But how does the possibility of the earth being a sphere undermine God as creator?  Someone had to create the sphere.  I don't get it.  Geocentrism I can see.  Flat Earth vs. Sphere?  I don't see the philosophical ramifications of it.  So long as this sphere is at the center of God's creation, what does it matter?

What's underneath this flat area?  If you say hell, then what's underneath that?  I have no problem with the notion of a grand universe that spreads out all around the earth.

I certainly keep an open mind about flat earth, but I have not seen any convincing evidence for it.  As for Geocentrism, there's a LOT of compelling evidence in its favor.  It almost seems as if Flat-Earthism is a distraction from the real issue of Geocentrism.  It's easier to discredit Flat-Earthism and more people think you're nuts if you go there, so that even legitimate arguments in favor of Geocentrism are discredited ... when coming from the same people.

I'm not sure that I can explain it very well, but here's the Ancient Hebrew concept of the  universe. I don't know how to embed a picture, but here's a link:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2012/11/ancient-hebrew-cosmology.html

The foundations of the earth are below, as is shown, and I assume that it's rock or earth. And then there's sheol, or hades. And then there's the Great Deep, but I don't really know what that is, exactly. The picture is based on the Book of Genesis, mainly. We can see that Heaven is just above the earth. But where is heaven, exactly, on a globe earth? Does heaven surround the globe? It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible.

We see that God is above the earth, along with the gate of heaven. On a flat earth, based on scripture, we can see that our earth is special, and unlike other planets, which are embedded or up close to the firmament, as is written in scripture. Scripture refers to the waters above the firmament. This is shown in the picture.

Secular humanism, with the current modern cosmology, teaches that we are just another planet in the universe, and although there's life here, there's probably life elsewhere. Current scientific cosmology rarely admits to a Creator. That's easier to do, when we're viewed as just another planet in the universe. Geocentrism does show that we are special by the fact that we are the at the center, and that the other planets revolve around the earth, but that doesn't go far enough.

.
You really don't have to rely on ancient cartoons drawn by imaginative dreamers who couldn't bother to observe what's right before their eyes and use their mind to understand what they're seeing.
.
All they had to do was look at the moon and think about it. If they couldn't do that then why pay attention to their nonsense? Anyone can draw a cute picture.
.
The moon is hanging right there for everyone to see, right now. Go outside and look.
.
The side the sun shines on is facing nearly directly down toward the western horizon. And we know that since this is the first quarter moon, the sun is located at 90 degrees from the line from earth to the moon. That puts the sun below our feet.
.
No matter where you go on planet earth you see the same thing, every month, all year long. 
.
The moon does this twice each month (first quarter and last quarter), and has been doing it the same way for thousands of years (at least). It's as plain as the nose on your face.
.
What we see today is what the ancients saw back then, and there is nothing about the scene that says the earth is "flat."
.
It's as simple as 1-2-3.
.

We need not imagine this contrafactual situation.  There was virtually no authoritative teaching, magisterial or otherwise, to suggest that the earth was flat.

Jaynek

Read these quotes

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

Yes, in the early period of the Church some of the Church Fathers believed in a flat earth.  The position of Catholics had changed by the time of Isidore of Seville. (around 600 AD).  From that time on Christian thinkers all accepted the earth is a globe: Venerable Bede, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon.  This is what was taught at Catholic universities starting in the middle ages (historically these were religious institutions.)  This idea was not introduced by the Reformation as you claimed earlier.  It was the natural development of Catholic thought, occurring early in our history.

St. Augustine wrote about how foolish and spiritually dangerous it is to take a position that goes against reason.  It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see that this applies to flat earth.

Flat earth is not a Church teaching.  Even you must realize that.  What the ancient Hebrews believed, may be significant to Protestants doing their personal interpretations of Scripture, but is not relevant to Catholics.  There is no good reason for you to insist on proclaiming an idea that is potentially harmful to souls.  If you want to believe the earth is flat, go ahead. There is no dogma that says you should not. But please keep quiet about it.

St. Thomas did not believe in the round earth. This claim has already been refuted.

Only Bede did. That's it.

The idea had been around for a while.

If you take the time to study the science you will see how the round earth is anything but reasonable.

But how does the possibility of the earth being a sphere undermine God as creator?  Someone had to create the sphere.  I don't get it.  Geocentrism I can see.  Flat Earth vs. Sphere?  I don't see the philosophical ramifications of it.  So long as this sphere is at the center of God's creation, what does it matter?

What's underneath this flat area?  If you say hell, then what's underneath that?  I have no problem with the notion of a grand universe that spreads out all around the earth.

I certainly keep an open mind about flat earth, but I have not seen any convincing evidence for it.  As for Geocentrism, there's a LOT of compelling evidence in its favor.  It almost seems as if Flat-Earthism is a distraction from the real issue of Geocentrism.  It's easier to discredit Flat-Earthism and more people think you're nuts if you go there, so that even legitimate arguments in favor of Geocentrism are discredited ... when coming from the same people.

Ladislaus,
Happy you keep an open mind. How do you explain that we can see objects beyond the horizon that we shouldn't see?
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs

The earth moves at 900 mph.
But somehow my hair never goes out of place.  Fascinating.
Thanks Coepernicus and Galileo.  Thanks Freemasons for celebrating them in your lodges.

*HIGH FIVE* man!

Jaynek

Read these quotes

http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t60-pertinent-quotes-from-fathers-and-tradition

Of course it is possible to find quotes in support of the flat earth (although not all of those quotes actually did).  In the early centuries of Christianity, opinions were divided on the subject.  It was not until later centuries that Catholic thinkers reached a consensus that the earth was shaped like a sphere.

Actually believing lies, especially when the truth is in your face everyday is very dangerous and affects your salvation.

The mind needs to be sane to receive supernatural truths well and have them settle.

This is exactly why you need to stop believing in FE.

Science supports the flat earth.
Tradition supports flat earth.
Scripture makes much more sense when read through the flat earth lense.

Neither science nor tradition supports FE.  As for Scripture, we should be guided by the words of Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus  here:

...we must remember, first, that 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."(53) 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, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

and further on:
 

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas.