It's Sungenis' book and movies being questioned by traditional Catholics. The tide is changing and the truth is out. Everyone worth his salt that watch these exchanges wants to know how this ends. Sungenis would do a lot better bringing his case before thousands of views on Cathinfo than wasting time on Youtube with a dozen or so weekly participants. If he suffers a tough audience in this forum, all the better for all of us because that's what it takes to get the truth out. He'd be a hero either way. Prove his case, he wins. Humble himself, he wins. C'mon Sungenis. Let's get 'er done.     

Well said. If Sungenis would join this forum, it might help to clear up a few things. Then, the subject could be thoroughly debated. It would probably become a bit of a nightmare, because of lack general of charity with trads, but that's nothing new. I wonder if his loyal fans here could convince him to join the forum?  

What's to prevent you from contacting him and letting him know there are traditional Catholics are discussing his book with hundreds, even thousands of online views? This could be a windfall for him. Better sooner than later in any event. Better for everybody if the discussion is public. 

Good question.  Rest assured I keep him updated on certain matters of interest on CathInfo including this present thread.  In the meantime be my guest -- he doesn't bite.

I trust that he is wise enough NEVER to get sucked into CathInfo. 

This is where the debate is happening though. It's the only Catholic forum that I know of that allows the subject to be debated. Maybe Sungenis is afraid of debating his views here? If so, then he maybe shouldn't have put out his views on FE in a book called "Flat Earth, Flat Wrong." I mean, with a title like that, does he really expect that Catholics who believe in FE aren't going to be a bit offended?

This is where the debate is happening though. It's the only Catholic forum that I know of that allows the subject to be debated. Maybe Sungenis is afraid of debating his views here? If so, then he shouldn't put out his views in a book called "Flat Earth, Flat Wrong." I mean, with a title like that, does he really expect that Catholics who believe in FE aren't going to be a bit offended?

God bless you Meg and may God bless each and every one of His beloved creatures on CathInfo!  As for me, I'm out of here.  Hope to see you all in heaven.  Let's pray for each other as we all hopefully try to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

"Yes, I too am sick of people whose pride destroys the good they do."

Give it a rest, people, and grow up.  Sungenis is a big boy.  If he can't take it, then he shouldn't be putting himself in the public arena.  You guys are acting like I insulted someone's disabled child.

Your charges of both "pride" and "calumny" are closer to calumny and judging the "internal forum" than anything I've written, as you are speaking to my motivations (which are knowable only in the internal forum).  I've backed up my findings of sloppy logic and reading into the "evidence" things that aren't actually there.  None of my findings are motivated by "pride".  I'm calling it as I see it ... right there in black and white, and sometimes color, in his book.  I do notice that no one has refuted the specific findings I've made, but have simply emoted and howled about pride, calumny, character assassination, and the like.

Mark79 criticizes and attacks various public figures on a regular basis.  What Sungenis wrote of the FEs makes my criticism look incredibly gentle (I'll take a moment to gather his findings).  And you guys are piling on with accusations of pride and calumny.  Do you not see the hypocrisy?  Or the double standard?  I see no one here howling and rending their garments about Sungenis' pride and his calumny and character assassination of FE proponents.  And, rightly so.  He's entitled to make his case and his arguments, but I am likewise entitled to make mine.

As for the confirmation bias, one could say that this is being rather charitable.  What's the alternative, that I should accuse him of being incompetent?  In point of fact, I don't think he is.  That's why I attribute these errors and misinterpretations to confirmation bias.  He's so set on refuting FE that the second he sees the world "sphere" and even "circle," he wants to check of the box for "one more proof" that FE is wrong.  And I've repeatedly stated that I don't think that there's any intentional mendacity on his part, and that I believe him to be a man of integrity.

So, by all means, do continue.  Carry on with rending your garments and "calumniating" me with accusations of calumny, reading "the internal forum" by accusing me of being motivated by pride ... while giving Dr. Sungenis a pass for writing much worse about FE proponents, and in fact defending his "honor" as he does the same thing as I have done (and much more).

I find that when people howl the most about my "pride" is when I've made an argument that they can't refute but simply don't want to hear.  Had I been a glober and said the same things about Eric Dubay or Rob Skiba, just as Sungenis did, I would have received scores of up-thumbs of my posts.

I honestly find all this to be rather pathetic.  But do carry on.

This is where the debate is happening though. It's the only Catholic forum that I know of that allows the subject to be debated. Maybe Sungenis is afraid of debating his views here? If so, then he maybe shouldn't have put out his views on FE in a book called "Flat Earth, Flat Wrong." I mean, with a title like that, does he really expect that Catholics who believe in FE aren't going to be a bit offended?

Being "offended" isn't the right word in my case.  I'm not "offended" by his having an opinion ... even if he expresses it very bluntly.  I had a boss some years ago who was extremely afraid to hurt people's feelings, and he would talk around stuff.  So, at one point, after he was going around in circles, I said, "Jim, it's OK.  If you don't like it, then just say so.  'I think it's crap.'  I can take it and I'm not easily offended.  I'd prefer that you be direct rather than leave me guessing."  If Sungenis were to come on here and post that he thinks I'm an idiot, more power to him.  I'm not easily offended.  But if someone takes off the gloves, and I disagree, then I am capable of responding in kind.  In fact, as I said before, I was looking forward to being challenged.  I had, however, hoped for a respectful treatment of FE proponents, and got the impression from an interview he had given that it would be.  I'm more, perhaps, annoyed, than anything else.  I get annoyed by poor logic and poor reasoning, especially when it's clearly being driven by emotion or bias.  Perhaps I come across different when I'm writing about controverted subjects.  In reality, I'm rather soft spoken.  I recently spoke on the phone with a CI member who came to realize this.  But that's just the way my mind works ... in ruthless logic.  I view the world in syllogisms, and there are both pros and cons to it ... and my wife pokes fun at me all the time about being excessively "logical".  If I believed in such things, I'd say that I was more Vulcan than human.  There's a newer Star Trek episode when the crew are in danger and Spock remarks, "I find that the best way to defuse tension is to apply rigorous logic."  My wife laughed out loud and, pointing at me, exclaimed, "That's YOU!".

Nor am I, as I read more, going to not consider any of the substantial arguments he might make and take them seriously simply because this did not start out well in my eyes.  I've already noted his argument regarding the movements of the stars being inconsistent with Flat Earth.  But that requires further study on my part, so I have mentally bookmarked it.  I do distinguish, however, that if it's inconsistent, it does not refute Flat Earth per se but a model of FE.  Now, if there's no model that can be devised to address the inconsistency, then that would be a cogent argument.  What I saw, however, was a series of statements, and a few pictures with constellations drawn in, but not enough actual data that I could either confirm or deny.  I have seen FEs also put out videos that counter these points.  So I will honestly study both sides of every issue.

IF FE is wrong, then I have no problem changing my mind.  I am not somehow dogmatically wedded to it, since I do not believe that there's any Patristic dogmatic consensus on the subject, nor has the Church taught FE.  I do not particularly relish being mocked and ridiculed as a nutcase for holding that the earth is flat.  So I have no particular prior motivation.  I simply felt compelled to conclude that the earth is indeed flat by an objective examination of evidence from both sides.  Nor does my "pride" (of which I am here accused) prevent me from admitting that I've been mistaken.  I was for a number of years a dogmatic sedevacantist, but I have since changed my mind and admitted my errors.

So all this hullabaloo about calumny, character assassination, pride, etc. ... I find to be entirely misplaced and irrelevant.

I just finished re-reading the Church Fathers, and I am certain that absolutely NONE of them believed that the surface of the earth ... on which people dwell ... is a globe.  Not one.  Nada.  Zero.

I will write something up about my findings as I have time.

There was a debate over whether the WORLD was spherical or hemi-spherical, whether it was in the MIDDLE of the waters and of the universe or whether it was at the BOTTOM (and therefore) hemi-spherical.  In both cases, the Sphere or HemiSphere is that which was enclosing the entire world (including the sky) this side of the waters, and not a GLOBE on which people lived.  They believed that this world was separated from the outer waters by an enclosure, or a firmament, and between this enclosure and the inhabited earth was the first heaven or the sky.  Some of them who believed that this firmament went all the way around in a spherical shape (vs. just as a hemi-sphere over the top) also believed that the sun and moon continued passing through and in this firmament to the underside of the earth.  There was also a debate (outlined clearly by St. Augustine) regarding whether the firmament above the earth was in fact shaped like a "sphere" (or "hemisphere") or whether it was more the shape of a tent.  Some rejected the notion that the firmament was spherical or hemi-spherical because of the Scripture that said it was stretched out like a tent.  But St. Augustine argued that it's not inconsistent that it could be spherical because he refers to how "footballs" and "wine containers" (the translation given, I'd have to check) were both skins, i.e. that a stretched out skin could in fact take the form of a sphere or hemi-sphere.

This resolves all the alleged contradictions, sometimes within the writings of the same Fathers, and reconciles ALL of the texts and makes sense of all of their different opinions.

This is absolutely clear and I intend to prove it.  I will try to find the texts in the original languages if I can.

This post was made BEFORE you began your meltdown and started accusing me (falsely ... aka clumniating me), about nearly 36 hours ago now:

And I think we need to understand what is meant by intellectual dishonesty.  This does not necessarily mean that Dr. Sungenis is deliberately and consciously setting out to be dishonest, to lie, to distort, etc.  I do believe that he is of good character and would not consciously do anything of the sort.

What is meant by intellectual dishonesty is that he's made up his mind beforehand that FE is false and he's setting to to prove that it's false, to find evidence that it is false.  That in turn leads to confirmation bias where he falsely reads things into various pieces of evidence that do not on their own support his thesis.  If there's anything that MIGHT be interpreted as backing up his thesis, then in his mind, it's evidence or proof.  He's not letting the evidence speak for itself but is reading into it.  So, for example, every time he sees a Father (he cited about a dozen of these) referring to the "circle of the earth," he says, "aha! see!  This Father here believes the earth is a globe."  That is simply a citation from Sacred Scripture and clearly says circle, not globe, and most of the Fathers did believe the the shape of the earth (vs "the world" ... two separate things for them) was circular.