-
God’s flat earth creation they LOVE :incense:, while globe earthers on Cathinfo.com are spending more time on God’s flat earth creation they HATE. Either way, God’s flat earth creation prevails as globe earthers hold their heads down in shame. :facepalm:
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :jester: ;)
Thanks for proving my flat earth point by posting in this thread. 8) :incense:
-
God’s flat earth creation they LOVE :incense:, while globe earthers on Cathinfo.com are spending more time on God’s flat earth creation they HATE. Either way, God’s flat earth creation prevails as globe earthers hold their heads down in shame. :facepalm:
Many times I have given the reasons why I am a global geocentrist and not a flat-earther.
Both can be divided into two spheres, if you pardon the pun, belief based on faith and reason. Geocentrism is a dogma of the Catholic Church, a dogma that is has been denied since 1741 by some and by nearly all Catholics today. Scientific investigation over the last 400 years has concluded there is no science capable of determining what order the universe is. Even though the evidence for geocentrism is overwhelming compared to not one piece of heliocentric evidence, the nature of space prohibits proof for that order. Indeed if there was proof then it could never have been defined as an act of faith.
The theory of a flat-earth, they say, is true based on both faith and reason. When it came down to it this 'faith' is confined to a personal interpretation of Scripture, not the unanimous opinion of the Fathers based on Scripture like geocentrism. Nor did any Pope define it as revealed in Scripture, a decree that would have compelled Catholics to believe Scripture reveals a flat-earth. Thus from a faith perspective it is not a dogma with no obligation for Catholics to believe.
But here again science can be used to see if it is a physical truth or not. Unlike geocentrism spacial relativity is not involved. Since 1700 however the science of geodesy began to investigate the shape of the earth. It is no different to the science surveyers use to build roads, working out the topography and shapes of the land to be built on, only on a much larger scale. Domenico Cassini, surveyor for the pope in his time conducted such a earthly survey and found a curve over huge distances that cannot be measured over shorted distances visible to man. In other words, flat earthers always confine their straight line earth to what a human can see on the horizon, even from an aeroplane. Global measurement is done over hundreds if not thousands of miles using the stars as measuring guides. This science has found the earth is a globe.
Then there are modern photos of the curved earth from space. But all these are supposed to be faked. So too satellite pictures of curved earth. I think some flat earthers say no such satellites or space rockets ever went up there. Well saying there is no proof only faked proof does not prove a flat earth. We can see the global earth by way of eclipses but these too are rejected by flat-earthers. Fair enough.
That said, I now see there are some Catholics who do seriously believe in a flat-earth based on Scripture. I can find no objection to this either. There are many other things some Catholics believe that are not dogmas nor heresies so they could be said to be permitted within Catholicism.
However, I certainly object to the assertion that fellow Catholics MUST also believe and that if they don't they should 'hold down their [Catholic] heads in shame.' This borders on Protestantism or some weird religious cult. It certainly is not Catholic calling fellow posters such names.
-
However, I certainly object to the assertion that fellow Catholics MUST also believe and that if they don't they should 'hold down their [Catholic] heads in shame.' This borders on Protestantism or some weird religious cult. It certainly is not Catholic calling fellow posters such names.
Dogmatic flat-earthers. Just another group of people who falsely want to assume the authority of the Church and tell everybody what to do.
-
Many times I have given the reasons why I am a global geocentrist and not a flat-earther.
Both can be divided into two spheres, if you pardon the pun, belief based on faith and reason. Geocentrism is a dogma of the Catholic Church, a dogma that is has been denied since 1741 by some and by nearly all Catholics today. Scientific investigation over the last 400 years has concluded there is no science capable of determining what order the universe is. Even though the evidence for geocentrism is overwhelming compared to not one piece of heliocentric evidence, the nature of space prohibits proof for that order. Indeed if there was proof then it could never have been defined as an act of faith.
The theory of a flat-earth, they say, is true based on both faith and reason. When it came down to it this 'faith' is confined to a personal interpretation of Scripture, not the unanimous opinion of the Fathers based on Scripture like geocentrism. Nor did any Pope define it as revealed in Scripture, a decree that would have compelled Catholics to believe Scripture reveals a flat-earth. Thus from a faith perspective it is not a dogma with no obligation for Catholics to believe.
But here again science can be used to see if it is a physical truth or not. Unlike geocentrism spacial relativity is not involved. Since 1700 however the science of geodesy began to investigate the shape of the earth. It is no different to the science surveyers use to build roads, working out the topography and shapes of the land to be built on, only on a much larger scale. Domenico Cassini, surveyor for the pope in his time conducted such a earthly survey and found a curve over huge distances that cannot be measured over shorted distances visible to man. In other words, flat earthers always confine their straight line earth to what a human can see on the horizon, even from an aeroplane. Global measurement is done over hundreds if not thousands of miles using the stars as measuring guides. This science has found the earth is a globe.
Then there are modern photos of the curved earth from space. But all these are supposed to be faked. So too satellite pictures of curved earth. I think some flat earthers say no such satellites or space rockets ever went up there. Well saying there is no proof only faked proof does not prove a flat earth. We can see the global earth by way of eclipses but these too are rejected by flat-earthers. Fair enough.
That said, I now see there are some Catholics who do seriously believe in a flat-earth based on Scripture. I can find no objection to this either. There are many other things some Catholics believe that are not dogmas nor heresies so they could be said to be permitted within Catholicism.
However, I certainly object to the assertion that fellow Catholics MUST also believe and that if they don't they should 'hold down their [Catholic] heads in shame.' This borders on Protestantism or some weird religious cult. It certainly is not Catholic calling fellow posters such names.
If Domenico was using the stars to measure, then he found the curvature of the Firmament, not the earth.
Didn't that occur to you?
The Firmament is curved like an upsides down bowl over the flat plane of earth.
Even Sungenis' s movie has an illustration of a microwave star map that shows the stars embedded in concentric domes.
Land surveyors show no curvature of earth whatsoever at any time. And all attest to this truth.
-
Dogmatic flat-earthers. Just another group of people who falsely want to assume the authority of the Church and tell everybody what to do.
The only thing they told you to do is believe the Bible, something you ought to do already anway.
Is that so difficult?
-
If Domenico was using the stars to measure, then he found the curvature of the Firmament, not the earth.
Didn't that occur to you?
The Firmament is curved like an upsides down bowl over the flat plane of earth.
Even Sungenis's movie has an illustration of a microwave star map that shows the stars embedded in concentric domes.
Land surveyors show no curvature of earth whatsoever at any time. And all attest to this truth.
.
False.
.
Land surveyors clearly do show the curvature of the earth as is evidenced for example in the curving lines of latitude when they are the centerline of streets or national boundaries. Many streets in the continental USA are centered on such curving lines but the streets appear to be straight in the short view of local appearance. Baseline in San Bernardino, CA, is one example.
.
The border between the USA and Canada is an obvious case. It runs along the 49th parallel from British Colombia to Manitoba on the Canada side, and from Washington State to North Dakota on the States' side. If you only consider what you can see first hand at short range, it appears straight, like here:
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSLD0Q-5K74aXJQveEPbUBpUoG83akXlDQAVbnB_xwsJWeTKVMZSg&sp=cb5114c9fed73871fda2a2b8a37269bf&anticache=603029)
.
Or even here (below) as far as the eye can see it appears straight:
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2F1qb1ow3qfudf14kwjzalxq61.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F09%2F20150825_BORDER_184.jpg&sp=767f1e9f0ccb4d987814a260c131582a)
.
HOWEVER, when you follow the line as seen below, the curvature of the earth is apparent immediately.
.
The line of the 49th parallel curves, between Alberta/Saskatchewan and Montana, and between Manitoba and North Dakota:
.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F545f9428ecad04301663393c-1190-625%2Fviolence-has-thickened-the-once-seamless-border-between-the-us-and-canada.jpg&sp=53712d86fa34cc86e2a3036f11befb29)
.
It curves even though it runs due east and west.
.
Likewise, the border between Montana and Wyoming curves.
.
Likewise, the border between North and South Dakota curves, and so on.
.
These appear to be straight lines when viewed from the ground but that's only because our range of view is too limited.
.
If we stand on the ground our horizon is about as far as any two letters in any of the States' names on this map, which is not far enough to see the curve from the ground.
.
But it shows up on a map.
.
This map, above, is not a map used or made using Plane Surveying, which is all that your local surveyor uses to check your real estate borders. This map is made using Geodetic Surveying, which deals with land over large distances -- distances large enough to be directly affected by the curvature of the earth.
.
The article below, from a surveying manual site, mentions and defines Geodetic Surveying but does not cover it, since it is beyond the scope of the manual. Like I said, most surveying does not have to deal with Geodetic Surveying.
.
http://engineeringtraining.tpub.com/14069/css/Geodetic-Surveying-356.htm
.
GEODETIC SURVEYING
GEODETIC SURVEYING is a process of surveying in which the shape and size of the earth are considered. This type of survey is suited for large areas and long lines (http://armycommunications.tpub.com/SS0330/Long-Lines-123.htm) and is used to find the precise location of basic points needed for establishing control for other surveys. In geodetic surveys, the stations are normally long distances apart, and more precise instruments and surveying methods are required for this type of surveying than for plane surveying.
.
The shape of the earth is thought of as a spheroid, although in a technical sense, it is not really a spheroid. In 1924, the convention of the International Geodetic and Geophysical Union adopted 41,852,960 ft as the diameter of the earth at the equator and 41,711,940 ft as the diameter at its polar axis. The equatorial diameter was computed on the assumption that the flattening of the earth caused by gravitational attraction is exactly 1/297. Therefore, distances measured on or near the surface of the earth are not along straight lines or planes, but on a curved surface. Hence, in the computation of distances in geodetic surveys, allowances are made for the earth’s minor and major diameters (http://draftingmanuals.tpub.com/14276/css/Diameters-154.htm) from which a spheroid of reference is developed. The position of each geodetic station is related to this spheroid. The positions are expressed as latitudes (http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_169.htm) (angles north or south of the Equator) and longitudes (angles east or west of a prime meridian) or as northings and castings on a rectangular grid.
.
The methods used in geodetic surveying are beyond the scope of this training manual.
.
.
.
When the article mentions "the spheroid" they are referring to a standard term in current use for the purpose of GPS systems for example, in which an idealized geometric spheroid or ellipsoid is imagined at or near the earth's surface, a spheroid or ellipsoid which is established as a datum reference and from which measurements are taken. In other words, the shape of the earth is APPROXIMATED as a "spheroid" or "ellipsoid" for use in practical calculations, even though the earth is not technically a spheroid. The earth is generally speaking spheroidal or ellipsoidal in shape even though it is not precisely a spheroid or ellipsoid.
.
In application, the elevation of any object on the earth's surface or any point on the ground can be defined by its distance up or down from the ellipsoid. When you use your GPS in your car, for example, your elevation is calculated based on your distance vertically, away from the ellipsoid, which can be positive or negative. If you are below the ellipsoid it is negative, and if you are above the ellipsoid it is positive. Most tall mountains have summits above the ellipsoid, and points at the bottom of the ocean are below the ellipsoid. As shown in the diagram below, the ellipsoid is one and the same as the surface of the ocean, commonly referred to as "mean sea level." "The ellipsoid" over dry land surfaces is a somewhat arbitrary theoretical egg-shaped geometrical shape.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.britannica.com%2Feb-media%2F67%2F467-004-E3A4C9EC.gif&sp=a972694ced558694e4a2c73f35faa40b)
.
-
There are no FLAT surfaces on a ball. Therefore earth is not a ball. Earth is a flat level surface.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2jY4wQT4orc
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9BSKVE9pp60
-
There are no FLAT surfaces on a ball. Therefore earth is not a ball. Earth is a flat level surface.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2jY4wQT4orc
It's a relative term, man. I can refer to the plains of Kansas being flat without thereby endorsing flat earth. I'll watch the video though.
-
I find the videos very interesting and quite compelling. I haven't finished the longer one though.
-
Likewise, the border between Montana and Wyoming curves.
Likewise, the border between North and South Dakota curves, and so on.
Map curvature is also explainable with a circular flat earth model with the North Pole in the middle. Question is whether the earth rises and falls and not whether it curves.
-
Map curvature is also explainable with a circular flat earth model with the North Pole in the middle. Question is whether the earth rises and falls and not whether it curves.
.
North and south directions are traceable as straight lines on maps and on the ground.
.
But east and west directions are not -- with one exception, which is at the equator.
.
Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line in the same way that all longitude lines are straight.
.
The border between Canada and the USA is a curved line on the ground and on a map.
.
If that were "explainable" as you say, on a "circular flat earth model," then please explain how the equator, which is also a curved line on that "model" is in fact a straight line on the surface of the earth.
.
-
If that were "explainable" as you say, on a "circular flat earth model," then please explain how the equator, which is also a curved line on that "model" is in fact a straight line on the surface of the earth.
Whether the line at the equator is straight or circular/curved would depend on which map you impose it on, wouldn't it? Using a map that's based on globe earth, it would of course be straight. But project the same line out to a circular flat earth and it would be curved. Depends on how you draw the map. I don't consider this proof.
-
Whether the line at the equator is straight or circular/curved would depend on which map you impose it on, wouldn't it? Using a map that's based on globe earth, it would of course be straight. But project the same line out to a circular flat earth and it would be curved. Depends on how you draw the map. I don't consider this proof.
.
Obviously, the projection chosen will determine the image you end up with. The point is, where do you find maps containing the equator or land areas in the southern hemisphere which show latitude lines curving around the north pole like they do in the USA and other northern hemisphere areas?
.
Is this a worldwide conspiracy to hide the "secret forbidden gnostic flat-earth" doctrine?
.
If it's just a matter of imposing it on a map, then why has no one imposed the "flat-earth" model on a southern hemisphere map? (Hint: Maybe it's because it would be useless to do so -- unless like the "flat-earth" Youtube videos they would be serving the purpose of dogmatic flat-earthers. Or could it be that making distorted maps is more difficult than making silly repetitious videos based on lies?)
.
So all the maps you can find (go ahead and find them) show these east-west lines I mentioned in the USA as curving around the north pole.
.
In South America, there are no country borders that traverse east-west lines of latitude like the ones I mentioned in Canada/USA.
.
If the flat-earther hypothesis were accurate, we would have maps of South America showing the same concentric curves centered on the north pole. But what we have instead are concentric curves in latitude lines centered on the south pole.
.
NOTE: in all such maps we should be aiming at accuracy and truth, and not at distortion:
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.utexas.edu%2Fmaps%2Famericas%2Fsouthamerica_ref802636_1999.jpg&sp=c8a9310343ecffb7abaa2ecb8399e177)
.
The following map has rectangular lines of latitude and longitude:
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atlasdigitalmaps.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fs%2Fa%2Fsamericaseaconmain.png&sp=f906c4493b339720cdf1121a1944faec)
.
Notice how compressed and distorted the wide portion at Equador/Brazil looks.
.
In this version the distance between the longitude lines varies constantly, while they look the same.
In other words, the map scale is deliberately distorted in a continuous manner.
Imagine how distorted it would have to be in order to depict the "flat-earth" model.
To depict the "flat-earth" model requires distortion, not truth and accuracy.
.
-
.
Australia is interesting.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.unomaha.edu%2Fpeterson%2Ffunda%2FMapLinks%2FAustralia%2FAustralia_files%2Fimage005.jpg&sp=08141b7619d3947563be0f3564ba2272)
.
Notice how the east-west lines curve in the opposite direction from those in Canada/USA.
.
Why are there no maps of Australia with latitude lines curving in the opposite direction?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhike-australia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FAusLatlong1.jpg&sp=35abf531f3fbb1110fa14c2a0673d04f)
.
Maybe you can find one!!
.
(Probably not)
-
.
Here's a map that compares Australia and New Zealand to the USA relative to latitude from the equator.
.
The USA is north latitude and Australia and New Zealand are south latitude, upside-down, obviously.
.
But the shapes of these areas are shown reasonably well on a flat surface projection, when they're in reality on a curved surface, the earth's curved surface.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoT1lkeS.png&sp=94b9cfc57c3a00022f8b5a896182e838)
.
Notice that Australia is considerably less wide, east to west, than the USA.
.
In all the flat-earth models, Australia is almost twice as wide as the USA.
.
Ever wonder why?
.
Answer: distortion (a.k.a. falsehood)
.
-
.
Flat-earthers really don't like Australia.
.
It's too problematic for them.
.
Here's a grid-layout of Australia with parallel longitude lines. Notice how much larger Tasmania becomes:
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldatlas.com%2Fimg%2Fareamap%2Faunewz.gif&sp=0100fcfbc26cc0b9f6e54ab78a9c2acf)
.
And Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea are shrunk down.
Tasmania is about 3 times the size of East Timor here.
.
Distortion!
.
-
Is this a worldwide conspiracy to hide the "secret forbidden gnostic flat-earth" doctrine?
Well, that's the theory. While it might sound preposterous on the surface, having dug into quite a few other cօռspιʀαcιҽs that turned out to be true, I wouldn't put much past them: 9/11 inside job, faked US moon landings, etc.
-
.
North and south directions are traceable as straight lines on maps and on the ground.
.
But east and west directions are not -- with one exception, which is at the equator.
.
Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line in the same way that all longitude lines are straight.
.
The border between Canada and the USA is a curved line on the ground and on a map.
.
If that were "explainable" as you say, on a "circular flat earth model," then please explain how the equator, which is also a curved line on that "model" is in fact a straight line on the surface of the earth.
.
Funny you mention north/south.
Because there are no north/south orbits of spacecraft. All orbits are east to west.
-
USA is approx 2, 900 miles across.
Australia is approx 2, 500 miles across.
-
.
North and south directions are traceable as straight lines on maps and on the ground.
.
But east and west directions are not -- with one exception, which is at the equator.
.
Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line in the same way that all longitude lines are straight.
.
The border between Canada and the USA is a curved line on the ground and on a map.
.
If that were "explainable" as you say, on a "circular flat earth model," then please explain how the equator, which is also a curved line on that "model" is in fact a straight line on the surface of the earth.
.
We never told you the equator is a straight line.
-
.
Flat-earthers really don't like Australia.
.
It's too problematic for them.
.
Here's a grid-layout of Australia with parallel longitude lines. Notice how much larger Tasmania becomes:
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldatlas.com%2Fimg%2Fareamap%2Faunewz.gif&sp=0100fcfbc26cc0b9f6e54ab78a9c2acf)
.
And Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea are shrunk down.
Tasmania is about 3 times the size of East Timor here.
.
Distortion!
.
(https://i.imgur.com/9gXAR8Q.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/C3IWD4L.jpg)
-
USA is approx 2, 900 miles across.
Australia is approx 2, 500 miles across.
How big is Australia compared to USA?
(https://www.aboutaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Size-of-Australia-compared-to-USA-on-a-Map.jpg) (https://www.aboutaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Size-of-Australia-compared-to-USA-on-a-Map.jpg)
Image Credit: The Australian Government.
Source: http://www.anbg.gov.au/maps/aust-usa-map.jpg
When planning travel to Australia, a fundamental step is to get a basic understanding on distances and travel times.
How big is Australia? Many people don’t realize that Australia is really large, in-fact its about the same size as continental USA. For example, traveling from Sydney to Perth (East Coast to West Coast) is about the same as traveling from New York to Los Angeles. So when planning your Australia Vacations (https://www.aboutaustralia.com/australia-vacations/), make sure you’re realistic with the destinations you want to visit and the time you have available for your vacation.
Its also worth noting that Australia’s population is significantly less than America’s (the whole of Australia has about the same number of people living in it as the state of Texas). So from an infrastructure standpoint Australia travel cannot support the same frequency of flights, ferries, trains & buses between destinations. This means you need to be very mindful of travel times, connections and the like. A simple oversight in booking a once-a-day island ferry and a once-a-day flight that do not connect properly could put your trip in total disarray. In short, careful trip planning is the key!
Here at About Australia (https://www.aboutaustralia.com/) we’re passionate about our beautiful country and we want you to see it in all its glory, without any inconvenient hiccups. We’re experts in vacation planning and coordinating Australia travel. So if you have travel questions or need help planning your custom trip to Australia (https://www.aboutaustralia.com/tailor-made-inquiry/), you’ve come to the right place. We’d love to help you!
-
USA is approx 2, 900 miles across.
Australia is approx 2, 500 miles across.
.
Last time I checked, 2,900 is greater than 2,500.
.
Flat-earth maps:
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FyacO2uhI_R8%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=dda9f28e59d2fc4b073c663167a8550a)
.
Which is larger, Australia or the USA?
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fih0.redbubble.net%2Fimage.381030661.6313%2Fflat%2C800x800%2C075%2Cf.u1.jpg&sp=8188c329155666b488a61f0abe4911b9)
.
Which is larger, Australia or the USA?
.
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/7314/6142/9188/voliva_map.jpg)
.
That one is from the so-called flat earth society, showing Australia to be larger than Asia.
.
-
.
Australia is interesting.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.unomaha.edu%2Fpeterson%2Ffunda%2FMapLinks%2FAustralia%2FAustralia_files%2Fimage005.jpg&sp=08141b7619d3947563be0f3564ba2272)
.
Notice how the east-west lines curve in the opposite direction from those in Canada/USA.
.
Why are there no maps of Australia with latitude lines curving in the opposite direction?
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhike-australia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FAusLatlong1.jpg&sp=35abf531f3fbb1110fa14c2a0673d04f)
.
Maybe you can find one!!
.
(Probably not)
.
One of the numerous questions to which flat-earthers have no intelligent answer:
Why are there no maps showing the latitude lines over Australia curving like the ones over Canada/USA do, around the north pole?
.
Maybe flat-earthers don't know what latitude lines are.
.
-
.
One of the numerous questions to which flat-earthers have no intelligent answer:
Why are there no maps showing the latitude lines over Australia curving like the ones over Canada/USA do, around the north pole?
.
Maybe flat-earthers don't know what latitude lines are.
.
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.
-
.
Notice how the east-west lines curve in the opposite direction from those in Canada/USA.
.
Uhm, actually, these look pretty straight to me.
-
Maps are not proof of anything. Lines drawn on them, even less so. Scientific analysis of reality proves earth is flat. Whenever globe believers want to debunk something, they always point elsewhere--like a drawn map. Notice they don't look at the earth and the normal functions of things like water, the horizon, levels, line of sight, and all the physical instruments that measure. Cameras, telescopes, sextants, gyros, lighthouses, compasses, etc. are instruments that do not work on a sphere given the curvature declination necessary to that model, yet never demonstrated or proven. Flat earth scientific and mathematical proofs are never countered in any coherent way, but contrary arguments are sent up like diversionary complicated smoke screens in order to deceive. There are no proofs whatsoever that earth is a globe. But there are hundreds of proofs, simple proofs, that earth is not a globe. Further, all the measuring devices of modern man prove earth is flat. Fault's Pendulum doesn't even prove globe earth, so globers have zero instruments backing their model.
-
Many times I have given the reasons why I am a global geocentrist and not a flat-earther.
Both can be divided into two spheres, if you pardon the pun, belief based on faith and reason. Geocentrism is a dogma of the Catholic Church, a dogma that is has been denied since 1741 by some and by nearly all Catholics today. Scientific investigation over the last 400 years has concluded there is no science capable of determining what order the universe is. Even though the evidence for geocentrism is overwhelming compared to not one piece of heliocentric evidence, the nature of space prohibits proof for that order. Indeed if there was proof then it could never have been defined as an act of faith.
The theory of a flat-earth, they say, is true based on both faith and reason. When it came down to it this 'faith' is confined to a personal interpretation of Scripture, not the unanimous opinion of the Fathers based on Scripture like geocentrism. Nor did any Pope define it as revealed in Scripture, a decree that would have compelled Catholics to believe Scripture reveals a flat-earth. Thus from a faith perspective it is not a dogma with no obligation for Catholics to believe.
But here again science can be used to see if it is a physical truth or not. Unlike geocentrism spacial relativity is not involved. Since 1700 however the science of geodesy began to investigate the shape of the earth. It is no different to the science surveyers use to build roads, working out the topography and shapes of the land to be built on, only on a much larger scale. Domenico Cassini, surveyor for the pope in his time conducted such a earthly survey and found a curve over huge distances that cannot be measured over shorted distances visible to man. In other words, flat earthers always confine their straight line earth to what a human can see on the horizon, even from an aeroplane. Global measurement is done over hundreds if not thousands of miles using the stars as measuring guides. This science has found the earth is a globe.
Then there are modern photos of the curved earth from space. But all these are supposed to be faked. So too satellite pictures of curved earth. I think some flat earthers say no such satellites or space rockets ever went up there. Well saying there is no proof only faked proof does not prove a flat earth. We can see the global earth by way of eclipses but these too are rejected by flat-earthers. Fair enough.
That said, I now see there are some Catholics who do seriously believe in a flat-earth based on Scripture. I can find no objection to this either. There are many other things some Catholics believe that are not dogmas nor heresies so they could be said to be permitted within Catholicism.
However, I certainly object to the assertion that fellow Catholics MUST also believe and that if they don't they should 'hold down their [Catholic] heads in shame.' This borders on Protestantism or some weird religious cult. It certainly is not Catholic calling fellow posters such names.
I don't get where you think what The Bible depicts is a matter of opinion. It clearly depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth.
-
I don't get where you think what The Bible depicts is a matter of opinion. It clearly depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth.
Of course you get it Wholefoods, unless all the Fathers interpreted certain passages in the Bible as meaning a flat Earth, or the Church defined them as depicting a flat Earth, then one can read such descriptions as metaphorical or literal.
THAT IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
-
Of course you get it Wholefoods, unless all the Fathers interpreted certain passages in the Bible as meaning a flat Earth, or the Church defined them as depicting a flat Earth, then one can read such descriptions as metaphorical or literal.
THAT IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
I think that the standard is even higher. Simple unanimous consensus among the Church Fathers doesn't suffice either ... if it just happened to be that they agreed due to some thinking that was current at the time. So, for instance, if they all read these passages in the Bible as referring to flat earth because at the time EVERYBODY believed the earth was flat (due to the current state of science), then that wouldn't be a dogmatic consensus either. There would have to be some indication that this understanding of the text was revealed and was a teaching of the Church handed down from the Apostles.
-
Shouldn't the boarder between Canada and the U.S. form part of an arc of a flat circle on the Flat Earth? That's the way it is on all of the Flat Earth maps that have been posted on this forum. Yet it looks straight.
So, the horizon looks straight and that "proves" the Flat Earth, yet a straight border along a line that should be curved like an arc also "proves" a Flat Earth? Something doesn't make sense here.
-
Shouldn't the boarder between Canada and the U.S. form part of an arc of a flat circle on the Flat Earth? That's the way it is on all of the Flat Earth maps that have been posted on this forum. Yet it looks straight.
So, the horizon looks straight and that "proves" the Flat Earth, yet a straight border along a line that should be curved like an arc also "proves" a Flat Earth? Something doesn't make sense here.
The boarder between the United States and Canada does have a slight curve to it. Maps depicting the boarder between the United States and Canada are not in scale.
-
The boarder between the United States and Canada does have a slight curve to it. Maps depicting the boarder between the United States and Canada are not in scale.
The "maps" show a curve, sure. But look at the pictures! Straight as an arrow--just like the horizon.
-
Of course you get it Wholefoods, unless all the Fathers interpreted certain passages in the Bible as meaning a flat Earth, or the Church defined them as depicting a flat Earth, then one can read such descriptions as metaphorical or literal.
THAT IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
No, I don't think that's correct. I think the teaching of The Church has always been that The Bible is Inerrant (not The Fathers) and any decent scholar of ancient literature would tell you that, The Bible depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth, with a Geocentric view of things.
However, it is clear that there is debate on Biblical Inerrancy, at even the highest levels of The Church. Some have promoted the idea that The Bible is Inerrant only in matters pertaining to Salvation and this has created controversy in The Church and apparently, is not currently clarified. Of course, The Church can't just reverse itself on two thousand years of teaching. So, for the time being, while that opening has been created, it appears that Biblical Inerrancy is still, has always been and will eternally be, the teaching of The Church.
No doubt, that opening was created, simply because The Church has allowed (even in its own schools) the teaching of "facts" that are in clear opposition to The Bible, although perhaps not to Salvation. But, that has created a slippery slope. So, unfortunately, it will and has, lead to the loss of Faith among Christians and the failure of Christians to lead many of The Lost to Salvation, which of course, should be the primary aim of The Church: to fight the good fight (to save souls from Hell).
-
The "maps" show a curve, sure. But look at the pictures! Straight as an arrow--just like the horizon.
It is obvious that a circle viewed from the side profile looks flat.
-
Shouldn't the boarder between Canada and the U.S. form part of an arc of a flat circle on the Flat Earth? That's the way it is on all of the Flat Earth maps that have been posted on this forum. Yet it looks straight.
So, the horizon looks straight and that "proves" the Flat Earth, yet a straight border along a line that should be curved like an arc also "proves" a Flat Earth? Something doesn't make sense here.
I don't know what pictures you mean, but here's a couple of pictures I found of a Flat Earth Map and a Globe Earth map, showing The border between Canada and The USA.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81MPL9ZROXL._SL1024_.jpg)
FLAT EARTH MAP
(http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/geog1000/maplinks/namerica/North_America_pol97.jpg)
GLOBE EARTH MAP
-
It is obvious that a circle viewed from the side profile looks flat.
That's just a plain silly argument. On a flat earth, a line along a latitude would be curved and it should look like a curve.
This is the argument that y'all use in saying that a what appears to be a flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth.
-
That's just a plain silly argument. On a flat earth, a line along a latitude would be curved and it should look like a curve.
This is the argument that y'all use in saying that a what appears to be a flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth.
The globe earth maps are not an accurate representation at all; the earth is flat. You fell for the Freemasonic deception.
-
That's just a plain silly argument. On a flat earth, a line along a latitude would be curved and it should look like a curve.
This is the argument that y'all use in saying that a what appears to be a flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth.
Are those roosters in your crest?
-
That's just a plain silly argument. On a flat earth, a line along a latitude would be curved and it should look like a curve.
This is the argument that y'all use in saying that a what appears to be a flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth.
.
Welcome to silliness argument central. You'll never get a dogmatic flat-earther to use a cogent argument. It's all emotion.
.
Women who are sucked into flat-earthism
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fr4DYB-1FZ68%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=d4394f5ba6a3e8ec1f7523cb166fcb27)
.
Notice how wide Australia is -- as wide as Africa is long!
-
God’s flat earth creation they LOVE :incense:, while globe earthers on Cathinfo.com are spending more time on God’s flat earth creation they HATE. Either way, God’s flat earth creation prevails as globe earthers hold their heads down in shame. :facepalm:
Do you persistently lose time and have reality breaks like this?
Are you allowed to drive a car, chew gum and walk at the same time, etc.?
-
.
One of the numerous questions to which flat-earthers have no intelligent answer:
Are you implying that flat earthers have intelligent answers for some things? That they even have intelligence?
-
No, I don't think that's correct. I think the teaching of The Church has always been that The Bible is Inerrant (not The Fathers) and any decent scholar of ancient literature would tell you that, The Bible depicts a Flat and Stationary Earth, with a Geocentric view of things.
However, it is clear that there is debate on Biblical Inerrancy, at even the highest levels of The Church. Some have promoted the idea that The Bible is Inerrant only in matters pertaining to Salvation and this has created controversy in The Church and apparently, is not currently clarified. Of course, The Church can't just reverse itself on two thousand years of teaching. So, for the time being, while that opening has been created, it appears that Biblical Inerrancy is still, has always been and will eternally be, the teaching of The Church.
No doubt, that opening was created, simply because The Church has allowed (even in its own schools) the teaching of "facts" that are in clear opposition to The Bible, although perhaps not to Salvation. But, that has created a slippery slope. So, unfortunately, it will and has, lead to the loss of Faith among Christians and the failure of Christians to lead many of The Lost to Salvation, which of course, should be the primary aim of The Church: to fight the good fight (to save souls from Hell).
Biblical inerrancy is the teaching of the Church, but one needs to understand that teaching properly. It means that the Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach. When people try to find other information in the Bible, their interpretations can contain errors. The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture, so we have to accept what the Church says about there being no intention to teach about physical science that does not pertain to salvation.
I have thought of an analogy to help explain the relationship between Scripture and science. Many of us have been in the situation of answering a young child's questions about where babies come from. A Catholic parent might give a response like this:
When a man and a woman love each other very much, like Mommy and Daddy do, we decide to get married. That means we promise to stay together for the rest of our lives and help each other to get to heaven. We also promise to take care of the babies that God wants to send us. When He wants to, God makes a baby grow inside a mommy's tummy. At first, the baby is very tiny, like a dot, but it gets bigger and bigger and when it is ready it comes out.
If one tries to interpret this as a statement about science, it will seem to have errors and omissions. There is nothing here about reproductive organs, the sex act, or details of fetal development. It might be misunderstood as saying that only married people get pregnant and that the fetus grows in the stomach. But, because it was never the intent to teach about science, it does not really have errors.
That response contained the information that a young child needs to know, put in terms that a young child can understand. It lays the basis for his future understanding of Church teaching on the ends of marriage. It teaches the moral ideal that a baby should be born into a loving, faith-filled marriage, not the biological fact that babies are born into many situations. It teaches the theological truth that a child is a gift from God and that He is the source of procreation with which the parents cooperate.
Parents who give such explanations to their young children are not teaching errors to them nor are these parents in conflict with science. When their children are older and biological facts are appropriate, the parents give that information. They do not say that learning about biology is a rejection of the earlier teaching. Both teachings are true, just about different aspects of the question. The first one, given to the young child, is about faith and morals. The second one, given years later, is about science.
What the Bible says about creation is the information that people need to know, put in terms that people would understand at the time it was written. It is there to teach us about faith and morals and is likely to be misunderstood if treated as information about science. Saying that Scripture is not intended to teach about science which does not pertain to salvation (as, for example, Pope Leo did) is not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture. It is giving a principle of interpretation to help us understand its correct, inerrant meaning.
-
Are you implying that flat earthers have intelligent answers for some things? That they even have intelligence?
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.
-
Biblical inerrancy is the teaching of the Church, but one needs to understand that teaching properly. It means that the Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach.
Incorrect.
You have made what the Bible "intends" to teach into something esoteric and not readily apparent.
The Bible is meant to be plainly understood, always firstly in its literal sense, so that even a simple man may understand it.
You have in effect made your own gnosis.
Also, the Bible was not "put in terms that people would understand at the time it was written," as it was meant for all people of ALL times.
You err continuosly.
Funny you bring up babies, because I'll bet yoi support the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy too.
-
Are those roosters in your crest?
This is Saint Thomas More's Coat of Arms (The King's Good Servant).
They are moorcocks, otherwise known as the red grouse, a game bird common in the British Isles. The inclusion of this bird in the family coat of arms is generally thought to have been a pun on the family name.
-
Biblical inerrancy is the teaching of the Church, but one needs to understand that teaching properly. It means that the Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach. When people try to find other information in the Bible, their interpretations can contain errors. The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture, so we have to accept what the Church says about there being no intention to teach about physical science that does not pertain to salvation.
I have thought of an analogy to help explain the relationship between Scripture and science. Many of us have been in the situation of answering a young child's questions about where babies come from. A Catholic parent might give a response like this:
When a man and a woman love each other very much, like Mommy and Daddy do, we decide to get married. That means we promise to stay together for the rest of our lives and help each other to get to heaven. We also promise to take care of the babies that God wants to send us. When He wants to, God makes a baby grow inside a mommy's tummy. At first, the baby is very tiny, like a dot, but it gets bigger and bigger and when it is ready it comes out.
If one tries to interpret this as a statement about science, it will seem to have errors and omissions. There is nothing here about reproductive organs, the sex act, or details of fetal development. It might be misunderstood as saying that only married people get pregnant and that the fetus grows in the stomach. But, because it was never the intent to teach about science, it does not really have errors.
That response contained the information that a young child needs to know, put in terms that a young child can understand. It lays the basis for his future understanding of Church teaching on the ends of marriage. It teaches the moral ideal that a baby should be born into a loving, faith-filled marriage, not the biological fact that babies are born into many situations. It teaches the theological truth that a child is a gift from God and that He is the source of procreation with which the parents cooperate.
Parents who give such explanations to their young children are not teaching errors to them nor are these parents in conflict with science. When their children are older and biological facts are appropriate, the parents give that information. They do not say that learning about biology is a rejection of the earlier teaching. Both teachings are true, just about different aspects of the question. The first one, given to the young child, is about faith and morals. The second one, given years later, is about science.
What the Bible says about creation is the information that people need to know, put in terms that people would understand at the time it was written. It is there to teach us about faith and morals and is likely to be misunderstood if treated as information about science. Saying that Scripture is not intended to teach about science which does not pertain to salvation (as, for example, Pope Leo did) is not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture. It is giving a principle of interpretation to help us understand its correct, inerrant meaning.
Right, I get it. You think God didn't give us the information about The Earth being a Globe, spinning at 1000 mph, jetting through space at mind numbing speeds, while orbiting around The Sun and not being in a particularly important place, but rather being extremely insignificant, in an overwhelmingly huge universe, where life evolved over billions and billions of years, where usury isn't magic, but good economics, where abortion isn't murder, but an expression of prudence and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is just another form of human relations that old fuddy duddies like Moses, weren't ready for. Thanks for clarifying all of that! I wondered, I really did!
(https://thecuriousappetite.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/i-love-lucy.jpg)
:jester: :jester: :jester:
Sorry for the rant Janyek. Seriously though, I think your thinking on this issue is dangerous, frightening and condescending to our ancestors. Do you really think they were naive children?? I'm sorry, but that is insulting. It makes me angry when people talk about my ancestors that way. I am sick and tired of this attitude towards The Patriarchs. Thank you for so vividly illustrating to me, where this sickening attitude is getting its intellectual inspiration from.
It's frightening and dangerous, because the physical and spiritual worlds are so intimately connected. So, they must harmonize. Copernicus, Newton's and Einstein's physical worlds do not harmonize with Christianity; they do harmonize with The Big Bang and Darwin's General Theory of Evolution, as well as Freudian Psychology, Feminism, Equality, Atheism, Pantheism and Usury.
Notice Step Two From The Top In The Cartoon. I know you believe that the Bible is Inerrant too, just not in The Physical World, but rather only in The Spiritual World. As I understand it, that way of thinking is the essence of The Protestant Error. It is the very reason for Protestant Iconoclasm (destruction of religious statues, relics and things): to effect the separation of The Spiritual from The Physical in Culture. So, no statues. No Crucifix. No Confession. No kneeling at the rail. No literal transformation of the wafer and wine to The Blood and Body of Christ. Nothing that would affirm the profound connection of The Spiritual World to The Physical World.
Not surprisingly, these ideas had been vigorously promoted in a Century when many Catholic leaders were trying to be accepted and supported by Protestants.
(http://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/atheism750.jpg)
-
This is Saint Thomas More's Coat of Arms (The King's Good Servant).
They are moorcocks, otherwise known as the red grouse, a game bird common in the British Isles. The inclusion of this bird in the family coat of arms is generally thought to have been a pun on the family name.
That's cool.
I think this video is a day of a man, dog and falcon out hunting grouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O5bpIFOyCk
Frank Taylor Films No. 006 - A Flight At Red Grouse
-
Here a Dog makes a Grouse take flight and then a Falcon takes the Grouse down and, I suppose, the Dog will retrieve it for the Hunter. The action takes place in the first 12 seconds of the video, after that is a slow motion repeat of the action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0uBDRD2sXY
Falcon and Grouse
by, RobPalmer
-
Sorry for the rant Janyek. Seriously though, I think your thinking on this issue is dangerous, frightening and condescending to our ancestors. Do you really think they were naive children?? I'm sorry, but that is insulting. It makes me angry when people talk about my ancestors that way. I am sick and tired of this attitude towards The Patriarchs. Thank you for so vividly illustrating to me, where this sickening attitude is getting its intellectual inspiration from.
It's frightening and dangerous, because the physical and spiritual worlds are so intimately connected. So, they must harmonize. Copernicus, Newton's and Einstein's physical worlds do not harmonize with Christianity; they do harmonize with The Big Bang and Darwin's General Theory of Evolution, as well as Freudian Psychology, Feminism, Equality, Atheism, Pantheism and Usury.
Notice Step Two From The Top In The Cartoon. I know you believe that the Bible is Inerrant too, just not in The Physical World, but rather only in The Spiritual World. As I understand it, that way of thinking is the essence of The Protestant Error. It is the very reason for Protestant Iconoclasm (destruction of religious statues, relics and things): to effect the separation of The Spiritual from The Physical in Culture. So, no statues. No Crucifix. No Confession. No kneeling at the rail. No literal transformation of the wafer and wine to The Blood and Body of Christ. Nothing that would affirm the profound connection of The Spiritual World to The Physical World.
Not surprisingly, these ideas had been vigorously promoted in a Century when many Catholic leaders were trying to be accepted and supported by Protestants.
What you refer to as my thinking on the issue is what the Catholic Church has been teaching since 1893. My "intellectual inspiration" comes from papal encyclicals and docuмents. Rather than accept Church teaching, you would rather follow your own ideas on how to interpret Scripture. That was the foundation of the Protestant Error that you claim to be so opposed to.
The Bible is inerrant about both the physical and the spiritual aspects of the world when understood according to Church teaching. People like you - and Protestants - make up your own meanings for Scripture and these are not inerrant.
It is ironic that you accuse others of following Protestant error.
-
What you refer to as my thinking on the issue is what the Catholic Church has been teaching since 1893. My "intellectual inspiration" comes from papal encyclicals and docuмents. Rather than accept Church teaching, you would rather follow your own ideas on how to interpret Scripture. That was the foundation of the Protestant Error that you claim to be so opposed to.
The Bible is inerrant about both the physical and the spiritual aspects of the world when understood according to Church teaching. People like you - and Protestants - make up your own meanings for Scripture and these are not inerrant.
It is ironic that you accuse others of following Protestant error.
You seem a little hot under the collar Jaynek. I thought you had a better understanding of this issue, than you do.
"Pope Benedict XV re-affirmed Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in his own encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920:
But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church—nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning—who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point (SP 1).
Benedict appealed to the life and teaching of St. Jerome as a model for timeless treatment of Scripture. Specifically, he noted, “Jerome further shows that the immunity of Scripture from error or deception is necessarily bound up with its divine inspiration and supreme authority” (SP 13). Also, “St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error” (SP 16)."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant
-
Biblical inerrancy is the teaching of the Church, but one needs to understand that teaching properly. It means that the Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach.
No, it's inerrant PERIOD. Whether it "intends" to teach something is irrelevant. This is now the third time I've had to point out that your attitude towards the Bible sounds extremely modernist. Why don't you just stick to the explanation that the Bible sometimes uses relative, metaphorical, or non-scientific language.
-
No, it's inerrant PERIOD. Whether it "intends" to teach something is irrelevant. This is now the third time I've had to point out that your attitude towards the Bible sounds extremely modernist. Why don't you just stick to the explanation that the Bible sometimes uses relative, metaphorical, or non-scientific language.
I have repeatedly explained what I mean by "intends to teach" and it is the same thing that Pope Leo meant. I am no more a modernist than he was. People are taking figurative language literally while ignoring the main point of the passage. They are ignoring its intended meaning. This is how they come up with the claim that flat earth is an inerrant teaching.
The idea of intent matters. We need to recognize when the Bible intends to use "relative, metaphorical or non-scientific language" and not make it into something it is not.
-
I have repeatedly explained what I mean by "intends to teach" and it is the same thing that Pope Leo meant. I am no more a modernist than he was. People are taking figurative language literally while ignoring the main point of the passage. They are ignoring its intended meaning. This is how they come up with the claim that flat earth is an inerrant teaching.
The idea of intent matters. We need to recognize when the Bible intends to use "relative, metaphorical or non-scientific language" and not make it into something it is not.
Can you read the author's minds? Reading anyone's mind would be amazing, but considering Moses wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, that would be fantastic! Or perhaps you mean, you can read The Mind of God? In either case, I think you're overestimating your powers.
-
I have repeatedly explained what I mean by "intends to teach" and it is the same thing that Pope Leo meant. I am no more a modernist than he was.
Yeah, but this last formulation was your worst. You stated that the Bible was inerrant with respect to those things it intended to teach. That implies that it's not absolutely inerrant but only in qualified way, that there could be errors in matters which the Bible doesn't intend to "teach" but happens to mention in passing. You need to stop writing like that or you'll never shake the accusation that you're a modernist when it comes to Sacred Scripture.
the Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach
You need to stop with a period after "everything" and before "that". While the Bible is inerrant in everything PERIOD, it does always use language in a precise scientific way so as to intend to impart scientific knowledge in any particular passage. Your phrasing suggest that the Bible is NOT inerrant in things that it doesn't INTEND to teach. It most certainly is and the use of figurative language is not error.
-
I have repeatedly explained what I mean by "intends to teach" and it is the same thing that Pope Leo meant. I am no more a modernist than he was. People are taking figurative language literally while ignoring the main point of the passage. They are ignoring its intended meaning. This is how they come up with the claim that flat earth is an inerrant teaching.
The idea of intent matters. We need to recognize when the Bible intends to use "relative, metaphorical or non-scientific language" and not make it into something it is not.
You can explain five hundred times what Scripture "intends" to teach. But if it does not coincide with what Scripture says, it isn't what Scripture teaches. You are not the arbiter of what is figurative or literal in Scripture.
-
You can explain five hundred times what Scripture "intends" to teach. But if it does not coincide with what Scripture says, it isn't what Scripture teaches. You are not the arbiter of what is figurative or literal in Scripture.
No, the Church is. And that is what you ignore.
-
Yeah, but this last formulation was your worst. You stated that the Bible was inerrant with respect to those things it intended to teach. That implies that it's not absolutely inerrant but only in qualified way, that there could be errors in matters which the Bible doesn't intend to "teach" but happens to mention in passing. You need to stop writing like that or you'll never shake the accusation that you're a modernist when it comes to Sacred Scripture.
You need to stop with a period after "everything" and before "that". While the Bible is inerrant in everything PERIOD, it does always use language in a precise scientific way so as to intend to impart scientific knowledge in any particular passage. Your phrasing suggest that the Bible is NOT inerrant in things that it doesn't INTEND to teach. It most certainly is and the use of figurative language is not error.
Of course the figurative language in Scripture is not in error. The people who take the figurative literally are. When people misinterpret Scripture, their ideas are not inerrant. Only Scripture itself is inerrant. That is all I am saying.
Some here will accuse me of being a modernist, no matter what wording I use. They need to reject anything that challenges their belief in a flat earth.
-
They have nothing. There is no Scriptural, Patristic, or most of all, Dogmatic proof that the Earth is flat. They only post vague passages that one has to add their own interpretation to, to make is coincide with their beliefs. They have nothing.
To be fair, they have SOME Patristic evidence. But it's not unanimous, and it's not dogmatic.
-
To be fair, they have SOME Patristic evidence. But it's not unanimous, and it's not dogmatic.
True, so....for globe-earthers to say that there's NOTHING is not at all truthful. They are lying when they say such a thing.
There is Patristic, scriptural, and scientific evidence, even though there's not a dogma. Just because something isn't dogmatic - that doesn't mean that it isn't important to know about.
-
No, the Church is. And that is what you ignore.
Not at all. I seek only what the Church teaches.
1.The Church condemned the heliocentric model.
2.The Church NEVER taught the heliocentric model.
3.The Church never taught a spherical earth.
4.Scripture didn't teach the heliocentric model.
5.Scripture never taught a spherical earth.
6.The Fathers never taught the ball earth.
7.Scripture's description of earth understood AS WRITTEN coincides with the Father's writings that earth is literally described in Scripture: an extended plane, supported by pillars, with a dome, with water above the earth.
8.Pagans have always promoted the heliocentric ball.
There is a logical draw from all this and you can't seem to come to it. You prefer your own opinion. When you have proof otherwise, please provide it. But without proof of any kind, (and your single go-to quote does not apply to this because it actually undermines your science too) so your position remains wholly and completely untenable.
-
To be fair, they have SOME Patristic evidence. But it's not unanimous, and it's not dogmatic.
Ok, we only have some Patristic evidence, a relatively small amount. We also have Scriptural evidence. The spherical earth has no Patristic evidence or scriptural evidence. That means whatever evidence there is, certainly makes what is there so far, unanimous. Sparse, but without serious opposition, in agreement with Scripture, makes it the only teaching there is and therefore, ought to be believed. Certainly, the converse is decidedly pagan, and more specifically, the model that teaches the moving ball earth, was condemned. The question becomes: How much unanimity is enough? Because unanimity alone by Catholic Fathers is enough to make it a teaching. Seems the only opposition from tradition is that a couple of Saints said some of this doesn't matter. But that isn't unanimous. Some Saints seem to believe earth is a ball. That isn't unanimous teaching, it is a particular leaning. Seems only two proofs for spherical earth ever existed: pagan science and personal opinion.
-
They have nothing. There is no Scriptural, Patristic, or most of all, Dogmatic proof that the Earth is flat. They only post vague passages that one has to add their own interpretation to, to make is coincide with their beliefs. They have nothing.
Sorry pal, but your are wrong.
" "Whatever they (he's referring to scientists) can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.""
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
We've done a good job of proving it to be FALSE/at least creating massive doubt in their Anti-Biblical and Hence, Anti-Catholic Science. You can keep pretending all you want, but it doesn't make it so; it only makes you nuts and, it would appear, disobedient to Providentissimus Deus, as Jaynek certainly and stubbornly is.
The above passage from Providentissimus Deus charges us with a duty to the truth, particularly when it attacks the Inerrancy of Scripture. Jayne, btw, has no idea what the difference between literal and figurative is. Smedley Butler made that utterly clear already.
-
They have plenty quotes for Geocentrism, but have little to none Patristic. They only have one who seemed to condemn globe Earth, and only have a few that seemed to relay their belief in a flat Earth. These others have no religious connotations to them though and no condemnatory feelings are shown. These minute commentaries by the Fathers provide absolutely no Patristic proof that flat Earth is Dogma.
THE FATHERS AREN'T INFALLIBLE; SCRIPTURE IS.
-
THE FATHERS AREN'T INFALLIBLE; SCRIPTURE IS.
When a teaching from the Fathers is unanimous, it is infallible. So, actually, we have two sources in agreement. The Fathers are unanimous in teaching earth has a physical dome with water above it, as Scripture describes.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
-
They have plenty quotes for Geocentrism, but have little to none Patristic. They only have one who seemed to condemn globe Earth, and only have a few that seemed to relay their belief in a flat Earth. These others have no religious connotations to them though and no condemnatory feelings are shown. These minute commentaries by the Fathers provide absolutely no Patristic proof that flat Earth is Dogma.
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural. Jerusalem cannot be at the center of a sphere. The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes--that is, people who live upside down relative to others, as Cosmas so aptly describes, "on whom the rain must fall up." It is unthinkable to reject the rest of the quotes from the Fathers who also describe that the tabernacle was made in a pattern of the earth. A tabernacle with its dome, pillars, veil, etc. are not compatible with a sphere, but resemble a Church--another clue. And reflect perfectly what Scripture describes. It is also unthinkable to reject Cosmas' ongoing argument with pagans who promoted the globe back in 550 AD, as if somehow, it doesn't matter that the pagans were promoting the globe with their heliocentric science waaaaay back then. Fascinating that the brilliant monk Cosmas was not censured or condemned for what he derived from Moses and Scripture, nor was his book put on the Index, but his writings were well received, and even quoted by Church Fathers. Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.
-
When a teaching from the Fathers is unanimous, it is infallible. So, actually, we have two sources in agreement. The Fathers are unanimous in teaching earth has a physical dome with water above it, as Scripture describes.
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
Do you have a link for that quote?
-
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.
AES: No they don't.
The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes
AES: No they don't.
Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.
AES: No it isn't.
Yes, the Fathers do teach Jerusalem is in the center of the earth. So does scripture. You'd do yourself well to disprove these facts so that you can finally be right. But you won't because you can't.
St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
Also, from the book,
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
There then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eight century, one of the greatest and noblest of men, --St. Boniface. His learning was of the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the apostles; is genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of Germany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom. There sat too, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope Zachary. Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such a heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an assertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of salvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid. Pg 105
The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong response. He cited passages from the book of Job and the widsom of Solomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it "perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul," and indicated a purpose of driving him from his bishopric. 106
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum. pg 104
-
More on Jerusalem being the center of the earth:
Ezekiel's statement thus became the standard of orthodoxy to early map-makers. The map of the world at Hereford Cathedral, the maps of Andrea Bianco, Marino Sanuto, and a multitude of others fixed this view in men's minds, and doubtless discouraged during many generations any scientific statements tending to unbalance this geographical centre revealed in Scripture.(30)
(30) For beliefs of various nations of antiquity that the earth's center
was in their most sacred place, see citations from Maspero, Charton,
Sayce, and others in Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth, chap.
iv. As to the Greeks, we have typical statements in the Eumenides of
Aeschylus, where the stone in the altar at Delphi is repeatedly called
"the earth's navel"—which is precisely the expression used regarding
Jerusalem in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel (see below). The
proof texts on which the mediaeval geographers mainly relied as to the
form of the earth were Ezekiel v, 5, and xxxviii, 12. The progress
of geographical knowledge evidently caused them to be softened down
somewhat in the King James's version; but the first of them reads, in
the Vulgate, "Ista est Hierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in
circuitu ejus terrae"; and the second reads, in the Vulgate, "in medio
terrae," and in the Septuagint, [Greek]. That the literal centre of the
earth was understood, see proof in St. Jerome, Commentat. in Ezekiel,
lib. ii; and for general proof, see Leopardi, Saggio sopra gli errori
popolari degli antichi, pp. 207, 208. For Rabanus Maurus, see his De
Universo, lib. xii, cap. 4, in Migne, tome cxi, p. 339. For Hugh of
St. Victor, se his De Situ Terrarum, cap. ii. For Dante's belief, see
Inferno, canto xxxiv, 112-115:
[/pre]
-
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.
AES: No they don't.
The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes
AES: No they don't.
Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.
AES: No it isn't.
Yes, the Fathers do teach Jerusalem is in the center of the earth. So does scripture. You'd do yourself well to disprove these facts so that you can finally be right. But you won't because you can't.
St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's center; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Poe Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century and ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarious of Heisterbach declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our in habited earth,--so it was that Christ was crucified at the center of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse: and in the pious book of ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the center of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.
Also, from the book,
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
There then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eight century, one of the greatest and noblest of men, --St. Boniface. His learning was of the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the apostles; is genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of Germany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom. There sat too, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope Zachary. Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such a heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an assertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of salvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid. Pg 105
The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong response. He cited passages from the book of Job and the widsom of Solomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it "perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul," and indicated a purpose of driving him from his bishopric. 106
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes; all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literals exegetes of Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers the great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth, simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum. pg 104
The author of the book you are quoting was a Big Time Liberal, who was trying to show in his book how Anti-Science Christianity was and how necessary it was to push it out of universities.
The book that's being cited in your post (I wonder if you aren't just copying and pasting this from a website) "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," is commonly said to be poorly supported. So, it/whatever source you have, may not be as credible a source as you think for assessing the actual positions of EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER (THERE ARE LOTS). Most people claim that many Church Fathers never spoke on the topic.
However, when it comes to Science contradicting The Scripture, we have a duty to defend Scripture, if we can. Otherwise, we have a duty to submit, which implies that we have a duty to The Truth. So, it matters if The Earth is Flat or a Globe and Moving or Stationary, particularly since Scripture implies a Flat and Stationary Earth, which everyone knows, it's just that some people want to say it is figurative, which of course the language doesn't seem figurative and the actual science seems to point towards a flat and stationary Earth. And we have centuries of known conspiracy against The Faith.
So, we have a crime that needs to be set right and the authority to do it, regardless of what Church Fathers thought about it, before 749 A.D. It is encouraging though, that some actually preached on it and were Flat Earthers.
-
Do you have a link for that quote?
This is from the book, "Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus"
https://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Origen+called+the+firmament+%E2%80%9Cwithout+doubt+firm+and+solid%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Q4C4jHw94u&sig=XtJjdAN9dzKioumEoxUY92SiOnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOu-yhrMnYAhXUqYMKHZujD6MQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=Origen%20called%20the%20firmament%20%E2%80%9Cwithout%20doubt%20firm%20and%20solid%E2%80%9D&f=false
-
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.
AES: No they don't.
The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes
AES: No they don't.
Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.
AES: No it isn't.
Hey Seven, what source do you have for all the claims you are making?
-
Origen's quote is from the book, "Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus"
https://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Origen+called+the+firmament+%E2%80%9Cwithout+doubt+firm+and+solid%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Q4C4jHw94u&sig=XtJjdAN9dzKioumEoxUY92SiOnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOu-yhrMnYAhXUqYMKHZujD6MQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=Origen%20called%20the%20firmament%20%E2%80%9Cwithout%20doubt%20firm%20and%20solid%E2%80%9D&f=false
-
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.
AES: No they don't.
The Fathers also infallibly teach that there are no antipodes
AES: No they don't.
Flat earth IS Geocentrism and it is Catholic Tradition.
AES: No it isn't.
Hey Seven, what source do you have for all the claims you are making?
Even if AES had a source, he'd have to explain away several Catholic scholars and saints on the matter.
-
The Fathers infallibly teach that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth because its scriptural.
Well, then, what does YOUR flat earth map look like ... since most flat earth maps (and many of the proofs associated with them) rely upon a map which has the North Pole at the center?
I question your use of the qualifier "infallibly".
-
This is from the book, "Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus"
https://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Origen+called+the+firmament+%E2%80%9Cwithout+doubt+firm+and+solid%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Q4C4jHw94u&sig=XtJjdAN9dzKioumEoxUY92SiOnk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOu-yhrMnYAhXUqYMKHZujD6MQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=Origen%20called%20the%20firmament%20%E2%80%9Cwithout%20doubt%20firm%20and%20solid%E2%80%9D&f=false
That is very cool!
-
Well, then, what does YOUR flat earth map look like ... since most flat earth maps (and many of the proofs associated with them) rely upon a map which has the North Pole at the center?
I question your use of the qualifier "infallibly".
Dude, you quoted Happenby and put my name on it. That's not cool.
-
Well, then, what does YOUR flat earth map look like ... since most flat earth maps (and many of the proofs associated with them) rely upon a map which has the North Pole at the center?
I question your use of the qualifier "infallibly".
Different flat earthers put their belief in different maps, but most admit there is not enough information to know with certainty which map represents the earth exactly. I personally have not accepted the AE map with North Pole in the middle because it is at odds with Scripture and Catholic exegesis. Until we get the information, the main argument is, earth is not a (moving) globe, but it is an extended plane over which a dome is stretched and above which is water, as described by Enoch, the Fathers, and Scripture.
-
Dude, you quoted Happenby and put my name on it. That's not cool.
Well, dude, maybe you should have used the proper quoting mechanisms instead of putting quoted text inline with your post.
-
Well, dude, maybe you should have used the proper quoting mechanisms instead of putting quoted text inline with your post.
Oh ok :-[
-
The author of the book you are quoting was a Big Time Liberal, who was trying to show in his book how Anti-Science Christianity was and how necessary it was to push it out of universities.
The book that's being cited in your post (I wonder if you aren't just copying and pasting this from a website) "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," is commonly said to be poorly supported. So, it/whatever source you have, may not be as credible a source as you think for assessing the actual positions of EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER (THERE ARE LOTS). Most people claim that many Church Fathers never spoke on the topic.
However, when it comes to Science contradicting The Scripture, we have a duty to defend Scripture, if we can. Otherwise, we have a duty to submit, which implies that we have a duty to The Truth. So, it matters if The Earth is Flat or a Globe and Moving or Stationary, particularly since Scripture implies a Flat and Stationary Earth, which everyone knows, it's just that some people want to say it is figurative, which of course the language doesn't seem figurative and the actual science seems to point towards a flat and stationary Earth. And we have centuries of known conspiracy against The Faith.
So, we have a crime that needs to be set right and the authority to do it, regardless of what Church Fathers thought about it, before 749 A.D. It is encouraging though, that some actually preached on it and were Flat Earthers.
The author of the book I quoted is a Protestant. However, his quotes are accurate when quoting the Fathers on their teachings. Dickenson White is long recognized for having "proven" the Church wrong about flat earth, and for making Her look stupid for doing it. His attempt to prove how wrong the Church was, actually provides many sources for Church teachings on the subject. White's sources are, as far as I've checked, totally accurate when quoting Catholics on the subject of flat earth. Remember, he's trying to make them look bad, quoting them directly, as though popular science he espouses trumps what the Church has always taught. What White winds up doing is showing from his sources, that even from the Protestant historical perspective, the Catholic Church has always promoted the geocentric flat earth, because he draws from Catholic teachings and saints in order to provide the "damning" material.
Beyond White's book, I also quoted from a book on Catholic homilies.
-
Wow, flat earth is really a big topic!
-
The author of the book I quoted is a Protestant. However, his quotes are accurate when quoting the Fathers on their teachings. Dickenson White is long recognized for having "proven" the Church wrong about flat earth, and for making Her look stupid for doing it. His attempt to prove how wrong the Church was, actually provides many sources for Church teachings on the subject. White's sources are, as far as I've checked, totally accurate when quoting Catholics on the subject of flat earth. Remember, he's trying to make them look bad, quoting them directly, as though popular science he espouses trumps what the Church has always taught. What White winds up doing is showing from his sources, that even from the Protestant historical perspective, the Catholic Church has always promoted the geocentric flat earth, because he draws from Catholic teachings and saints in order to provide the "damning" material.
Beyond White's book, I also quoted from a book on Catholic homilies.
If you check his quotes and they pan out, that's pretty good, because its a very common criticism that he made stuff up about Catholics. Of course, they could be making stuff up about him. So, I guess you gotta check to be sure.
I was taught in Public Schools that The Church had believed in Flat Earth; it's the Columbus thing, but actually that most people in Medieval Europe did. That's supposed to have been "debunked" though, which I don't get. So, I don't know. If you can verify his quotes, then maybe they're lying. That's why original research is so important; too many people living in an "echo chamber."
-
Even if AES had a source, he'd have to explain away several Catholic scholars and saints on the matter.
I just want to know if it's an original source or if he's just quoting some article off www.whateverbolognatheywannaprint.com and joining "the echo chamber" or if he's actually looking at original sources, because I think with a lot of this controversial stuff, you have to, in order to make any real progress towards the truth.
-
I just want to know if it's an original source or if he's just quoting some article off www.whateverbolognatheywannaprint.com and joining "the echo chamber" or if he's actually looking at original sources, because I think with a lot of this controversial stuff, you have to, in order to make any real progress towards the truth.
I agree, we have to look at original sources and I have checked some of White's quotes. To his credit, there are no Catholics complaining about his sources or what the Fathers have said. White is an historian. He didn't get the quotes wrong, just his analysis of them is way off because he was an heliocentrist and believed science proved the moving globe. That's why he took the dubious opportunity to slam the Church for believing in flat earth... Because science was supposedly on his side. Ha! Such pride and human respect! The problem for poor Mr. White was that his sources and quotes are accurate, but rather than believing the quotes of the Fathers, he derides them for believing earth is flat. Thank you, you withering Protestant historian for your failure to see the truth, and for docuмenting that failure for us!
-
n/m
-
n/m
f e
-
No I wouldn't. I take issue with you saying "Infallibly" in your statements. There is nothing infallible at all about flat Earth. The Fathers did not Infallibly teach Jerusalem is the center of the Earth. Some of them taught it, but not infallibly. The same goes for Antipodes. Flat Earth is NOT Geocentrism and it is not Catholic Tradition. There is no proof of this. Simply quoting some Fathers who spoke about it does not make it Infallible and does not constitute Tradition. You have nothing to prove this.
If you read what I posted you'd see it was taught for over a 1000 years and accepted by all, making it infallible. That, and Scripture say Jerusalem is in the center of the earth (and the Fathers believed it) then, we have a teaching.
You really ought to read with the intent of gaining what comes out of the Fathers on the matter. They are pretty clear. Conversely, there are no Fathers teaching the condemned heliocentric sphere.
-
I wonder if the terminology isn't being confused here a bit.
I think that Inerrancy applies to Scripture, but that Infallibility has a much stricter definition than that. It is so strict, that I don't think it could apply to Flat Earth, Creation vs Evolution, The Age of The Earth or The Existence of The Walls of Jericho. The teaching that The Scripture is Inerrant, could accurately be said to be an Infallible teaching, but to then say that, for example, Noah survived The Flood in a boat made of wood, would not be an Infallible teaching, even though it is obviously what The Church, The Popes and The Fathers have always taught and will always teach.
It's like the difference between Graduating from school, getting your Diploma and your Official Transcripts. Your Graduation is evident and can even be docuмented, but The Diploma gives the fact of your Graduation a greater veracity, than without one. It's like proof. It makes the reality of your achievement much harder to dispute, than it would be without one, because it is an official docuмent, given to you by a body charged with that task. Without that, you may only have your report cards and class schedules to prove the work you had done. But even then, another College will not consider your graduation a fact, without your Official Transcripts, sent to them directly from your former College. Furthermore, the College would be unwilling to send Official Transcripts of your record of perfect attendance, for example. They would not do it, even if they could verify it. You could argue that Perfect Attendance was a requirement of Graduation. So, the implication would be that you had Perfect Attendance, but you would still lack Official Transcripts attesting to that fact and, more than likely, nothing could change that.
I looked over this article, to help with this post:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V
-
.
Quote from: TKGS on Yesterday at 04:07:58 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/flat-earthers-on-cathinfo-com-are-spending-more-time-on/msg587958/#msg587958)
That's just a plain silly argument. On a flat earth, a line along a latitude would be curved and it should look like a curve.
This is the argument that y'all use in saying that a what appears to be a flat horizon is evidence of a flat earth.
.
Welcome to silliness argument central. You'll never get a dogmatic flat-earther to use a cogent argument. It's all emotion.
.
Women who are sucked into flat-earthism
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fr4DYB-1FZ68%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=d4394f5ba6a3e8ec1f7523cb166fcb27)
.
Notice how wide Australia is -- as wide as Africa is long!
.
Australia appears to be as wide east/west on their flat-earth map as Africa appears long, north/south.
.
Notice, nobody (not even WTF) replies to this observation but instead proceeds to accuse me of making no contribution.
.
Fascinating.
.
HERE'S ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION!!!
Flat-Earth Map Shows Australia to be Just As Wide (east/west)
As Africa Appears Long (north/south)!
.
-
.
North and south directions are traceable as straight lines on maps and on the ground.
.
But east and west directions are not -- with one exception, which is at the equator.
.
Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line in the same way that all longitude lines are straight.
.
The border between Canada and the USA is a curved line on the ground and on a map.
.
If that were "explainable" as you say, on a "circular flat earth model," then please explain how the equator, which is also a curved line on that "model" is in fact a straight line on the surface of the earth.
.
"Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line" ...
AH, HA HA HA HA HA! *THIS* the logic of a globalist. Indeed, the NERVE to say, "Only on a globular thing can the dividing line be a straight line."
Nope. Not ever.
Straight lines cannot, do not, will not ever, exist on a sphere. Period. Quit with the lies. Imprecision. Falsehoods. IN THE NAME OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE! Your model doesn't work!
-
"Only on a spherical earth can the equator be a straight line" ...
AH, HA HA HA HA HA! *THIS* the logic of a globalist. Indeed, the NERVE to say, "Only on a globular thing can the dividing line be a straight line."
Nope. Not ever.
Straight lines cannot, do not, will not ever, exist on a sphere. Period. Quit with the lies. Imprecision. Falsehoods. IN THE NAME OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE! Your model doesn't work!
.
First things first. First I need an apology from you for your insult.
.
-
.
First things first. First I need an apology from you for your insult.
.
Insult? Pahlease. Whatever perceived insult comes strictly from you persistently holding to your erroneous position. Curvature has never been demonstrated. Planes do not dive nose down in order to maintain some magical curve as they fly with altimeters, gyros, which never compute curve. You can apologize to yourself as soon as you open your eyes.