCger-30)
There is nothing on Wikipedia to support your claim that belief in a spherical earth was introduced by Copernicus.
Well now, that's just not true. However, I'm sick of providing information for you, and getting bored of proving you wrong. Go find what you need or remain ignorant. It's up to you.
-
Well now, that's just not true.
You claimed that Copernicus introduced spherical earth and that Wikipedia supports your claim. I just showed quotes of you making the claim and Wikipedia saying the opposite.
Obviously what I wrote was true and you have no way to counter it other than saying "that's just not true". I really do not know what is wrong with you that makes you oppose even the most obvious truths. You cling to error, no matter what.
-
Wiki:
The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) floating on water, heaven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven) above, underworld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld) below.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Aune2003p119-6)
The Hebrew Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) depicted a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim)) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol)) below.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWright200254-22) After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Aune2003p119-6)
In the Old Testament the word shamayim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim) represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-30) The raqia or firmament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament) - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-31) Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_flood) entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened.[32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-32)
More Wiki
In the Old Testament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) period, the earth was most commonly thought of as a flat disc floating on water.[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-Berlin_2011_189-17) The concept was apparently quite similar to that depicted in a Babylonian world-map from about 600 BCE: a single circular continent bounded by a circular sea,[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKeel199720–22-50) and beyond the sea a number of equally spaced triangles called nagu, "distant regions", apparently islands although possibly mountains.[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#cite_note-51)
Medieval (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) European T and O maps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map) such as the Hereford Mappa Mundi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_Mappa_Mundi) were centred on Jerusalem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) with East at the top.
Azimuthal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection#Azimuthal_(projections_onto_a_plane)) or Gnomonic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomonic_projection) map projections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) are often used in planning air routes due to their ability to represent great circles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle) as straight lines.
Ha ha! One has to wonder about mapping out and planning air routes as straight lines? Certainly not because the earth is a globe.
Almost all your citations are from Jews in the ancient BCs. We were arguing about the Catholic Church prior to Copernicus. Only your map projections are from Anno Domini, but they prove nothing as EVEN MODERN MAPS ARE SQUARE AND FLAT. That's what makes them maps.
-
You claimed that Copernicus introduced spherical earth and that Wikipedia supports your claim. I just showed quotes of you making the claim and Wikipedia saying the opposite.
Obviously what I wrote was true and you have no way to counter it other than saying "that's just not true". I really do not know what is wrong with you that makes you oppose even the most obvious truths. You cling to error, no matter what.
I provide you a single source hinting at Copernicus remaking earth a globe (from Pythagorean doctrine), proving that it is actually you that cling to error no matter what.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#p-search) astronomical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Historical_cosmologies) positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen "Central Fire" was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the Pythagorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism) philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy) Philolaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus), a version based on Stobaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stobaeus) account, who betrays a tendency to confound the dogmas of the early Ionian philosophers, and he occasionally mixes up Platonism with Pythagoreanism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Boekh-1) Brewer (1894, page 2293) mentioned Pythagoras taught that the sun is a movable sphere in the centre of the universe, and that all the planets revolve round it.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Brewer-2)
The system has been called "the first coherent system in which celestial bodies move in circles",[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Pythagoreans-3) anticipating Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in moving "the earth from the center of the cosmos [and] making it a planet"
-
I provide you a single source hinting at Copernicus remaking earth a globe (from Pythagorean doctrine), proving that it is actually you that cling to error no matter what.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#p-search) astronomical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Historical_cosmologies) positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen "Central Fire" was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the Pythagorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism) philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy) Philolaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus), a version based on Stobaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stobaeus) account, who betrays a tendency to confound the dogmas of the early Ionian philosophers, and he occasionally mixes up Platonism with Pythagoreanism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Boekh-1) Brewer (1894, page 2293) mentioned Pythagoras taught that the sun is a movable sphere in the centre of the universe, and that all the planets revolve round it.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Brewer-2)
The system has been called "the first coherent system in which celestial bodies move in circles",[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Pythagoreans-3) anticipating Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in moving "the earth from the center of the cosmos [and] making it a planet"
Nowhere does that quote say Christian Europe believed in a flat earth before Copernicus.
-
I provide you a single source hinting at Copernicus remaking earth a globe (from Pythagorean doctrine), proving that it is actually you that cling to error no matter what.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#p-search) astronomical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Historical_cosmologies) positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen "Central Fire" was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the Pythagorean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism) philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy) Philolaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus), a version based on Stobaeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stobaeus) account, who betrays a tendency to confound the dogmas of the early Ionian philosophers, and he occasionally mixes up Platonism with Pythagoreanism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Boekh-1) Brewer (1894, page 2293) mentioned Pythagoras taught that the sun is a movable sphere in the centre of the universe, and that all the planets revolve round it.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Brewer-2)
The system has been called "the first coherent system in which celestial bodies move in circles",[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_astronomical_system#cite_note-Pythagoreans-3) anticipating Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) in moving "the earth from the center of the cosmos [and] making it a planet"
This passage says nothing explicit, nor does it hint at Copernicus "remaking the earth a globe". It is about the Pythagorean astronomical system.
The position of Wikipedia is:
While the sphericity of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphericity_of_the_Earth) was widely recognized in Greco-Roman astronomy from at least the 3rd century BC, the Earth's daily rotation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation) and yearly orbit around the Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit) was never universally accepted until the Copernican Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution).
Note that the sphericity of the Earth is a separate question from that of the movement of the earth. Copernicus was highly influential in spreading the idea that the earth orbits the sun, but the belief in spherical earth was well-established many centuries, almost a millennium, before that. The Copernican Revolution had nothing to do with people's beliefs about the shape of the earth.
Wikipedia in no way supports your odd ideas on this subject.
-
Again happenby seems unable to get a grasp on the distinction between heliocentrism and a globular Earth, the quotation about Copernicus concerning the introduction of the former, not the latter.
Geocentrism and terrestrial sphericity are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, the only way for the Earth to be the true centre of the cosmos, from all directions, is for the cosmos and the Earth with it to be spherical.
-
Again happenby seems unable to get a grasp on the distinction between heliocentrism and a globular Earth, the quotation about Copernicus concerning the introduction of the former, not the latter.
Geocentrism and terrestrial sphericity are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, the only way for the Earth to be the true centre of the cosmos, from all directions, is for the cosmos and the Earth with it to be spherical.
Flat Earthers have started referring to a "geocentric flat Earth" to try and claim Church beliefs on geocentrism were referring to that. There is no such thing as "geocentric" flat Earth, it's redundant terminology as there cannot be a Flat Earth that orbits the Sun. No one would ever say they were a geocentrist if they believed in a flat Earth, they'd just say they were a flat Earther. But the ill willed morons here have started appending geocentric to their system so they can claim St. Bellarmine and his contemporaries held their view, which is utter nonsense since in NONE of the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism did it EVER condemn or even MENTION the heliocentric belief in a globe Earth.
-
Wiki says most ancients were flat earthers and the multitude of drawings and maps proving that are readily available on Wiki and the Internet.
More than 2000 postings, counting only those on CathInfo, and you still haven't learned that "Wiki" is not Wikipedia!?[×]
It's high time that you learned several simple-but-fundamental things about both, then took them to heart (I'm sure it won't hinder your rate of churning out future postings):
• Wiki is not acceptable as an abbreviation for Wikipedia. It's certainly no more acceptable than misusing "Photo" to abbreviate Photoshop, or "Page" to abbreviate "PageMaker", or worst but once quite common, "Java" to abbreviate Javascript.
• Wiki is instead the widely accepted technical term for a software technology, as invented by Ward Cunningham ca. 1994, when in his mid 40s [†].
• Wikipedia is merely the world's most popular instance of the wiki technology. Many wiki instances--possibly the majority--are publicly invisible, being on the secured side of computer networks that serve a sanitized Internet to their (own) users.
• Wikipedia is quite risky for Catholics to use to obtain information for debating faith or morals. The site was notoriously skunked for such purposes by its protracted "Essjay scandal" [▼].
• Wikipedia more-or-less uncritically accepts & presents propaganda from the "Southern Poverty" Law Center [✡] that's hostile to traditional Catholic faith or morals.
-------
Note ×: <http://wiki.c2.com/?WikipediaIsNotWiki (http://wiki.c2.com/?WikipediaIsNotWiki)>, and more peripherally <http://wiki.c2.com/?WikiIsNotWikipedia (http://wiki.c2.com/?WikiIsNotWikipedia)> (both pages require enabling Javascript).
Note †: Cunningham installed his WikiWikiWeb as accessible to the Internet in 1995, at his age 45. That's at least 5 years later than the age at which U.S. corporate "human resources" drones typically-but-cluelessly judge software engineers of comparable seniority to be "unable to learn or use new technology", thus, as the Brits say, "redundant". Fortunately for him and us, he was a principal in a high-tech consulting business at the time.
Note ▼: "Essjay" was a 20-something college drop-out who, as a "Wikipedian", claimed to be a 30-something-or-older tenured professor of religion at an unidentified secular college in the U.S. Northeast, and a specialist in the Catholic religion. So he indulged himself in extensive editing of articles on religion in Wikipedia, winning edit wars over those articles by flaunting his fraudulent--but persistent--claim of having earned dual doctorates: a Ph.D. in theology and a J.C.D. in Canon Law, and stretching those into claims of which textbooks and other reference material he required his alleged students to use in the college courses he allegedly taught. Somewhat later, he claimed that he didn't endure the academic grind for those degrees to defend the Faith, but instead, out of detached academic interest, which he explained with claims to be a politically liberal Protestant sodomite with a live-in "partner". He rose rapidly into the highest ranks of Wikipedia editorial power before he was, um, busted! (2006--2007) by Wikipedia Review: <http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778 (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778)>.
Note ✡: I trust that by now (2018), all CathInfo readers can display the Star-of-David Dingbat (Unicode 1.0.0: 1991) reference mark (to the immediate right of the introductory word "Note") that I'm using in this posting for the "Southern Poverty" Law Center ("SP"LC), whose founding majority was Jєωιѕн, and whose leadership is still top-heavy with Jews.
-
The Church has, for the vast majority of its history, (fallibly) taught the Ptolemaic system, that being geocentric globe earth.
What do you mean by "taught"? Typically the Church does not teach about science.
-
Indeed, nearly all ancient cultures considered the earth to be flat. That to me is very compelling. Why? Because if cultures scattered around the world come up with a very similar cosmology, it's likely rooted in some "primitive revelation" (and direct knowledge). Similarly, if the Church Fathers, scattered around the world, unanimously consider something to be revealed, then it's certain that it was.
-
Indeed, nearly all ancient cultures considered the earth to be flat. That to me is very compelling. Why? Because if cultures scattered around the world come up with a very similar cosmology, it's likely rooted in some "primitive revelation" (and direct knowledge). Similarly, if the Church Fathers, scattered around the world, unanimously consider something to be revealed, then it's certain that it was.
Nearly all ancient cultures were polytheistic. They were however very wrong. There is no good reason to assume some sort of "primitive revelation" other than the moral sense imparted by natural law.
Ancient cultures agreeing on something is nothing like Church Fathers unanimously considering something to be revealed. The Fathers were Christians who had received the true religion while ancient cultures were pagans who therefore believed many errors. There is not necessarily any significance to similarities occurring among these errors.
-
What do you mean by "taught"? Typically the Church does not teach about science.
The Church condemned heliocentrists, tried them for heresy and banned their books, while endorsing geocentrist works and authors. It sent a pretty clear messagr to Catholics about which they should believe.
-
Nearly all ancient cultures were polytheistic. They were however very wrong. There is no good reason to assume some sort of "primitive revelation" other than the moral sense imparted by natural law.
#1) I never said that it was proof, just that it's compelling.
#2) Polytheism could be the reflection of a common experience, such as demonic entities.
#3) In most of these polytheistic cultures, the "gods" were more superior beings of some kind, whether demonic entities, giants, the "sons of God" cited in Scripture, or some superior race(s) that they encountered. Hard to say.
#4) Primitive Revelation is a very real thing. Adam and Eve in their unfallen state, with intellects unencuмbered by Original Sin, and also because they "walked with God" in Eden, were privy to a great deal of knowledge about the natural world. Some of this was passed down and transmitted through their offspring.
#5) Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures, they are nearly identical in many of the details. It's one thing to say that all these cultures were polytheistic ... but if these cultures ALL, for example, had exactly 10 gods, then you could be sure that it has to do with some real experience of a group of ten entities of some kind that they viewed as gods or preternatural beings. Now, just because they interpreted these beings as "gods" doesn't even necessarily mean that they were ... just that they were greatly superior to them in some way. It's just statistically almost impossible that they could randomly come up with the exact same thing.
-
Ancient cultures agreeing on something is nothing like Church Fathers unanimously considering something to be revealed.
Oh, it most certainly is. Reason is the same. If the Church Fathers, scattered around the world, happened to come up with the exact same thing, it's indicative of Apostolic Origin. THAT is why the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers is considered proof of something being revealed. There's no special charism of the Holy Spirit tied to the Church Fathers.
-
The Church condemned heliocentrists, tried them for heresy and banned their books, while endorsing geocentrist works and authors. It sent a pretty clear messagr to Catholics about which they should believe.
That I understand. They condemned a specific scientific theory because it contradicted Sacred Scripture, but the formal object of the Church's Magisterium can never be science. In the case of these condemnations, the Church was teaching about Holy Scripture rather than science per se. In any case, yes, they condemned heliocentrism and endorsed geocentrism (though more the former than the latter). But where exactly does the Church teach globe earth? Even if they endrose geocentrists who HAPPEN to believe in a globe earth, that doesn't mean they were endorsing them vis-a-vis globe earth but merely because of their geocentrism.
So, to be precise, the Church did NOT teach:
1) the earth is the center of the universe
but, rather,
2) heliocentrism contradicts Sacred Scripture while geocentrism is consistent with it.
Might seem like a subtle distinction, but it's crucial.
And, finally, while the Church taught geocentrism at one point, the Church later lifted the condemnation of heliocentrism. So this teaching was clearly not an irreformable or infallible teaching.
-
#1) I never said that it was proof, just that it's compelling.
#2) Polytheism could be the reflection of a common experience, such as demonic entities.
#3) In most of these polytheistic cultures, the "gods" were more superior beings of some kind, whether demonic entities, giants, the "sons of God" cited in Scripture, or some superior race(s) that they encountered. Hard to say.
#4) Primitive Revelation is a very real thing. Adam and Eve in their unfallen state, with intellects unencuмbered by Original Sin, and also because they "walked with God" in Eden, were privy to a great deal of knowledge about the natural world. Some of this was passed down and transmitted through their offspring.
#5) Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures, they are nearly identical in many of the details. It's one thing to say that all these cultures were polytheistic ... but if these cultures ALL, for example, had exactly 10 gods, then you could be sure that it has to do with some real experience of a group of ten entities of some kind that they viewed as gods or preternatural beings. Now, just because they interpreted these beings as "gods" doesn't even necessarily mean that they were ... just that they were greatly superior to them in some way. It's just statistically almost impossible that they could randomly come up with the exact same thing.
I do not find it the least bit compelling. It is wishful thinking to see this as some sort of evidence for the earth being flat.
Belief in flat earth was a reflection of the common experience of the earth appearing flat to the senses. Nobody could see it all at once and see that it is a sphere. Figuring out that it is a sphere requires making deductions from observations. And over time, virtually all of these primitive cultures made those deductions and moved on to belief in a spherical earth.
-
You claimed that Copernicus introduced spherical earth and that Wikipedia supports your claim. I just showed quotes of you making the claim and Wikipedia saying the opposite.
Obviously what I wrote was true and you have no way to counter it other than saying "that's just not true". I really do not know what is wrong with you that makes you oppose even the most obvious truths. You cling to error, no matter what.
.
I'll tell you what's wrong with happenby, Jaynek. The problem is, happenby is a flat-earther:
.
Flat-earthers cling to their favorite error because it is their golden-calf false-god of flat-earthism which they worship with all their heart, mind and soul, even above God Himself, which BTW breaks the First Commandment and is a mortal sin.
.
Therefore, the OP's question (Are Globers Catholic?) really isn't the right question.
It should be asking: Are flat-earthers Catholic? Because they sure don't act like Catholics.
.
For example, aryzia keeps posting junk about "spheres" as if referring to the solid sphericity of earth, when the material quoted is clearly referring to the immaterial spheres which had been thought long ago to be descriptive of planetary orbits. Even after several times she has been informed of that history, still she ignores the reality and persists in misrepresenting what those "spheres" were.
.
BTW happenby's curious contrary statements regarding Wikipedia could be very simply explained by the fact that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the contents of articles. Consequently, happenby could be going to the Wiki site on her computer, typing in her own edit of the text she finds there, and then returning to CI to report what she had just written on Wiki. She would not be falsifying the reality that Wiki DID contain what she claims it did (because she had just written it on Wiki!), even though in fact (since Wiki constantly scours its articles undoing edits that someone in power at Wiki doesn't approve of, sometimes within just 5 minutes of an edit taking place) what happenby is busy attesting to as being found on Wiki (because she had just written it there!) cannot be found on Wiki at all because it has been UNDONE by the mysterious ghost editors who haunt the place day and night, 24/7/365.25... (There are slightly more than 365.25 days in the year, currently.) Therefore, by the time you read her post that says such-and-such is to be found on Wiki, when you go looking for it you can't find it because the haunting ghosts wiped it out all ready.
.
That would explain as well her obsession with things being "wiped out" which see (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/are-globers-catholic/msg605852/#msg605852).
-
#1) I never said that it was proof, just that it's compelling.
#2) Polytheism could be the reflection of a common experience, such as demonic entities.
#3) In most of these polytheistic cultures, the "gods" were more superior beings of some kind, whether demonic entities, giants, the "sons of God" cited in Scripture, or some superior race(s) that they encountered. Hard to say.
#4) Primitive Revelation is a very real thing. Adam and Eve in their unfallen state, with intellects unencuмbered by Original Sin, and also because they "walked with God" in Eden, were privy to a great deal of knowledge about the natural world. Some of this was passed down and transmitted through their offspring.
#5) Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures, they are nearly identical in many of the details. It's one thing to say that all these cultures were polytheistic ... but if these cultures ALL, for example, had exactly 10 gods, then you could be sure that it has to do with some real experience of a group of ten entities of some kind that they viewed as gods or preternatural beings. Now, just because they interpreted these beings as "gods" doesn't even necessarily mean that they were ... just that they were greatly superior to them in some way. It's just statistically almost impossible that they could randomly come up with the exact same thing.
If polytheism can be a reflection of a common experience, then so can belief in a flat Earth, and that is the obvious answer: we experience the Earth as locally flat, and ancient cultures had little basis in their scope of the world for inferring anything else.
There’s no reason to say of the common belief that it’s “likely” due to some primitive revelation.
-
Finally, and most importantly, if you look at the cosmology of ancient cultures,
When I look at actual traditions of the learned men of all ancient civilised cultures, and in particular at the esoteric doctrines of the “high” paganisms like Hermeticism, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Taoism etc., I find not a belief in a geocentric cosmos , but one that coincides with Hebrew mysticism and Beoplatonism in rejecting any materialist conception of the cosmos at all, placing the infinite divine at the center of everything and Earth, the physical place where we reside, as an outer shell, the place farthest from its pure light next to the outer darkness of Hell, where matter becomes less and less subtle and the world more and more solidified as one moves outward.
The usual cosmic spheres, Hell at the centre and the Empyrean at the farthest circuмference, is just an exoteric inversion of the view.
If one wants to speculate about about primitive revelation, that, and not stories about flat disks carried atop the backs of giant space turtles, would be the place to begin.
-
Again happenby seems unable to get a grasp on the distinction between heliocentrism and a globular Earth, the quotation about Copernicus concerning the introduction of the former, not the latter.
Geocentrism and terrestrial sphericity are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, the only way for the Earth to be the true centre of the cosmos, from all directions, is for the cosmos and the Earth with it to be spherical.
Terrestrial sphericity is mutually exclusive of reason. And the Fathers of the Church.
-
Terrestrial sphericity is mutually exclusive of reason. And the Fathers of the Church.
Your comment is “mutually exclusive of” the grammar of the English language.
The first claim is meaningless.
The second claim is patently false: several of the Fathers of the Church held to “sphericity”: Jerome, Basil, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa and, of course, Augustine. This is a demonstrable fact, therefore your assertion regarding “the Fathers”, as a universally quantified statement, is false.
-
Notice the OBSESSION that these flat-Earth trads have with subject. It consumes their thought. That’s the hallmark of cultism right there.
-
When I look at actual traditions of the learned men of all ancient civilised cultures, and in particular at the esoteric doctrines of the “high” paganisms like Hermeticism, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Taoism etc., I find not a belief in a geocentric cosmos , but one that coincides with Hebrew mysticism and Beoplatonism in rejecting any materialist conception of the cosmos at all, placing the infinite divine at the center of everything and Earth, the physical place where we reside, as an outer shell, the place farthest from its pure light next to the outer darkness of Hell, where matter becomes less and less subtle and the world more and more solidified as one moves outward.
The usual cosmic spheres, Hell at the centre and the Empyrean at the farthest circuмference, is just an exoteric inversion of the view.
If one wants to speculate about about primitive revelation, that, and not stories about flat disks carried atop the backs of giant space turtles, would be the place to begin.
Are you Catholic? Judging by your username, and the above post, I think not.
-
just askin.....
Well, there's at least one pagan glober on this thread who adamantly defends the globe. Not surprising.
-
Terrestrial sphericity is mutually exclusive of reason. And the Fathers of the Church.
.
Flat-earthism is beyond the pale of lunacy. Everyone knows the earth is spheroid.
-
The quote of st. Thomas given on page 2 does not seem to show he believed it. It just quotes Aristotle and what he thought.
Since creation is the foundation of our religion, it is hard to see how people who reject that are not rejecting the Catholic religion.
Unlike sedevacantism, this question can be resolved not just with speculative discussion, but also with concrete proofs. It is in your face. If you reject that you reject God. So it seems...
Thoughts?
-
The quote of st. Thomas given on page 2 does not seem to show he believed it. It just quotes Aristotle and what he thought.
Since creation is the foundation of our religion, it is hard to see how people who reject that are not rejecting the Catholic religion.
Unlike sedevacantism, this question can be resolved not just with speculative discussion, but also with concrete proofs. It is in your face. If you reject that you reject God. So it seems...
Thoughts?
Globers don't have thoughts of their own. They are indoctrinated.
-
The quote of st. Thomas given on page 2 does not seem to show he believed it. It just quotes Aristotle and what he thought.
Since creation is the foundation of our religion, it is hard to see how people who reject that are not rejecting the Catholic religion.
Unlike sedevacantism, this question can be resolved not just with speculative discussion, but also with concrete proofs. It is in your face. If you reject that you reject God. So it seems...
Thoughts?
As I have repeatedly explained, in the original Latin, there is a different grammar construction depending on whether one alludes to a belief that one agrees with or disagrees with. Aquinas used the construction which showed that he agreed with the belief he was writing about.
The Church clearly teaches that we are permitted to understand passages about the physical nature of creation figuratively. How can those who do what the Church permits be said to be rejecting the Catholic religion? There is a better case that those who deny others what the Church permits are rejecting the Catholic religion.
Nobody on this forum who accepts a spherical earth is denying that God is the Creator or that Scripture is inerrant. We are interpreting Scripture as the Church encourages to and as it has traditionally been done for most of Catholic history.
-
As I have repeatedly explained, in the original Latin, there is a different grammar construction depending on whether one alludes to a belief that one agrees with or disagrees with. Aquinas used the construction which showed that he agreed with the belief he was writing about.
The Church clearly teaches that we are permitted to understand passages about the physical nature of creation figuratively. How can those who do what the Church permits be said to be rejecting the Catholic religion? There is a better case that those who deny others what the Church permits are rejecting the Catholic religion.
Nobody on this forum who accepts a spherical earth is denying that God is the Creator or that Scripture is inerrant. We are interpreting Scripture as the Church encourages to and as it has traditionally been done for most of Catholic history.
We are interpreting Scripture as the Church encourages to and as it has traditionally been done for most of Catholic history.
********************
No you're not.
-
As I have repeatedly explained, in the original Latin, there is a different grammar construction depending on whether one alludes to a belief that one agrees with or disagrees with. Aquinas used the construction which showed that he agreed with the belief he was writing about.
The Church clearly teaches that we are permitted to understand passages about the physical nature of creation figuratively. How can those who do what the Church permits be said to be rejecting the Catholic religion? There is a better case that those who deny others what the Church permits are rejecting the Catholic religion.
Nobody on this forum who accepts a spherical earth is denying that God is the Creator or that Scripture is inerrant. We are interpreting Scripture as the Church encourages to and as it has traditionally been done for most of Catholic history.
If they had wanted to translate it your way, then they would have done so.
Even if St. Thomas was pro globe earth, he would still be wrong. Material heretic.
Like St. Bede.
-
------------------The phrase "quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat" has its verb "demonstrat" in the indicative which means the author believes it is a fact. If he were alluding to something that he himself did not believe it would be in the subjunctive. There is no ambiguity about this in the original Latin.--------------------- from Jaynek
My response;
That's your interpretation of the text. Which is not completely certain.
-
------------------The phrase "quod terram esse rotundam per aliud medium demonstrat" has its verb "demonstrat" in the indicative which means the author believes it is a fact. If he were alluding to something that he himself did not believe it would be in the subjunctive. There is no ambiguity about this in the original Latin.--------------------- from Jaynek
My response;
That's your interpretation of the text. Which is not completely certain.
Anyone who has studied enough Latin to know how the subjunctive functions, knows that what I wrote was correct. If you think it is "not completely certain" you must not know Latin
-
Anyone who has studied enough Latin to know how the subjunctive functions, knows that what I wrote was correct. If you think it is "not completely certain" you must not know Latin
The point to remember is that he was citing aristotle. Not adding his own opinion. St. Thomas was not noted for his glorious latin. It could go either way here. It is more than likely just bad latin. Because it is clearly part of what should be a subjunctive clause. He was using the indicative, and you are imposing your error of globe thought on this.
But at the end of the day, it doesnt matter, because globe earth will still be an error, and probably proven to be a heresy someday, regardless of whether you like it or not.
-
If they had wanted to translate it your way, then they would have done so.
Even if St. Thomas was pro globe earth, he would still be wrong. Material heretic.
Like St. Bede.
In order for belief in spherical earth to be a heresy, there would have to be Church teaching that the earth is not a sphere. There is no such teaching.
It was the personal opinion of some but not all Church Fathers that the earth was flat. Nobody is a heretic for disagreeing with them. There is no evidence of any educated Catholics from the time of St. Bede onward who believed the earth is flat. There is well over a millennium of Catholics accepting the earth is a sphere and teaching this at Catholic institutions.
-
The point to remember is that he was citing aristotle. Not adding his own opinion. St. Thomas was not noted for his glorious latin. It could go either way here. It is more than likely just bad latin. Because it is clearly part of what should be a subjunctive clause. He was using the indicative, and you are imposing your error of globe thought on this.
I am not imposing anything. I am understanding the Latin to mean what it actually says. You are the imposing your assumptions to accuse St. Thomas of writing such bad Latin that it changes his intended meaning.
And he was not "citing Aristotle". If you compare the passage against what Aristotle wrote, it is clearly not a quote. St. Thomas was using his own words.
-
New errors are condemned all the time.
The Church could add globe earth to that list. Especially considering the Fathers were against it in the majority.
I think with all the evidence out there now, theological and scientific, globe earthers are probably material heretics.
-
New errors are condemned all the time.
The Church could add globe earth to that list. Especially considering the Fathers were against it in the majority.
I think with all the evidence out there now, theological and scientific, globe earthers are probably material heretics.
In order to make spherical earth a heresy, the Church would have to contradict the teaching given in Providentissimus Deus (and repeated by later popes). It is virtually impossible that globe earth could ever become a heresy.
And I am not convinced that the majority of the Fathers were against globe earth. The flat earther quote lists tend to include quotes that do not actually oppose globe earth. Many of the passages are not understood correctly and/or taken out of context. Genuine opposition to globe earth was considerably less than these lists try to show.
-
Terrestrial sphericity is mutually exclusive of reason. And the Fathers of the Church.
.
Worshiping your golden-calf false-god flat-earthism again?
.
Notice the OBSESSION that these flat-Earth trads have with subject. It consumes their thought. That’s the hallmark of cultism right there.
.
It's called "a sin against the First Commandment," worship of a false god.
.
And the fulfillment of prophesy, itching ears hearing fables, and turning away from the truth.
.
These must be the last days, according to the Apostles.
.
[1] (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=1-#x) I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=2-#x) Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=3-#x) For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=3-3&q=1#x) [4] (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=4-#x) And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=4&l=5-#x) But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.
-
The Church could add globe earth to that list. Especially considering the Fathers were against it in the majority.
I think with all the evidence out there now, theological and scientific
.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, what's more likely, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land?
-
In order to make spherical earth a heresy, the Church would have to contradict the teaching given in Providentissimus Deus (and repeated by later popes). It is virtually impossible that globe earth could ever become a heresy.
And I am not convinced that the majority of the Fathers were against globe earth. The flat earther quote lists tend to include quotes that do not actually oppose globe earth. Many of the passages are not understood correctly and/or taken out of context. Genuine opposition to globe earth was considerably less than these lists try to show.
I have no problem with Pope Leo's teaching being condemned. Just like the post conciliar popes will have all their encyclicals condemned.
It will probably be left alone because it is so vague anyway.
I'll let others decide for themselves about the truth of your remarks against the Fathers.
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
-
I have no problem with Pope Leo's teaching being condemned. Just like the post conciliar popes will have all their encyclicals condemned.
It will probably be left alone because it is so vague anyway.
I'll let others decide for themselves about the truth of your remarks against the Fathers.
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition
.
Don't you think you'd be much happier in your loony bin forum with your wacked-out co-conspirators?
.
Why do you torture yourself by coming here when you know you're not making any difference?
-
.
Don't you think you'd be much happier in your loony bin forum with your wacked-out co-conspirators?
.
Why do you torture yourself by coming here when you know you're not making any difference?
;D
-
(https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.istockphoto.com%2Fvectors%2Fcuckoo-clock-vector-icon-vector-id594459326%3Fk%3D6%26amp%3Bm%3D594459326%26amp%3Bs%3D612x612%26amp%3Bw%3D0%26amp%3Bh%3DCSrX9m196_FBG8aJM48_szPFyrwz4bT9j0pDO6IyJDE%3D&sp=b51b12b4d7f8095d393719f8240e1d88)
Trademark of flat-earthers
-
.
Don't you think you'd be much happier in your loony bin forum with your wacked-out co-conspirators?
.
Why do you torture yourself by coming here when you know you're not making any difference?
wacked out co conspirators? Says the person who believes in aliens?
As for coming here, seeing you annoyed makes it all worth it...
-
;D
You don't believe the earth rotates. By that standard you deny science and also are a whacked out conspiracy theorist.
:D
-
You don't believe the earth rotates. By that standard you deny science and also are a whacked out conspiracy theorist.
:D
God created science and the flat earth. :incense:
-
In order to make spherical earth a heresy, the Church would have to contradict the teaching given in Providentissimus Deus (and repeated by later popes). It is virtually impossible that globe earth could ever become a heresy.
And I am not convinced that the majority of the Fathers were against globe earth. The flat earther quote lists tend to include quotes that do not actually oppose globe earth. Many of the passages are not understood correctly and/or taken out of context. Genuine opposition to globe earth was considerably less than these lists try to show.
Wow. So Providentissimus Deus teaches earth is a globe?
-
Wow. So Providentissimus Deus teaches earth is a globe?
No, PD does not teach that the earth is a globe. It teaches principles of Scripture interpretation, including this passage:
...the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time...
The mistaken idea that the Bible teaches flat earth depends on taking certain verses as literal teaching about the essential nature of the visible universe. In other words, one must do the exact opposite of the principle taught by the Church in the quote above.
For flat earth to be made a doctrine and spherical earth a heresy, the Church would need to get rid of this principle and oblige Catholics to take literally the verses that she now encourages us to take figuratively.
Some flat earthers may claim to hold a Catholic position, but they appear to reject magisterial teaching on the interpretation of Scripture.
-
No, PD does not teach that the earth is a globe. It teaches principles of Scripture interpretation, including this passage:
The mistaken idea that the Bible teaches flat earth depends on taking certain verses as literal teaching about the essential nature of the visible universe. In other words, one must do the exact opposite of the principle taught by the Church in the quote above.
For flat earth to be made a doctrine and spherical earth a heresy, the Church would need to get rid of this principle and oblige Catholics to take literally the verses that she now encourages us to take figuratively.
Some flat earthers may claim to hold a Catholic position, but they appear to reject magisterial teaching on the interpretation of Scripture.
Now now, this is disingenuous. We all know that this rendition is not the oldest version of PD and is inaccurate, but we also know that Scripture is not to be interpreted other than the literal unless there is a reason. Also, you leave out things that you know won't serve your case as PD also states:
"A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack.
The Holy Fathers “to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth — who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,”39 the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation.
But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine — not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;
But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics — and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labor."
PD reiterates and condemns those who depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture... and further sneers at those who have recourse to the works of non-Catholics for their contempt of the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance.
Your trajectory against flat earth has led you to offend the teachings of PD while you have the nerve to quote PD against us in pretense that we're saying Scripture is a science book. No one is saying anything of the kind, those were YOUR words. We are saying the literal and obvious sense of Scripture is true, as PD so eloquently reiterated. So, unless you are ignorant of it, or just contemptuous, Scripture describes a flat earth in passages throughout the book and NEVER describes a globe.
-
Now now, this is disingenuous. We all know that this rendition is not the oldest version of PD and is inaccurate...
No, since it is not true, we do not all know it. You and perhaps a few others imagine it.
-
No, since it is not true, we do not all know it. You and perhaps a few others imagine it.
It was made clear in earlier threads that four different versions of PD had surfaced. Only when the oldest version was quoted did it become obvious translators had been at it, putting in additions. But that wasn't the whole point of that post. No one claims Scripture is a science book, yet PD encourages students who stay true to the literal interpretation of Scripture to defend truth, even beyond the Fathers.
-
It was made clear in earlier threads that four different versions of PD had surfaced. Only when the oldest version was quoted did it become obvious translators had been at it, putting in additions.
While such an accusation was made, it became clear that the person making it did not understand what he was talking about. There has been no credible evidence presented that PD was ever mistranslated or subjected to textual insertions.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ZfLrnTx.jpg)
-
While such an accusation was made, it became clear that the person making it did not understand what he was talking about. There has been no credible evidence presented that PD was ever mistranslated or subjected to textual insertions.
It was evident in the different texts of PD. Besides PD encourages students holding the literal sense of Scripture to support or even further expound on the opinions of the Fathers who did the same. Your argument is with PD now.
-
It was evident in the different texts of PD. Besides PD encourages students holding the literal sense of Scripture to support or even further expound on the opinions of the Fathers who did the same. Your argument is with PD now.
It was evident that people who thought there were significantly different texts of PD had poor reading comprehension. This difficulty with reading also accounts for your total misunderstanding of Providentissimus Deus. You practically have it saying the opposite of what it really teaches. Even when people explain it to you, you do not understand.
I recommend that anyone objectively interested the contents of this encyclical read it for himself.
Here is the same quote I gave earlier in the thread from the translation that flat earthers claimed was more accurate than the one I used from the Vatican website:
...the sacred writers or more truly “the Spirit of God, who spoke
through them, did not wish to teach men these things (namely, the
innermost constitution of the visible universe) as being of no profit to
salvation”; that, therefore, they do not carry an explanation of nature
scientifically, but rather sometimes describe and treat the facts themselves,
either in a figurative manner, or in the common language of their times...
https://archive.org/stream/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma/Denzinger%20-%20Sources%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma_djvu.txt (https://archive.org/stream/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma/Denzinger%20-%20Sources%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma_djvu.txt)
And here is the same passage in Latin:
...scriptores sacros, seu verius « Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista (videlicet intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem) docere homines, nulli saluti profutura »; quare eos, potius quam explorationem naturae recta persequantur, res ipsas aliquando describere et tractare aut quodam translationis modo, aut sicut communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora...
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
There is obviously nothing wrong with the quote as I originally cited it.
-
It was evident that people who thought there were significantly different texts of PD had poor reading comprehension. This difficulty with reading also accounts for your total misunderstanding of Providentissimus Deus. You practically have it saying the opposite of what it really teaches. Even when people explain it to you, you do not understand.
I recommend that anyone objectively interested the contents of this encyclical read it for himself.
Here is the same quote I gave earlier in the thread from the translation that flat earthers claimed was more accurate than the one I used from the Vatican website:
...the sacred writers or more truly “the Spirit of God, who spoke
through them, did not wish to teach men these things (namely, the
innermost constitution of the visible universe) as being of no profit to
salvation”; that, therefore, they do not carry an explanation of nature
scientifically, but rather sometimes describe and treat the facts themselves,
either in a figurative manner, or in the common language of their times...
https://archive.org/stream/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma/Denzinger%20-%20Sources%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma_djvu.txt (https://archive.org/stream/DenzingerSourcesOfCatholicDogma/Denzinger%20-%20Sources%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma_djvu.txt)
And here is the same passage in Latin:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
There is obviously nothing wrong with the quote as I originally cited it.
You've been shown the word "things" was added in some translations. Martin Luther comes to mind here. The addition of the word "things" manages to negate the layout of the sentence. How? PD says parenthetically, "...Did NOT wish to teach men these things as being of NO profit"... which means these things are of profit, because "not" and "no" cancel each other out to make the sentence read positive. However, when the word "things" is duplicated after the parentheses, it suggests that these "things" are of no profit to salvation by adding another "things" So it says, after the parentheses, "things of no profit to salvation". This is not only counter intuitive grammatically speaking, and those who added "things" get an F in grammar and deserve an expulsion for tampering, but it also denies the remaining portions of PD and relegates Scripture's more scientific aspects of geography and creation to the trash bin. Not a healthy view by any standards. Especially since Scripture is soooo descriptive about the form of the earth and since the Fathers expounded on this. It is for this reason that the average joe ought not tread where he has no understanding, at least until he has understanding. No doubt this level of exegeses will fly over you like a kite on a windy day, not because you haven't the intellect, but because your intellect is blocked. Yet this is what PD is saying, proven by the quotes I added from PD (above). So my comments are here for the record, for those Catholics who are reading and want to know.
-
You've been shown the word "things" was added in some translations. Martin Luther comes to mind here. The addition of the word "things" manages to negate the layout of the sentence. How? PD says parenthetically, "...Did NOT wish to teach men these things as being of NO profit"... which means these things are of profit, because "not" and "no" cancel each other out to make the sentence read positive. However, when the word "things" is duplicated after the parentheses, it suggests that these "things" are of no profit to salvation by adding another "things" So it says, after the parentheses, "things of no profit to salvation". This is not only counter intuitive grammatically speaking, and those who added "things" get an F in grammar and deserve an expulsion for tampering, but it also denies the remaining portions of PD and relegates Scripture's more scientific aspects of geography and creation to the trash bin. Not a healthy view by any standards. Especially since Scripture is soooo descriptive about the form of the earth and since the Fathers expounded on this. It is for this reason that the average joe ought not tread where he has no understanding, at least until he has understanding. No doubt this level of exegeses will fly over you like a kite on a windy day, not because you haven't the intellect, but because your intellect is blocked. Yet this is what PD is saying, proven by the quotes I added from PD (above). So my comments are here for the record, for those Catholics who are reading and want to know.
Using the word "things" is an optional but legitimate way to translate that construction and does not change the meaning. Rather it makes the meaning clearer.
It is possible in your preferred English translation to misunderstand "no" and "not" as cancelling each other out. It is not possible to understand the original Latin in such a way. The phrase nulli saluti profitura "of no profit for salvation" clearly modifies illa "these things". It is unambiguously saying that things concerning the innermost constitution of the universe are not profitable for salvation. It also unambiguously says that the Holy Spirit does not wish to teach these things. The translation I quoted conveyed this meaning more clearly. It did not tamper with the meaning at all.
This correct understanding of the quote does not deny anything else in PD when it is properly understood. As I have said, you do not understand the encyclical. Your quotes do not say what you think they do.
-
Using the word "things" is an optional but legitimate way to translate that construction and does not change the meaning. Rather it makes the meaning clearer.
It is possible in your preferred English translation to misunderstand "no" and "not" as cancelling each other out. It is not possible to understand the original Latin in such a way. The phrase nulli saluti profitura "of no profit for salvation" clearly modifies illa "these things". It is unambiguously saying that things concerning the innermost constitution of the universe are not profitable for salvation. It also unambiguously says that the Holy Spirit does not wish to teach these things. The translation I quoted conveyed this meaning more clearly. It did not tamper with the meaning at all.
This correct understanding of the quote does not deny anything else in PD when it is properly understood. As I have said, you do not understand the encyclical. Your quotes do not say what you think they do.
Clearly the quotes do say what they say. And your suggestion that PD intends to prevent the use of Scripture in the literal sense for what the Fathers have already opined about the form of the earth is destroyed. From the grammar to the words themselves. You're right, happenby, this woman is blocked.
-
Indeed. And notice poor Ms. Jaynek never addresses the other particulars, let alone the totality of PD, which clearly indicates that the Church invites those who respect and hold to the literal meaning of Scripture to expound on the teachings of the Fathers. :cheers:
-
Clearly the quotes do say what they say. And your suggestion that PD intends to prevent the use of Scripture in the literal sense for what the Fathers have already opined about the form of the earth is destroyed. From the grammar to the words themselves. You're right, happenby, this woman is blocked.
The Fathers disagreed about the form of the earth. Only in later times did Catholics reach a consensus - that the earth is a sphere. Providentissimus Deus shows that some Fathers (and virtually all later Catholics) were correct to not take literally figurative language that might suggest a flat earth.
Flat earth is not a Catholic position. One cannot make a claim that it is Catholic merely because some Fathers believed in it. Genuine Catholic views persist throughout time. Belief in flat earth did not persist.
Some, but not all, Fathers accepted it and then the idea disappeared for over a thousand years. Then it was revived by Fundamentalist heretics. It primarily gained acceptance among heretics and neopagans. Does that sound like a Catholic idea? Is there any Catholic belief with such a history?
-
The Fathers disagreed about the form of the earth. Only in later times did Catholics reach a consensus - that the earth is a sphere. Providentissimus Deus shows that some Fathers (and virtually all later Catholics) were correct to not take literally figurative language that might suggest a flat earth.
Flat earth is not a Catholic position. One cannot make a claim that it is Catholic merely because some Fathers believed in it. Genuine Catholic views persist throughout time. Belief in flat earth did not persist.
Some, but not all, Fathers accepted it and then the idea disappeared for over a thousand years. Then it was revived by Fundamentalist heretics. It primarily gained acceptance among heretics and neopagans. Does that sound like a Catholic idea? Is there any Catholic belief with such a history?
There is something called belief, and another called teaching. Some Fathers believed earth to be a globe. Without question however, no Father taught earth is a globe. Several Fathers taught flat earth with incredible insight and argumentation against the globe. That is a consensus. What a Father personally thinks is subject to error, but when the Fathers who taught flat earth never were in contradiction to each other on that subject, AND when the Fathers who taught flat earth were faithful to the literal sense of Scripture, not to mention expounding on the liturgy, the tabernacle, actual physical churches, the doctrine of Jerusalem as center of earth, defending against the antipodes, etc. we have consensus. There is nothing left of the pagan Copernican Doctrine so hated by Popes and saints. The Church supports flat earth. Scripture supports flat earth. The Fathers support flat earth. Particular teachings support flat earth, including PD, which defends the literal sense of Scripture exegeses in these matters. The Church's condemnations support flat earth. Reason supports flat earth. Science supports flat earth. Math supports flat earth. Catholics ought to support flat earth, or at least get the information necessary to understand it with consideration in light of all these green lights. Stop holding to obscure pagan notions in the name of popularity. You have nothing in your court except people's common belief in pagan science.
-
There is something called belief, and another called teaching. Some Fathers believed earth to be a globe. Without question however, no Father taught earth is a globe. Several Fathers taught flat earth with incredible insight and argumentation against the globe. That is a consensus.
No, that is not what the word "consensus" means. The definition is "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group." It has nothing to do with teaching as opposed to belief. (Also, your claim is false that no Father taught earth is a globe.) You admit that some Fathers believed the earth is a globe. It follows, if one uses standard definitions for words, that there was no consensus.
The Church supports flat earth. Scripture supports flat earth. The Fathers support flat earth. Particular teachings support flat earth, including PD, which defends the literal sense of Scripture exegeses in these matters. The Church's condemnations support flat earth. Reason supports flat earth. Science supports flat earth. Math supports flat earth. Catholics ought to support flat earth, or at least get the information necessary to understand it with consideration in light of all these green lights. Stop holding to obscure pagan notions in the name of popularity. You have nothing in your court except people's common belief in pagan science.
False, false, false, and again false. The Church does not support flat earth, although I suppose you might be making up your own special definitions again. Nor does Scripture, as traditionally understood by most Catholics throughout history, support flat earth. Magisterial teaching supports the non-literal interpretation of your proof verses. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism in no way even hints at any problems with spherical earth which had long been part of the geocentric model accepted and promoted by Catholics and Catholic institutions.
The modern revival of the idea of flat earth is a primarily a movement of heretics and pagans. There is no reason for Catholics to have anything to do with them.
-
No, that is not what the word "consensus" means. The definition is "an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group." It has nothing to do with teaching as opposed to belief. (Also, your claim is false that no Father taught earth is a globe.) You admit that some Fathers believed the earth is a globe. It follows, if one uses standard definitions for words, that there was no consensus.
False, false, false, and again false. The Church does not support flat earth, although I suppose you might be making up your own special definitions again. Nor does Scripture, as traditionally understood by most Catholics throughout history, support flat earth. Magisterial teaching supports the non-literal interpretation of your proof verses. The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism in no way even hints at any problems with spherical earth which had long been part of the geocentric model accepted and promoted by Catholics and Catholic institutions.
The modern revival of the idea of flat earth is a primarily a movement of heretics and pagans. There is no reason for Catholics to have anything to do with them.
The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
-
.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
-
.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
I'm sorry, but I've seen plenty of evidence that strongly suggests flat earth, your unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion notwithstanding.
-
.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
The horizontal horizon is still horizontal. ;D
-
I'm sorry, but I've seen plenty of evidence that strongly suggests flat earth, your unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion notwithstanding.
.
Name one thing. If you can.
.
Otherwise, the statement stands unmolested:
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
.
Flat-earthers misunderstand Scripture day-in and day-out. And they're proud of it.
They refuse to recognize simple mathematical principles even resorting to accusing mathematics of being "demonic."
They claim "empirical science" as their basis but refuse to take the first step to making any empirical observations.
They ignore simple facts placed before them and repeat ad nauseum their nonsense false platitudes.
.
Flat-earthers read a quote, think they know exactly what it's talking about (rashly, when this isn't the case), and then proceed to promulgate their "discovery" as a decree, morally binding on all Catholics -- complete with excommunication for those who disagree. It's ridiculous.
.
Flat-earthers bring their "revelation" to its logical conclusion, which is condemning those who disagree. They've done it a thousand times on this forum alone, not to mention all over the Internet.
.
-
The Church does not support flat earth. ...Nor does Scripture, as traditionally understood by most Catholics throughout history, support flat earth. ...The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism in no way even hints at any problems with spherical earth which had long been part of the geocentric model accepted and promoted by Catholics and Catholic institutions.
The modern revival of the idea of flat earth is a primarily a movement of heretics and pagans. There is no reason for Catholics to have anything to do with them.
.
Correct.
-
.
Correct.
False. Anyone with Catholic sense, apprised of the details, and who is able to overcome the pagan indoctrination of their youth by demonic overlords hiding the truth, knows. The rest do not, and we pray for them.
-
False. Anyone with Catholic sense, apprised of the details, and who is able to overcome the pagan indoctrination of their youth by demonic overlords hiding the truth, knows. The rest do not, and we pray for them.
.
False. You're still doing it, after being called out. That means you're obstinately in error.
Flat-earthism is a fallacy and a blatant refusal to look at the facts.
The proofs are everywhere we look. But we have to look.
.
-
.
False. You're still doing it, after being called out. That means you're obstinately in error.
Flat-earthism is a fallacy and a blatant refusal to look at the facts.
The proofs are everywhere we look. But we have to look.
.
(https://i.imgur.com/xycX2d1.jpg)
-
E rev around S :cheers:
-
The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism in no way even hints at any problems with spherical earth which had long been part of the geocentric model accepted and promoted by Catholics and Catholic institutions.
The modern revival of the idea of flat earth is a primarily a movement of heretics and pagans. There is no reason for Catholics to have anything to do with them.
.
Heretics and pagans -- good call! Some of whom are hard-set in their obstinacy against the truth.
Many of whom are enemies of the Church and like to support flat-earthism because that's their way of fighting against the Church.
.
Catholics who have anything to do with them are co-conspirators against the good of the Church.
.
Flat-earthism does the devil's work!
.
-
.
Heretics and pagans -- good call! Some of whom are hard-set in their obstinacy against the truth.
Many of whom are enemies of the Church and like to support flat-earthism because that's their way of fighting against the Church.
.
Catholics who have anything to do with them are co-conspirators against the good of the Church.
.
Flat-earthism does the devil's work!
.
Your accusations remain unsupported and bear witness to your lack of understanding and cleary show a very weak attempt to stay relevant in a discussion way above your head.
-
Your accusations remain unsupported and bear witness to your lack of understanding and cleary [sic] show a very weak attempt to stay relevant in a discussion way above your head.
.
Are you having fun doing the devil's work, aryzia? Are you a white witch or a black witch?
.
I know a woman who pretended to read her missal at Mass then eventually left the Church, but years later it turns out she was a white witch all along! Now she's busy getting young girls to follow her example by holding a missal and only pretending to read it at Mass.
-
Terrestrial sphericity is mutually exclusive of reason. And the Fathers of the Church.
.
Please explain why Venerable Bede, whose numerous books on the patristic Fathers were widely used in schools all throughout the middle ages, clearly and openly described the earth as held by the Fathers of the Church to be a globe.
.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus on May 04, 2018, 05:58:06 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/are-globers-catholic/msg607433/#msg607433)
I'm sorry, but I've seen plenty of evidence that strongly suggests flat earth, your unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion notwithstanding.
.
Name one thing. If you can.
.
Otherwise, the statement stands unmolested:
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
.
Flat-earthers misunderstand Scripture day-in and day-out. And they're proud of it.
They refuse to recognize simple mathematical principles even resorting to accusing mathematics of being "demonic."
They claim "empirical science" as their basis but refuse to take the first step to making any empirical observations.
They ignore simple facts placed before them and repeat ad nauseum their nonsense false platitudes.
.
Flat-earthers read a quote, think they know exactly what it's talking about (rashly, when this isn't the case), and then proceed to promulgate their "discovery" as a decree, morally binding on all Catholics -- complete with excommunication for those who disagree. It's ridiculous.
.
Flat-earthers bring their "revelation" to its logical conclusion, which is condemning those who disagree. They've done it a thousand times on this forum alone, not to mention all over the Internet.
.
.
Come on, Ladislaus!
It's been what, three weeks now, and no reply??
.
I thought you said you were an expert at ripping up bad arguments or something like that........
Let's see, it's got to be around here somewhere. OH -- Here it is!
.
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces. I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds. Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
What about the one where you find it "compelling" when a boat that appears to descend down beyond the horizon, but when the camera zooms in the boat returns! Okay.
Then use the same principle to make the sun come back after it sets!
.
Take the same camera that zooms in to see the boat and zooms out to make it appear to descend past the curvature then zooms in again to see the boat and out to make it sink and in to make it come back, take that same camera and make the sun set below the horizon then zoom in to make the sun rise up again, and zoom out to make it set again and zoom in to make it rise again.
.
We'll all be waiting for you to tear up this argument.
.
If you're going to say "But that's not an argument" then we can fix it for you. Your turn...................
.
-
Name one thing. If you can.
.
Otherwise, the statement stands unmolested:
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
.
Flat-earthers misunderstand Scripture day-in and day-out. And they're proud of it.
They refuse to recognize simple mathematical principles even resorting to accusing mathematics of being "demonic."
They claim "empirical science" as their basis but refuse to take the first step to making any empirical observations.
They ignore simple facts placed before them and repeat ad nauseum their nonsense false platitudes.
.
Flat-earthers read a quote, think they know exactly what it's talking about (rashly, when this isn't the case), and then proceed to promulgate their "discovery" as a decree, morally binding on all Catholics -- complete with excommunication for those who disagree. It's ridiculous.
.
Flat-earthers bring their "revelation" to its logical conclusion, which is condemning those who disagree. They've done it a thousand times on this forum alone, not to mention all over the Internet.
.
Come on, Ladislaus!
It's been what, three weeks now, and no reply??
.
I thought you said you were an expert at ripping up bad arguments or something like that........
Let's see, it's got to be around here somewhere. OH -- Here it is!
.
Quote from: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 10:43:04 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/'flat'-earth-complete-balderdash/msg608322/#msg608322)
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces. I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds. Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
What about the one where you find it "compelling" when a boat that appears to descend down beyond the horizon, but when the camera zooms in the boat returns! Okay.
Then use the same principle to make the sun come back after it sets!
.
Take the same camera that zooms in to see the boat and zooms out to make it appear to descend past the curvature then zooms in again to see the boat and out to make it sink and in to make it come back, take that same camera when the sun sets below the horizon, and then zoom in to make the sun rise up again, then zoom out to make it set again, and zoom in to make it rise again.
.
We'll all be waiting for you to tear up this argument.
.
.
Ladislaus the CHICKEN!
Your strident whining like a baby is heard loud and clear.
Your emotional sweeping statements have no substance and no integrity.
You're effortlessly "compelled" to side with nonsense flat-earthism but you can't seem to muster the first hint of objectivity.
.
Interesting.
-
Bump
-
Bump
.
Bumping Ladislaus the CHICKEN!
.
Maybe he's busy barbequeing his CHICKEN for Memorial Day.
-
.
What about the one where you find it "compelling" when a boat that appears to descend beyond the horizon, but when the camera zooms in the boat returns!
.................Okay...............
Then use the same principle to make the sun come back after it sets!
.
Take the same camera that zooms in to see the boat and zooms out to make it appear to descend past the curvature then zooms in again to see the boat and out to make it sink and in to make it come back, take that same camera when the sun sets below the horizon, and then zoom in to make the sun rise up again -- then zoom out to make it set again -- and zoom in to make it rise again -- zoom out to make it set again! -- zoom in to make it rise again!........
.
......................We'll all be waiting for you to tear up this argument........................ (probably waiting forever!!)
Quote from: Neil Obstat on May 27, 2018, 12:11:46 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/are-globers-catholic/msg611335/#msg611335)
Name one thing. If you can.
.
Otherwise, the statement stands unmolested:
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
.
Flat-earthers misunderstand Scripture day-in and day-out. And they're proud of it.
They refuse to recognize simple mathematical principles even resorting to accusing mathematics of being "demonic."
They claim "empirical science" as their basis but refuse to take the first step to making any empirical observations.
They ignore simple facts placed before them and repeat ad nauseum their nonsense false platitudes.
.
Flat-earthers read a quote, think they know exactly what it's talking about (rashly, when this isn't the case), and then proceed to promulgate their "discovery" as a decree, morally binding on all Catholics -- complete with excommunication for those who disagree. It's ridiculous.
.
Flat-earthers bring their "revelation" to its logical conclusion, which is condemning those who disagree. They've done it a thousand times on this forum alone, not to mention all over the Internet.
.
Come on, Ladislaus!
It's been what, three weeks now, and no reply??
.
I thought you said you were an expert at ripping up bad arguments or something like that........
Let's see, it's got to be around here somewhere. OH -- Here it is!
.
.
Quote from: Ladislaus on May 10, 2018, 10:43:04 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/'flat'-earth-complete-balderdash/msg608322/#msg608322):
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces. I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds. Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
.
I do not have a lot of God-given talents, but I am very skilled at shredding bad arguments to pieces. I can see logical flaws miles away and rip them apart in seconds. Other than that, I have a very poor memory, and not very many talents in other areas.
.
What about the one where you find it "compelling" when a boat that appears to descend down beyond the horizon, but when the camera zooms in the boat returns! Okay.
Then use the same principle to make the sun come back after it sets!
.
Take the same camera that zooms in to see the boat and zooms out to make it appear to descend past the curvature then zooms in again to see the boat and out to make it sink and in to make it come back, take that same camera when the sun sets below the horizon, and then zoom in to make the sun rise up again, then zoom out to make it set again, and zoom in to make it rise again.
.
We'll all be waiting for you to tear up this argument.
.
.
Ladislaus the CHICKEN!
Your strident whining like a baby is heard loud and clear.
Your emotional sweeping statements have no substance and no integrity.
You're effortlessly "compelled" to side with nonsense flat-earthism but you can't seem to muster the first hint of objectivity.
.
Interesting.
-
We'll all be waiting for you to tear up this argument.
Ladislaus the CHICKEN!
Your strident whining like a baby [#] is heard loud and clear.
The initial down-thumbs that appear as of this moment on some recent postings of yours in this topic have been awarded (ahem!) by a globist ally: me! [†]
Your childish insults and taunting are an embarrassment not only to me, but likely also others among us scarce few globists who are willing to repeatedly make the mostly thankless effort to correct historical & magisterial fallacies, and bring technical knowledge & logic to the stubborn leaders & minions who reside in the flattist ghetto. Despite the possibility that attentive-but-neutral on-lookers might sensibly criticize our efforts as a "Complete Waste of Time".
You're a source of quite valuable technical knowledge that distinguishes you among your allies. Please clean up your act [#], so that your allies can be completely proud of your postings in the ghetto.
-------
Note †: I obviously have no control over the possible stimulation of flattist minions to pile on the down-thumbs. I consider my overall message to be important enough that I'm not really concerned about any embarrassment it might possibly cause to globist efforts.
Note #: I would greatly appreciate it if you would take to heart the technical advice promoted by classic early books on personal computing: A PC is not a Typewriter and A Word-Processor is not a Typewriter, which emphasized that underlining is a manuscript and mechanical-typewriter low-tech substitute for then-unavailable italics. So stop using underlining for anything except hyperlinks in your postings. Please!?
-
I upvoted AD's post.
-
The initial down-thumbs that appear as of this moment on some recent postings of yours in this topic have been awarded (ahem!) by a globist ally: me! [†]
Your childish insults and taunting are an embarrassment not only to me, but likely also others among us scarce few globists who are willing to repeatedly make the mostly thankless effort to correct historical & magisterial fallacies, and bring technical knowledge & logic to the stubborn leaders & minions who reside in the flattist ghetto. Despite the possibility that attentive-but-neutral on-lookers might sensibly criticize our efforts as a "Complete Waste of Time".
You're a source of quite valuable technical knowledge that distinguishes you among your allies. Please clean up your act [#], so that your allies can be completely proud of your postings in the ghetto.
-------
Note †: I obviously have no control over the possible stimulation of flattist minions to pile on the down-thumbs. I consider my overall message to be important enough that I'm not really concerned about any embarrassment it might possibly cause to globist efforts.
Note #: I would greatly appreciate it if you would take to heart the technical advice promoted by classic early books on personal computing: A PC is not a Typewriter and A Word-Processor is not a Typewriter, which emphasized that underlining is a manuscript and mechanical-typewriter low-tech substitute for then-unavailable italics. So stop using underlining for anything except hyperlinks in your postings. Please!?
.
All Ladislaus has to do is answer the challenge, but he obviously can't do that.
.
Instead of conceding defeat and admitting he was mistaken in seeing "compelling" evidence for so-called flat-earthism where there is no such "compelling" evidence to be found, he runs away and hides like a coward. Vernacularly known as a chicken. Would you prefer me to use "coward" instead? That can be arranged.
.
He can accuse me of making "childish" posts, like you do here, but that doesn't answer the challenge. It's a cop-out.
.
I'll make you a deal, Alli, you go remind Ladislaus that he has an open challenge to face, and I'll stop calling him by what he is.
Okay?
-
.
I'll make you a deal, Alli, you go remind Ladislaus that he has an open challenge to face, and I'll stop calling him by what he is.
Okay?
.
Until such time, all Ladislaus has to do is answer the challenge, but he obviously can't do that.
.
Instead of conceding defeat and admitting he was mistaken in seeing "compelling" evidence for so-called flat-earthism where there is no such "compelling" evidence to be found, he runs away and hides like a coward. Vernacularly known as a chicken. Would you prefer me to use "coward" instead? That can be arranged.
.
He can accuse me of making "childish" posts, like you do here, but that doesn't answer the challenge. It's a cop-out.
-
Globalists are not good catholics.
-
Quote from: Neil Obstat on May 04, 2018, 02:10:31 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/are-globers-catholic/msg607415/#msg607415)
.
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
I'm sorry, but I've seen plenty of evidence that strongly suggests flat earth, your unsubstantiated gratuitous assertion notwithstanding.
.
Almost three months now and still no reply from Ladislaus the chicken.
But he has plenty of posts where he accuses me of "emotional outbursts" and other such silly platitudes.
.
.
Name one thing. If you can.
.
Otherwise, the statement stands unmolested:
There is no evidence, neither scientific nor theological for your dreamland flat-earthism.
Your Shangri-la fantasy-land is just a silly dream that never comes true.
.
Or, rather, is it your false-god golden-calf fantasy-land? Hmmmm?
.
Flat-earthers misunderstand Scripture day-in and day-out. And they're proud of it.
They refuse to recognize simple mathematical principles even resorting to accusing mathematics of being "demonic."
They claim "empirical science" as their basis but refuse to take the first step to making any empirical observations.
They ignore simple facts placed before them and repeat ad nauseum their nonsense false platitudes.
.
Flat-earthers read a quote, think they know exactly what it's talking about (rashly, when this isn't the case), and then proceed to promulgate their "discovery" as a decree, morally binding on all Catholics -- complete with excommunication for those who disagree.
It's ridiculous.
.
Flat-earthers bring their "revelation" to its logical conclusion, which is condemning those who disagree.
They've done it a thousand times on this forum alone, not to mention all over the Internet.
.
-
Scripture does not support a globe. With Fathers verifying the existence of the moving sun, the firmament, the water above the firmament, that Jerusalem is at the center of the earth and that there are no Antipodes, as well as false science gaining ground to promote a nonsensical globe that denies reality, justifies pagan and Gnostic teachings, promotes evolution and brings the Church into question, the globe in the eyes of the informed truth seeker is over.
-
.
Scripture does not support a "flat". The firmament is not a physical thing like something made of "brass." Ridiculous. Jerusalem isn't at the "center" of any "flat" map, which is another reason you don't like maps. Flatness denies reality with its silly nonsense. Flatism is pagan nonsense. It falls flat and lifeless, unable to accomplish anything, a dead concept. The world is not going to evolve into the flatness of your flat dreams, even while you take your drugs and hallucinate flatness. Flattards should be forbidden to raise children because they scandalize the little ones. Goodbye flattardism, your days are over.
-
.
The curious historical fact of flat-earthdom syndrome will be one they'll argue in the future that it never existed.