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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?  (Read 2833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Always

Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?
« on: June 29, 2023, 06:27:14 PM »

Globe or Flat Earth?  This jewel at the center of the universe!
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2023, 08:36:35 PM »
False dichotomy.  World is spherical in shape and at the center of the universe, even though the surface that we walk on is flat.

Logged

Offline Always

Re: Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2023, 02:58:55 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 29, 2023, 08:36:35 PM
False dichotomy.  World is spherical in shape and at the center of the universe, even though the surface that we walk on is flat.



After reviewing the standard definitions of a false dichotomy.I don't believe I set out a false dichotomy, but I will certainly give the question more consideration if Cassini, for example, agrees with you. 

 My question simply refers to a globe earth (just the globe earth itself) vs. a flat earth (just the flat earth itself); not to a globe earth surrounded by anything else (although it obviously is) vs. a flat earth surrounded by anything else (although it obviously is).
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2023, 08:06:33 AM »
Quote from: Always on June 30, 2023, 02:58:55 AM
After reviewing the standard definitions of a false dichotomy.I don't believe I set out a false dichotomy, but I will certainly give the question more consideration if Cassini, for example, agrees with you.

 My question simply refers to a globe earth (just the globe earth itself) vs. a flat earth (just the flat earth itself); not to a globe earth surrounded by anything else (although it obviously is) vs. a flat earth surrounded by anything else (although it obviously is).

I wasn't debating Flat Earth just your question about aesthetics.  What I said was a false dichotomy was between flat and spherical, because flat earth model actually holds the world overall to be spherical.  Aesthetically, I find the picture above MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the notion of a ball floating in space.  In the ball model, where's Heaven?, where's the Throne of God?  Where did Our Lord ascend to?  Into space?  Did He merely feign the appearance of an ascent due to the ignorance of the masses, when He was really just sliding into a different dimension?  Or did He keep flying through space until He got to Heaven, wherever that is?  Ascent into Heaven and Descent into Hell become strange notions on a ball, since there is not real "up" or "down", but moving outward and inward.
Logged

Offline Cera

Re: Either more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., more beautiful?
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2023, 04:51:50 PM »
Truth is always aesthetically pleasing. Back when I bought the globe earth lies, I looked up at the night sky and felt confused because I didn't feel like I was on a spinning ball, spnning around the sun, spinning around the solar system, spinning around the galaxy. And "gravity" didn't make any sense.

When I woke up to the Sun-worshipping, Freemasonic basis of Heliocentric globe earth, I changed to Geocentric. However it was only when an open mind, exploration of the facts, and the courage to not care about called crazy led me to the inexcapable truth of FE.

I am down here and Almighty God and His heavenly court are up there in heaven.
Hell is beneath our feet.
The Bible is right. There is a firmament.
Water is flat. Water seeks its own level.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »