-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o)
-
Oh wow. Pagan Sagan. Now there's someone you can trust...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o)
:jester:
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.
-
The world is round, but it sure is not a globe. :incense:
-
Oh wow. Pagan Sagan. Now there's someone you can trust...
You who knows should know that even Satan knows the truth.
-
The world is round, but it sure is not a globe. :incense:
Thanks for the clarification, a flat round sort of pancake, not square flat nor triangular or heart-shaped flat.
Good to know, how do you know? ... the devil told you so! ♫
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EspZtA7C3o)
Did you really just post a video from drug-using, well-known occultist, atheist and heliocentrist extraordinairre CARL SAGAN?
Are you having a senior moment??
-
Did you really just post a video from drug-using, well-known occultist, atheist and heliocentrist extraordinairre CARL SAGAN?
Are you having a senior moment??
Is that your best argument against his findings, we win! Attack the messenger since you can't argue against his message. LOL! :applause:
-
(http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors9/addison-whithecomb-quote-when-you-resort-to-attacking-the-messenger.jpg)
End of Story
-
The scientific evidence that proves the flat earth can be found in great quantities on the flat earth subforum.
My point being, why would a nice little old Catholic lady be siding with a heathen, atheist, occultist, scientist? Makes no sense.
Sagan is surely burning in hell, yet you offer him up as some sort of example to bolster your CATHOLIC worldview. That's nuts.
Would you like to post a video by Prince Hall Freemason Neil DeGrasse Tyson next?
-
The scientific evidence that proves the flat earth can be found in great quantities on the flat earth subforum.
My point being, why would a nice little old Catholic lady be siding with a heathen, atheist, occultist, scientist? Makes no sense.
Sagan is surely burning in hell, yet you offer him up as some sort of example to bolster your CATHOLIC worldview. That's nuts.
Would you like to post a video by Prince Hall Freemason Neil DeGrasse Tyson next?
I see you also consider self a sort of god, who knows who is surely burning in hell.
Prove to us that all your so-called evidence bolded above came from the scientist who were in the State of Sanctifying Grace at the time they came to their erroneous conclusions that you put your hopes and desires in.
-
A few images approved by the Church
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/12/29/17/3BB38E9800000578-4073706-image-a-13_1483031694545.jpg)(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/2e/0a/e82e0a90c3f01e459e3e2123b2708e85.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/GodInvitingChristDetail.jpg/270px-GodInvitingChristDetail.jpg)(https://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-e8fztk4/products/17662/images/59063/NW-777_1_11x14__67802__68395__97422__45492.1500644891.260.260.jpg?c=2)(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f4/c6/25/f4c6258f15b2c3ab14f2741d763d70f7--catholic-art-roman-catholic.jpg)
-
I see you also consider self a sort of god, who knows who is surely burning in hell.
Prove to us that all your so-called evidence bolded above came from the scientist who were in the State of Sanctifying Grace at the time they came to their erroneous conclusions that you put your hopes and desires in.
Sagan's beliefs were well-docuмented, I have no issue with speculating on his final impenitence.
I find it odd that you would even consider a man such as Sagan, who died OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, to be in heaven.
That goes against dogma.
-
Sagan's beliefs were well-docuмented, I have no issue with speculating on his final impenitence.
I find it odd that you would even consider a man such as Sagan, who died OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, to be in heaven.
That goes against dogma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIXPo0ZA7Y&t=413s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIXPo0ZA7Y&t=413s)
-
Prove to us that all your so-called evidence bolded above came from the scientist who were in the State of Sanctifying Grace at the time they came to their erroneous conclusions that you put your hopes and desires in.
Sagan's beliefs were well-docuмented, I have no issue with speculating on his final impenitence.
I find it odd that you would even consider a man such as Sagan, who died OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, to be in heaven.
That goes against dogma.
MyrnaM does have a point though. You attack who he was, and try to discredit him for being outside the Church, but never argued against the science of what he said. Where do your scientific proofs for flat earth come from? Are they traditional Catholic scientists? The fact of the matter is that the flat earth society has Catholics, atheists, protestants, and even freemasons. The one thing that the flat earth society doesn't have is a single living traditional Catholic priest or bishop that supports it.
-
Sagan's beliefs were well-docuмented, I have no issue with speculating on his final impenitence.
I find it odd that you would even consider a man such as Sagan, who died OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, to be in heaven.
That goes against dogma.
I do not consider his whereabouts at all, for I am not God. His scientistic findings are sound.
Speaking of his soul, Judge NOT and you will not be judged, as the Bible instructs us. You do not know who or who has not; died outside the Church, if you believe you have such power, no one should consider anything you say seriously.
For your information, the Church must approve any image that is hung within the walls where the Blessed Sacrament dwells those images speak volumes.
-
I do not consider his whereabouts at all, for I am not God. His scientistic findings are sound.
From this point forward, no one should consider ANYTHING you say seriously.
If you would like to discuss religious images relating to flat earth and the Bible's description of Creation, I will be happy to start a thread on it in the flat earth subforum.
-
I'm just going to answer the point at hand, so that the globalists cannot accuse us of diverting attention.
This experiment is a classic objection to the flat earth. Thousands of years old,so I am not the first to successfully refute it, and won't be the last.
This experiment does not prove the flat earth at all. Why? Because the sun does not decline in the sky, it is only our perspective that makes it seem that way. As any object goes further away it has the appearance of getting "smaller."
This is what accounts for the angle differences noted in this experiment. It has nothing to do with the rotundy of the earth.
Here is a video explaining perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw
There is no curvature on the flat earth.
-
How we "know" the earth is round?
Because we are brainwashed from earliest childhood by the centuries-old masonic plan to control the pseudo-education system, the pseudo-news system, the occult Nasa organization, and by mind-controlled people who pass on the masonic lies of
old earth theory taught as fact
evolution theory taught as fact
heliocentric theory taught as fact
globe theory taught as fact
Nasa moon landing taught as fact
Nasa openly-admitted photo-shopped images of the Big Blue Marble wrongly believed by most people (I was one of them) to be actual photographs.
In other words, people have been carefully trained to fail to understand the difference between competing theories and actual facts.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/IconaDerzhavnaya.jpg/156px-IconaDerzhavnaya.jpg)
MUSICAE SACRAE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
On Church music and images
Given at St. Peter's in Rome, December 25, on the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the year 1955, the 17th of Our Pontificate.
27. Since this is true of works of art in general, it obviously applies also to religious and sacred art. Actually religious art is even more closely bound to God and the promotion of His praise and glory, because its only purpose is to give the faithful the greatest aid in turning their minds piously to God through the works it directs to their senses of sight and hearing. Consequently the artist who does not profess the truths of the faith or who strays far from God in his attitude or conduct should never turn his hand to religious art. He lacks, as it were, that inward eye with which he might see what God's majesty and His worship demand. Nor can he hope that his works, devoid of religion as they are, will ever really breathe the piety and faith that befit God's temple and His holiness, even though they may show him to be an expert artist who is endowed with visible talent. Thus he cannot hope that his works will be worthy of admission into the sacred buildings of the Church, the guardian and arbiter of religious life.
28. But the artist who is firm in his faith and leads a life worthy of a Christian, who is motivated by the love of God and reverently uses the powers the Creator has given him, expresses and manifests the truths he holds and the piety he possesses so skillfully, beautifully and pleasingly in colors and lines or sounds and harmonies that this sacred labor of art is an act of worship and religion for him. It also effectively arouses and inspires people to profess the faith and cultivate piety.
29. The Church has always honored and always will honor this kind of artist. It opens wide the doors of its temples to them because what these people contribute through their art and industry is a welcome and important help to the Church in carrying out its apostolic ministry more effectively.
-
Kiwiboy notices I'm just going to answer the point at hand, so that the globalists cannot accuse us of diverting attention.
Are you positive sure your source here is not from a pagan, atheist or non-catholic?
-
Are you positive sure your source here is not from a pagan, atheist or non-catholic?
Everything that is true belongs to us.
It doesn't matter if the person who made the video is protestant, what they say illustrates our point. The question now is... are you open to this?
-
Everything that is true belongs to us.
It doesn't matter if the person who made the video is protestant, what they say illustrates our point. The question now is... are you open to this?
Tell that to your ilk here!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bDLKqCCZtt8/VRuifm4cquI/AAAAAAAAAU0/ELqsCK-rS_4/s1600/10408962_1025348134159848_1413748501032773906_n.jpg)
-
Tell that to your ilk here!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bDLKqCCZtt8/VRuifm4cquI/AAAAAAAAAU0/ELqsCK-rS_4/s1600/10408962_1025348134159848_1413748501032773906_n.jpg)
You forgot to read Genesis in the Holy Bible. The Flat Earth is clearly described in Genesis and other parts of the Holy Bible. Pay close attention to the part about the description of the Flat Earth Dome Firmament.
God createth Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days.
[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. [9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
:incense: [6] "A firmament": By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds. :applause:
[11] And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. [12] And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
16] And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and morning were the fourth day. [20] God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
[16] "Two great lights": God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.
21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
[26] "Let us make man to our image": This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity.
[28] "Increase and multiply": This is not a precept, as some Protestant controvertists would have it, but a blessing, rendering them fruitful; for God had said the same words to the fishes, and birds, (ver. 22) who were incapable of receiving a precept.
[31] And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.
-
You forgot Isaias 40;22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bDLKqCCZtt8/VRuifm4cquI/AAAAAAAAAU0/ELqsCK-rS_4/s1600/10408962_1025348134159848_1413748501032773906_n.jpg)
The New One World Order it is said, Islam Will Surpass Christianity, is it any wonder then this new evolution of the Flat earth is on fire.
Be Careful Traditional Catholics!
-
You forgot Isaias 40;22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
The globe of the earth is the dome firmament.
-
The New One World Order it is said, Islam Will Surpass Christianity, is it any wonder then this new evolution of the Flat earth is on fire.
God created the Flat Earth.
-
Without any smart comments or off topic remarks, can you point to the section which says the Earth is flat or the part that proves that just because there is/are firmaments, that means the Earth is flat?
I already posted it; all you have to do is read the above scripture I posted.
-
You forgot Isaias 40;22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
To help you better understand "The Globe of the Earth"; you need to check out something called a "Snow Globe".
-
I did a word search on the word "flat" in the Bible. It is said 14 times and each and every instance it's used, it speaks of someone either lying flat on the ground or falling flat on the ground. Not once does it ever say anything about the shape of the world.
As to your response, all you did was post some passages from Scripture with some comments. This does not answer the questions I have for you. I don't see anywhere in what you posted anything that speaks of the shape of the Earth. Also, what makes you believe that when Scripture talks about the Firmament, that this means the Earth is flat?
The Flat earth is described in Genesis and other chapters of the Holy Bible. If you still can't figure out these scriptures, buy yourself a snow globe and then get back to me.
-
So you CAN'T tell me where, in what you posted, it says that the Earth is flat. You also CANNOT tell me what makes you think the term Firmament means that the Earth is flat. That's all I needed to know.
You know right where it is; you don't want to believe it.
-
You forgot Isaias 40;22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
That quote is taken from the 1899 version.
The 1605-10 version says compass, not globe. Compass means circle, look it up.
-
Without any smart comments or off topic remarks, can you point to the section which says the Earth is flat or the part that proves that just because there is/are firmaments, that means the Earth is flat?
Right, the Firmament is described in the Bible as a solid "vault" and a "tent" with the earth beneath it. Have you the ability to describe a ball that way?
-
Without any smart comments or off topic remarks, can you point to the section which says the Earth is flat or the part that proves that just because there is/are firmaments, that means the Earth is flat?
Here you go:
.
(http://testingtheglobe.com/images/EnclosedEarth.jpg)
-
If you still can't figure out these scriptures, buy yourself a snow globe and then get back to me.
I nominate this for the most protestant sounding statement of the day.
-
I nominate this for the most protestant sounding statement of the day.
God created the flat earth. The fact that there are still obstinate people on CathInfo today, who are refusing to understand the flat earth scriptures, proves that they are the ones sounding Protestant-Anti-Catholic.
-
The Flat earth is described in Genesis and other chapters of the Holy Bible. If you still can't figure out these scriptures, buy yourself a snow globe and then get back to me.
.
The "flat" earth is found nowhere in the holy Bible, but it IS found in the un-holy Koran.
.
You must be a Mohammedan pretending to be Catholic, for deception purposes.
.
-
God created the flat earth.
.
In your dreams.
.
-
I did a word search on the word "flat" in the Bible. It is said 14 times and each and every instance it's used, it speaks of someone either lying flat on the ground or falling flat on the ground. Not once does it ever say anything about the shape of the world.
As to your response, all you did was post some passages from Scripture with some comments. This does not answer the questions I have for you. I don't see anywhere in what you posted anything that speaks of the shape of the Earth. Also, what makes you believe that when Scripture talks about the Firmament, that this means the Earth is flat?
even steven,
The reason that you can't find it there is simply because that it not the way the ancients looked at it. It was not the most important aspect of the enclosed creation we live in.
Today, that we are talking about creation in terms of the flatness of the earth is not the way we should be talking about it. It is more about all permanent aspects of Gods physical creation, which means the sun, moon, firmament, as well as the earth.
The focus is on the earth because the science of the non-curvature of the earth is easy to prove.
Have you looked at the videos concerning this non-curvature?
Here's a start if not
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
-
Tell that to your ilk here!
Listen, can you just calm down and look at this rationally. Just above I posted a link to the proves of the non curvature. Have you looked into this?
Don't just follow Neil, with his silly stupid memes please.
-
[<https://www.youtube.com/embed/3EspZtA7C3o?fs=1&start= (https://www.youtube.com/embed/3EspZtA7C3o?fs=1&start=)>:
"Carl Sagan - How we know the Earth is Round"]
Did you really just post a video from drug-using, well-known occultist, atheist and heliocentrist extraordinairre CARL SAGAN?
Are you having a senior moment??
The only aspect of MyrnaM's original posting that can be attributed to a "senior moment" was her awful lapse in judgement to infect CathInfo's </general-discussion/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)> with the tediously repetitive "Flat Earth" propaganda campaign that's already spreading like a cancer in CathInfo's </fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/)> subforum, e.g.:
• Sep. 08, 2017, 12:22 CDT: 9 of 1st 9 topics! 4 of 2nd 9.
• Sep. 09, 2017 (time not noted): 12 of 1st 12 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 10, 2017, 20:50 CDT: 11 of 1st 11 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 12, 2017, 12:00 CDT: 13 of 1st 15 topics.
• Sep. 19, 2017, 15:30 CDT: 14 of all 18 1st-index-page topics.
Isn't CathInfo clogged with enough of that Flat Earth Foolishness [†] in 1 subforum already!? It's [expletives deleted] overdue to be confined to a child forum for which that confinement is enforced by Matthew's ban hammer (to be wielded also by Mater Domenici as the need arises).
-------
Note †: Trademark applied for.
-
The only aspect of MyrnaM's original posting that can be attributed to a "senior moment" was her awful lapse in judgement to infect CathInfo's </general-discussion/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)> with the tediously repetitive "Flat Earth" propaganda campaign that's already spreading like a cancer in CathInfo's </fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/)> subforum, e.g.:
• Sep. 08, 2017, 12:22 CDT: 9 of 1st 9 topics! 4 of 2nd 9.
• Sep. 09, 2017 (time not noted): 12 of 1st 12 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 10, 2017, 20:50 CDT: 11 of 1st 11 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 12, 2017, 12:00 CDT: 13 of 1st 15 topics.
• Sep. 19, 2017, 15:30 CDT: 14 of all 18 1st-index-page topics.
Isn't CathInfo clogged with enough of that Flat Earth Foolishness [†] in 1 subforum already!? It's [expletives deleted] overdue to be confined to a child forum for which that confinement is enforced by Matthew's ban hammer (to be wielded also by Mater Domenici as the need arises).
-------
Note †: Trademark applied for.
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
-
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).[/b].
You've posted exactly the same text in several CathInfo topics by now haven't you? Doing so is a violation of long-established netiquette. Yet again, you posted it as obnoxiously oversized text, which tells onlookers that you aren't convincing readers, so you're resorting to de facto shouting. You still haven't explained that phrase about "without innovation(s)", which make it look as if you're setting an ambush. And you haven't yet corrected your use of an apostrophe for the English plural of "dogma", never mind the unjustified capitalization of the preceding adjectives.
But thank you for so promptly confirming my summary:
[...] the tediously repetitive "Flat Earth" propaganda campaign that's already spreading like a cancer in CathInfo's </fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/)> subforum [....]
-
You've posted exactly the same text in several CathInfo topics by now haven't you? Doing so is a violation of long-established netiquette. Yet again, you posted it as obnoxiously oversized text, which tells onlookers that you aren't convincing readers, so you're resorting to de facto shouting. You still haven't explained that phrase about "without innovation(s)", which make it look as if you're setting an ambush. And you haven't yet corrected your use of an apostrophe for the English plural of "dogma", never mind the unjustified capitalization of the preceding adjectives.
But thank you for so promptly confirming my summary:
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI&t=490s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI&t=490s)
-
The only aspect of MyrnaM's original posting that can be attributed to a "senior moment" was her awful lapse in judgement to infect CathInfo's </general-discussion/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)> with the tediously repetitive "Flat Earth" propaganda campaign that's already spreading like a cancer in CathInfo's </fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/)> subforum, e.g.:
• Sep. 08, 2017, 12:22 CDT: 9 of 1st 9 topics! 4 of 2nd 9.
• Sep. 09, 2017 (time not noted): 12 of 1st 12 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 10, 2017, 20:50 CDT: 11 of 1st 11 topics! 3 of 2nd 6.
• Sep. 12, 2017, 12:00 CDT: 13 of 1st 15 topics.
• Sep. 19, 2017, 15:30 CDT: 14 of all 18 1st-index-page topics.
Isn't CathInfo clogged with enough of that Flat Earth Foolishness [†] in 1 subforum already!? It's [expletives deleted] overdue to be confined to a child forum for which that confinement is enforced by Matthew's ban hammer (to be wielded also by Mater Domenici as the need arises).
-------
Note †: Trademark applied for.
I MyrnaM must agree with you and I apologize, it is just when I saw that video I wanted to share it, and I am glad I did, however you are so correct about the FlatEarthers spreading their beliefs all over this forum, and this used to be such a nice CATHOLIC forum.
I for one am out of here, at least out of this topic.
-
Yes, yes and yes to the below quote, no one could have expressed it better.
AES: I have watched many videos about flat earth. I have also watched many videos refuting flat earth. To me, it really doesn't matter. It is not part of my faith nor does anyone's salvation depend on it. My problem is that people are promoting it as if it's Dogma or even in Scripture. It's not in either. If one wants to claim the Earth is flat, who cares. I know many people in Church history believed that way but no one considered it a matter of religious importance. Don't associate it with religion. Yes, God's creation is important but that does not mean He revealed everything about it. What matters is the fact that He's real and He created it.
Most of the flat-earthers are very off-putting and don't really offer solid undeniable proof of it. This would tend to discredit any further evangelizing that flat earthers wanted to do in matters of religious importance, making it detrimental to the spreading of the Faith.
-
Thanks Myrna.
I am merely echoing the sentiments of St. Basil the Great. Below is the quote from him which the flat earthers have yet to show a Church Father which disagreed with his conclusions. The last few sentences is a pretty clear condemnation of those trying to use Scripture to prove the Earth is flat.
Did St. Basil ever write that the earth is a globe, or sphere? Is there any indication that he himself believed that the earth is a globe or sphere?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6ccHmiZjI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6ccHmiZjI)
-
Maybe he thought it is flat, maybe not. I DON'T CARE. He said Scripture is silent as to the shape of the Earth. He called those who try to prove the shape from Scripture, foolish. He said they have invented their own meaning of Scripture. This is a matter of science not religion. Those Church Fathers who believed it to be flat probably did so because it was the prevailing opinion of science at the time. Not because it was connected to the faith. In fact, I have not read a quote from the Church Fathers which mentioned the shape of the Earth, where they linked it to the Faith.
Show where the quote from St. Basil is contradicted by other Fathers.
You gave the impression that St. Basil himself condemned the idea of a flat earth. And, by default, anyone who condemns the idea of a flat earth always believes that the earth is round. You should not have given the impression that St. Basil condemned the idea of a flat earth.
St. Basil did not EVER say that the earth is not flat. He also never said that it isn't round. He did not make a judgment either way. He simply said that Catholics should not spend time speculating on it.
And yet you are spending time speculating on the subject, correct?
I don't have a problem with Catholics speculating or debating the subject. But you should, since you keep bringing up St. Basil and what he wrote.
-
Maybe he thought it is flat, maybe not. I DON'T CARE.
I don't think it's true that you don't care. You have debated against the idea of a flat earth on this thread and other threads.
-
Have I?
To tell you the truth, I don't remember. If I have it's because of the ridiculousness on the part of most of the Flat Earthers. The way they argue and the tactics they use. It's enough to be turned off of it in itself. Regardless if I have said pro-Globe statements or anti-flat statements, my point is not relevant to it. My point is flat earth should not be portrayed as having any significance in matters of religion at all.
I have researched it from the POV of believing it because it's scientific and also because it might be something of religious import. Maybe you could find a post where I have taken definitive sides from a Scientific standpoint, since you claimed I have. If you can find one, I'll admit to it, but I don't recall that I have.
Most of your posts on this thread argue against the idea of a flat earth. You don't recall any of your posts on this thread?
-
I have researched it from the POV of believing it because it's scientific and also because it might be something of religious import. Maybe you could find a post where I have taken definitive sides from a Scientific standpoint, since you claimed I have. If you can find one, I'll admit to it, but I don't recall that I have.
Wait.
.
.
Did you just say you believe the earth is flat??
-
I don't think it's true that you don't care. You have debated against the idea of a flat earth on this thread and other threads.
Meg I believe that he (AES) doesn't care about the shape of the earth, nor do I.
However, HE CARES THAT there comes a time when this subject has overtaken this Catholic forum and the shape of the earth according to "them" has evolved into almost a dogma to "them", something that we Catholics MUST agree with "them".
Ergo, not caring about the shape of the earth is not the same as CARING about their insistence that WE (who do not agree) better see the light since it is in the Bible. They interpreted the Bible according to their agenda, and by AES bringing up what St. Basel said is very much needed for Catholics to consider.
Why does St. Basel mentioned in this thread bother you so? This is a Catholic forum, right?
-
Meg I believe that he doesn't care about the shape of the earth, nor do I. However, there comes a time when this subject has overtaken this Catholic forum and the shape of the earth according to "them" has evolved into almost a dogma to "them", something that we Catholics MUST agree with "them".
Ergo, not caring about the shape of the earth is not the same as CARING about their insistence that WE (who do not agree) better see the light since it is in the Bible. They interpreted the Bible according to their agenda, and by AES bringing up what St. Basel said is very much needed for Catholics to consider.
I disagree. He does care, since he has argued against the idea of a flat earth on this thread.
There have been times when the subject of sedevacantism has taken over the forum. I don't recall that you've ever complained about that.
-
Here are my post from this thread and the points I was making.
Point: I want them to show where the Bible proves the Earth is flat.
Point: The Bible never mentions the word flat in relation to the shape of the Earth.
Point: Again, the Bible speaking of Flat Earth doesn't happen.
Point: Stating that the poster cannot prove what he is saying about the religious significance of flat Earth.
Point: Same as above
Point: Asking why a picture with Scriptural quotes on it, proves the Bible teaches the Earth is flat.
Point: Stating my displeasure with people passing off their flat Earth arguments as something that can be proved by Scripture etc...
Point: St. Basil's quote has nothing to do with whether the Earth is flat or not. Only that Scripture cannot be used to prove it.
Point: Same as above
There is nothing in this thread to show that I care whether or not the Earth is flat or that I'm arguing against flat Earth. I think that using religious guilt and trying to prove flat earth from Scripture or the Fathers is wrong and detrimental.
Most of your posts on this thread argue against a flat earth. St. Basil didn't do that.
The ancient Hebrews believed in a flat earth, based on scripture. Maybe you think that they were wrong to do so?
-
Now I must call into question your credibility and literacy. Almost every single post is arguing against using Scripture or the Fathers to prove flat earth or that flat earth has any relevance to religion.
I never said I want everybody to stop debating it from the science standpoint but to do it from a Scriptural standpoint, I must take the side of St. Basil.
Okay.... I went back and read all of your posts on this thread and you're right, to a certain extent. You are arguing against the flat earth FROM a basis of your belief that it is not in scripture.
The ancient Hebrews, however, would not agree with St. Basil that it is not in scripture. We will continue to debate from a scriptural POV. Are you aware that there have been Church Fathers who have believed in a flat earth?
-
Meg I believe that he (AES) doesn't care about the shape of the earth, nor do I.
However, HE CARES THAT there comes a time when this subject has overtaken this Catholic forum and the shape of the earth according to "them" has evolved into almost a dogma to "them", something that we Catholics MUST agree with "them".
Ergo, not caring about the shape of the earth is not the same as CARING about their insistence that WE (who do not agree) better see the light since it is in the Bible. They interpreted the Bible according to their agenda, and by AES bringing up what St. Basel said is very much needed for Catholics to consider.
Why does St. Basel mentioned in this thread bother you so? This is a Catholic forum, right?
Meg ... answer the question ... why does St. Basel bother you?
-
Meg ... answer the question ... why does St. Basel bother you?
Why should he bother me? What makes you ask that?
-
Meg...if you are going to make accusations against me, please read what I write.
I am fully aware that some or even most of the Fathers believed the Earth was flat, and I've already written as much. There are however, no quotes contradicting St. Basil's quote. I have not read anything from the Fathers attaching any religious significance to flat Earth. Their quotes usually just mention it in passing and never state that it can be proved from Scripture. Since this is the case we should most definitely attach a special importance to St. Basil's words. We should not use Scripture to suit our own interpretations. Since Scripture is SILENT as to the shape, we should refrain from using Scripture to prove the shape.
Is St. Basil's writing on the subject something that all Catholics are required to give assent to?
-
Meg I believe that he (AES) doesn't care about the shape of the earth, nor do I.
However, HE CARES THAT there comes a time when this subject has overtaken this Catholic forum and the shape of the earth according to "them" has evolved into almost a dogma to "them", something that we Catholics MUST agree with "them".
Ergo, not caring about the shape of the earth is not the same as CARING about their insistence that WE (who do not agree) better see the light since it is in the Bible. They interpreted the Bible according to their agenda, and by AES bringing up what St. Basel said is very much needed for Catholics to consider.
Why does St. Basel mentioned in this thread bother you so? This is a Catholic forum, right?
Do you believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s)?
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
-
Is St. Basil's writing on the subject something that all Catholics are required to give assent to?
Are we who do not agree with you something that all Catholics are required to give assent to?
That is the way your kind are so eager to desire, I find that suspicious especially since the flat earth is what Islam, Muslins find in their Quran. If they can convince Catholics the earth is flat they can convince Catholics the Pope is a Muslin another step for the NWO. :heretic:
The above post FROM TIE just proves, my point.
-
[to Myrna]
There have been times when the subject of sedevacantism has taken over the forum. I don't recall that you've ever complained about that.
ROFL
-
We have already proven the Earth is Flat. At this point, anyone on CathInfo who still claims the earth is a sphere after seeing so much evidence is OBSTINATE AND SACRELIGIOUS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI)
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
-
[To AES]
.
Wait.
.
.
Did you just say you believe the earth is flat??
You didn't answer my question.
-
ROFL
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Tradplorable (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=46240.msg567460#msg567460) Sedevacantism is very much a Catholic topic, the Vatican years ago prior to VII, even issued a STAMP commemorating the sedevacantist position. Today the stamp is a collector's item.
Therefore why complain about a Catholic stance, an issue on a Catholic forum.
ANSWER THAT!
-
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Tradplorable (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=46240.msg567460#msg567460)Sedevacantism is very much a Catholic topic, the Vatican years ago prior to VII, even issued a STAMP commemorating the sedevacantist position. Today the stamp is a collector's item.
Therefore why complain about a Catholic stance, an issue on a Catholic forum.
ANSWER THAT!
Tradplorable, YOU didn't answer my question.
-
Well required might not be the word. He is one of the greatest Doctors of the Church though and I don't think you can find any Doctor or Father that disagrees with this quote. This would make any Catholic pretty eager to give assent to it.
Are you saying that you would want to believe that Scripture can be used to try to prove anything one wants to prove? Do think he was wrong and that Scripture is not silent as to the shape of the Earth? If you do disagree with him, tell me the reason why. What other Doctor or Father can you use to prove that the shape of the Earth is proved by Scripture? Someone believing in it is not the same as proving they thought it had religious significance by the way.
We are not required to give assent to the writings of St. Basil, well-intentioned though he was.
The debate will continue, as long as the owner of the forum allows it. And there isn't anything you can do about it, except complain and disagree...which you are of course allowed to do.
Tell, me, do you believe in all of the infallible Dogmas of the Church, without innovation, as Truth is Eternal has been asking others here?
-
ROFL
Yeah, Myrna doesn't mind it when sedevacantism has, at times, taken over the forum.
I find it interesting that many of those who are against a flat earth are also sedevacantists. Not all, for sure, but many. What's up with that?
-
An Even Seven: we don't have to debate by your rules. Perhaps you should start up a sedevacantist anti-flat earth forum of your own, so that you can control the debates.
-
Is the flat earth theory a dogma of the faith?
No, it isn't. Why do you ask?
-
Doesn't debate have its own rules and terms in order to qualify as such, otherwise what is it?
-
An Even Seven: we don't have to debate by your rules. Perhaps you should start up a sedevacantist anti-flat earth forum of your own, so that you can control the debates.
Who, in all honesty, really believes that this is how anything really plays out here on "LoverofFlatEarth.com"?
-
Then it shouldn't be debated as such...
That's the point that AES is trying to make. If you weren't so argumentative, and actually paid attention to his posts, you'd be able to see through your rabid, anti-sedevacantist blinders.
What...we aren't allowed to debate anything that isn't a dogma? What Church teaches that? Must be a sedevacantist thing.
You're right about one thing though. I am definitely anti-sedevacantist.
I gotta run now and tend to things in the real world.
-
Developing a greater appreciation for the fairer also being the "quieter" instruction but, then again, seems most of the men are more girlish than the girls anymore.
-
I said I have researched it (flat earth) from a Scientific and Religious point of view. I did not say either way. I lean toward it is not flat. That does not mean I'm correct, but WHO CARES, it does not have any real significance in this life. We can still go to heaven if we believe it's a globe and no one can prove it's flat from Scripture.
(https://pics.me.me/so-youre-saying-theres-a-chance-memegenerator-net-23624435.png)
-
Myrna and even steven,
I can understand that with the amount of threads on the subject and fluff in them, it can be hard to find proof that the earth is flat.
Here are some videos to start you off.
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
https://youtu.be/VqD2a-zifYE
https://youtu.be/TTP9i1mUDHM
And the Fathers of the Church:
Lactentius in the Divine institutes, Chapter 24 :
they thought that the world is round like a ball, and
they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of
the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have
set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to
the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after
the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous
images, which they said were constellations.
....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have
once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain
thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss
philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake
to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on
false subjects.
(http://scripturecatholic.com)
St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Hebrews 8:1
“Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it is spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.”
Quoted by Cosmas.
St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
God "[had] established the great mass of the land and had gathered it together above the seas and rivers, so that the heaviest element [earth] hangs over the lighter weight waters by the will of God, who like a king sits above the circle of the earth. There are some who assert that this mass is like a point and globe...What, then, will the land be over ...?"
Original latin here
Methodius:
“Resuming then, let us first lay bare, in speaking of those things according to our power, the imposture of those who boast as though they alone had comprehended from what forms the heaven is arranged, in accordance with the hypothesis of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. For *they* say that the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well‐rounded globe, the earth having a central point. For its outline being spherical, it is necessary, they say, since there are the same distances of the parts, that the earth should be the center of the universe, around which as being older, the heaven is whirling. For if a circuмference is described from the central point, which seems to be a circle, ‐ for it is impossible for a circle to be described without a point, and it is impossible for a circle to be without a point, ‐ surely the earth consisted before all, they say, in a state of chaos and disorganization. Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
-
Myrna and even steven,
I can understand that with the amount of threads on the subject and fluff in them, it can be hard to find proof that the earth is flat.
Here are some videos to start you off.
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
https://youtu.be/VqD2a-zifYE
https://youtu.be/TTP9i1mUDHM
.
You forgot to mention those silly amateur videos have already been thoroughly debunked from start to finish.
.
Of course, you would deliberately leave that part out because you're still trying to deceive the gullible.
.
Having fun?
.
-
HAHA. Not with people like you explaining it.
Hey, at least I have a sense of humor about it. ;)
-
Most of your posts on this thread argue against a flat earth. St. Basil didn't do that.
The ancient Hebrews believed in a flat earth, based on scripture. Maybe you think that they were wrong to do so?
.
AnEvenSeven is attempting to bring the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of flat-earthers to their attention, in hopes they will stop making themselves look so foolish.
.
But that presumes they would have the humility to consider they've been wrong all along.
.
You will never find anything in Sacred Scripture that describes the earth as being "flat" nor will you ever find the Church teaching flat-earthism.
.
There are writings of the saints and fathers of the Church that can be misinterpreted to appear as though they were trying to teach flat-earthism, but let's be realistic. If they really had thought that the physical shape of the earth is a matter of faith or morals, don't you suppose they might have said so at some point? They had centuries to say it, yet, NOT A WORD.
.
The real disservice flat-earthers are committing here is they are (perhaps unwittingly) dragging traditional Catholicism down with their inane and patently false statements and lousy argumentation. They don't answer questions, even when asked repeatedly. They abandon entire segments of this and other forums when they find competent resistance to their transparently ludicrous nonsense.
.
They do not address the substance of the issues and instead attack the person who presents the message.
.
They jump topic, ostensibly answering a question when in fact providing what might qualify as a response to a DIFFERENT question, which was NOT asked.
.
They resort to garbage propositions such as the sun is an electric light bulb, there are no such things as sunspots, the moon is translucent because you can see stars shining through it, the sun shining on the moon is not what makes the moon's phases appear to us on earth, the moon did not move in front of the sun during the Great American Eclipse of August 21st, 2017, "globe-earthers" have no explanation for solar eclipses, and last but by far not the least "the horizon always rises to the level of the observer."
.
The horizon rather stays exactly where it is, and the eye of the observer being unaware of what level line of sight is, casts its direction downward toward the horizon where it sees in the receding distance where the earth's curvature quietly drops down out of sight.
.
-
Hey, at least I have a sense of humor about it. ;)
.
And you so much enjoy practicing it by laughing at yourself. :jester:
.
-
.
And you so much enjoy practicing it by laughing at yourself. :jester:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI)
-
We have already proven the Earth is Flat. At this point, anyone on CathInfo who still claims the earth is a sphere after seeing so much evidence is OBSTINATE AND SACRELIGIOUS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNpw70tEzwI)
The majority of people on Cathinfo.com who refuse to believe that the earth is flat also do not believe all Infallibly Defined Dogmas’ of the Catholic Church without innovation(s).
.
You have "proved" no such thing, and you know it.
.
Anyone can see the earth is a spheroid merely by looking at the moon in its various phases, and comparing what you see in one part of the planet to what you see at the same time from another part of the planet.
.
It is flat-earthers who are the obstinately sacreligious transgressors when they attempt to drag the Church into a topic that is not germane to same.
.
You have no idea what "the majority of people on CathInfo.com" think due to the fact that you only see and hear what you want to see and hear and you ignore all the rest, just like the Pharisees of Our Lord's time who chose to look the other way when He gave them miracles, so He stopped giving them miracles because He knew that the more miracles they received and refused to believe the worse became their obstinacy and sin condemning them further into a deeper place of punishment in hell, so out of mercy He refused to give them more of what they asked for because it would only then further contribute to their eternal damnation.
.
After all this you continue to erroneously place a plural possessive apostrophe where it doesn't belong and improperly capitalize words.
.
In other words, you exhibit the inability to learn when you are wrong, and the incapacity to make self-correction.
.
-
.
AnEvenSeven is attempting to bring the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of flat-earthers to their attention, in hopes they will stop making themselves look so foolish.
.
But that presumes they would have the humility to consider they've been wrong all along.
.
You will never find anything in Sacred Scripture that describes the earth as being "flat" nor will you ever find the Church teaching flat-earthism.
.
There are writings of the saints and fathers of the Church that can be misinterpreted to appear as though they were trying to teach flat-earthism, but let's be realistic. If they really had thought that the physical shape of the earth is a matter of faith or morals, don't you suppose they might have said so at some point? They had centuries to say it, yet, NOT A WORD.
.
The real disservice flat-earthers are committing here is they are (perhaps unwittingly) dragging traditional Catholicism down with their inane and patently false statements and lousy argumentation. They don't answer questions, even when asked repeatedly. They abandon entire segments of this and other forums when they find competent resistance to their transparently ludicrous nonsense.
.
They do not address the substance of the issues and instead attack the person who presents the message.
.
They jump topic, ostensibly answering a question when in fact providing what might qualify as a response to a DIFFERENT question, which was NOT asked.
.
They resort to garbage propositions such as the sun is an electric light bulb, there are no such things as sunspots, the moon is translucent because you can see stars shining through it, the sun shining on the moon is not what makes the moon's phases appear to us on earth, the moon did not move in front of the sun during the Great American Eclipse of August 21st, 2017, "globe-earthers" have no explanation for solar eclipses, and last but by far not the least "the horizon always rises to the level of the observer."
.
The horizon rather stays exactly where it is, and the eye of the observer being unaware of what level line of sight is, casts its direction downward toward the horizon where it sees in the receding distance where the earth's curvature quietly drops down out of sight.
.
Though the Flat Earth is not explicit in Scripture, it is worth noting that quite a few actual defined teachings of the Catholic Church are not explicit in scripture. Teachings such as:
* Purgatory
* Indulgences
* Sacrament of Penance
* The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
* The Immaculate Conception
* Our Lady's Assumption
* Papal Infallibility
The above teachings are not explicit in Scripture.
To reiterate: Even though the concept of the Flat Earth was also not explicit in Scripture, it was a belief generally passed down in the Church through tradition, though not defined as an actual teaching of the Church.
-
Though the Flat Earth is not explicit in Scripture, it is worth noting that quite a few actual defined teachings of the Catholic Church are not explicit in scripture. Teachings such as:
* Purgatory
* Indulgences
* Sacrament of Penance
* The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
* The Immaculate Conception
* Our Lady's Assumption
* Papal Infallibility
The above teachings are not explicit in Scripture.
To reiterate: Even though the concept of the Flat Earth was also not explicit in Scripture, it was a belief generally passed down in the Church through tradition, though not defined as an actual teaching of the Church.
Through tradition, what tradition the Islamic tradition?
-
An Even Seven: apparently you have difficulty in reading comprehension. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
-
Go back and read what I wrote.
If you address what I actually wrote in a honest manner, I will respond.
-
You are putting FE in the same or similar category with those other Dogmas you listed.
All that is contained in the Bible is dogma. There is no part of it that is untrue, and there is no part of it that does not require your assent.
Your problem is single: you reject the parts of the Bible that deal with the structure and nature of His Creation.
-
All that is contained in the Bible is dogma. There is no part of it that is untrue, and there is no part of it that does not require your assent.
Your problem is single: you reject the parts of the Bible that deal with the structure and nature of His Creation.
Conflation and equivocation alert: that nonsense has gone on far too long.
"But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) appertaining to faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm), revealed by God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) for the acceptance of the faithful (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm). It might be described briefly as a revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) defined by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) — but private revelations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm) do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) or by a general council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm), while a revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) and to the authoritative teaching of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)."
newadvent.org "Dogma", Definition of para. 4 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm)
emph. DZ P
-
Through tradition, what tradition the Islamic tradition?
God created the flat earth. You hate the whole of God's creation.
-
God created the flat earth. You hate the whole of God's creation.
Perhaps a little less Frisbee, and a little more Moral Theology is in order here.
You sin, and you apparently don't give a rat's, so you sin again and most "boldly" like your also apparent father in the "faith", Martin Lucifer.
You can't just do this with impunity.
You don't "just" sin either, but sin gravely if not mortally which would explain a great deal.
-
Perhaps a little less Frisbee, and a little more Moral Theology is in order here.
You sin, and you apparently don't give a rat's, so you sin again and most "boldly" like your also apparent father in the "faith", Martin Lucifer.
You can't just do this with impunity.
You don't "just" sin either, but sin gravely if not mortally which would explain a great deal.
It is a mortal sin for you to blaspheme God for creating the flat earth.
-
It is sad when you find yourself hoping that someone actually is severely retarded.
-
Nail in the coffin!
Summer in the Arctic...
https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco (https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco)
Summer in the Antarctic...
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY (https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY)
-
Nail in the coffin!
Summer in the Arctic...
https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco (https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco)
Summer in the Antarctic...
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY (https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY)
Where there's bad will there's no way, even with a coffin made of nails.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZfCHKkvnPM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZfCHKkvnPM)
-
Nail in the coffin!
Summer in the Arctic...
https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco (https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco)
Summer in the Antarctic...
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY (https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY)
"Yussee, what they don't want you to know is that the arctic floats under the Sun! Incredible!"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiCOE4AZCE0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiCOE4AZCE0)
-
Time to put away your crayons and crawl out of the dungeons of fantasy land and take a look at REALITY...
-
Nail in the coffin!
Summer in the Arctic...
https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco (https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco)
Summer in the Antarctic...
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY (https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY)
This makes you look semi-retarded.
How a person such as yourself can be so incapable of comprehending the flat earth model is amazing.
https://youtu.be/R52_PdZlSq8
-
This makes you look semi-retarded.
How a person such as yourself can be so incapable of comprehending the flat earth model is amazing.
https://youtu.be/R52_PdZlSq8
It makes one look fully retarded when using a representation of that which they oppose to demonstrate that which they believe.
Why is it so hard to represent two dimensions in two dimensions?
"Urf, thuh vynul frunteer..."
-
This makes you look semi-retarded.
How a person such as yourself can be so incapable of comprehending the flat earth model is amazing.
https://youtu.be/R52_PdZlSq8
Do you realize that the video you posted does not support your supposition?
-
Do you realize that the video you posted does not support your supposition?
How so? It's the USGS flat earth map.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Cancer, it' summer in the north.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Capricorn, it's winter in the north.
.
Simple.
.
This is how you know the sun is NOT 93,000,000 miles away: when the sun is only a few thousand miles further south over Capricorn, we have winter. The sun has to be CLOSE to keep you warm. At a distance of 93,000,000 miles a difference of only a few thousand would have no effect whatsoever, and would not give you any change of seasons.
(https://synchromiss.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tropic-of-cancer-tropic-of-capricorn.png?w=550)
-
How so? It's the USGS flat earth map.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Cancer, it' summer in the north.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Capricorn, it's winter in the north.
.
Simple.
.
This is how you know the sun is NOT 93,000,000 miles away: when the sun is only a few thousand miles further south over Capricorn, we have winter. The sun has to be CLOSE to keep you warm. At a distance of 93,000,000 miles a difference of only a few thousand would have no effect whatsoever, and would not give you any change of seasons.
(https://synchromiss.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tropic-of-cancer-tropic-of-capricorn.png?w=550)
:facepalm: You just can't make this kind of stuff up!
-
:facepalm: You just can't make this kind of stuff up!
With all due, try telling that to them.
"Top marks!"
-
How so? It's the USGS flat earth map.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Cancer, it' summer in the north.
.
When the sun is circuiting above the Tropic of Capricorn, it's winter in the north.
.
Simple.
.
This is how you know the sun is NOT 93,000,000 miles away: when the sun is only a few thousand miles further south over Capricorn, we have winter. The sun has to be CLOSE to keep you warm. At a distance of 93,000,000 miles a difference of only a few thousand would have no effect whatsoever, and would not give you any change of seasons.
(https://synchromiss.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tropic-of-cancer-tropic-of-capricorn.png?w=550)
Let me help you..... you responded to two videos (actual irrefutable time lapse videos) that prove that the sun doesn’t set in the summer of the Arctic nor the Antarctic. This is impossible if the Earth is flat. You responded by posting a flat earth model video about "seasons" that is in contradiction to the time laspe videos.
-
silly empirical data... meanwhile, let's rip on NASA for shady images of "impossible" things.
-
Nail in the coffin!
Summer in the Arctic...
https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco (https://youtu.be/s7JBY74Snco)
Summer in the Antarctic...
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY (https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY)
I kind of found the first video sort of suspenseful, and kept waiting for the sun to set but it never did.
This same phenomena can be seen in Alaska and Finland, etc.
-
Let me help you..... you responded to two videos (actual irrefutable time lapse videos) that prove that the sun doesn’t set in the summer of the Arctic nor the Antarctic. This is impossible if the Earth is flat. You responded by posting a flat earth model video about "seasons" that is in contradiction to the time laspe videos.
I said: “This is impossible if the Earth is flat". This is actually wrong, the sun would never set anywhere on a flat Earth. In any event the contradiction is still present and exposes the flat Earth theory as a complete illogical mess.
-
.
You forgot to mention those silly amateur videos have already been thoroughly debunked from start to finish.
.
Of course, you would deliberately leave that part out because you're still trying to deceive the gullible.
.
Having fun?
.
Neil,
They have not been debunked at all. Please provide references of this so called debunking. Everybody is still waiting for you to explain where the missing 500 feet went to in the first video. You just didn't respond, so it stands to reason you won't even look at the other two.
These provide proof that there is no curvature on the flat earth.
Being paid, most likely, for your contributions here on Cathinfo, you have a vested interest in saying silly, unsubstantiated things like this. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
-
I said: “This is impossible if the Earth is flat". This is actually wrong, the sun would never set anywhere on a flat Earth. In any event the contradiction is still present and exposes the flat Earth theory as a complete illogical mess.
You must be new here.
The sun is never visible over the entire flat plane of the earth. This is due to the law of perspective and has been discussed a lot.
The sun is moving in a level line above the flat plane on a circuit (a circle).
.
.
.
See 1:16-1:29.
.
.
.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
-
You must be new here.
The sun is never visible over the entire flat plane of the earth. This is due to the law of perspective and has been discussed a lot.
The sun is moving in a level line above the flat plane on a circuit (a circle).
.
.
.
See 1:16-1:29.
.
.
.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
If you look at the older flat Earth threads you will see I've debated this a year or two ago. I knew you would ignore the 24 hour sun videos when I posted the above and that you would bring up that idiotic, nonsensical junk science about perspective....you have nothing on Al Gore.
Sorry to be harsh on you, but you are spreading error and you are making traditionalists look ridiculous....now please explain the Arctic and Antarctic videos that show that the sun never sets in the summer.....
-
If you look at the older flat Earth threads you will see I've debated this a year or two ago. I knew you would ignore the 24 hour sun videos when I posted the above and that you would bring up that idiotic, nonsensical junk science about perspective....you have nothing on Al Gore.
Sorry to be harsh on you, but you are spreading error and you are making traditionalists look ridiculous....now please explain the Arctic and Antarctic videos that show that the sun never sets in the summer.....
Because this can only be done in the extreme north (Arctic) or extreme south (Antarctic) since the viewer is able to track the sun its entire 360 degree circuit due to the sun's proximity and the better sight lines for the horizon. This is very straightforward.
-
Because this can only be done in the extreme north (Arctic) or extreme south (Antarctic) since the viewer is able to track the sun its entire 360 degree circuit due to the sun's proximity and the better sight lines for the horizon. This is very straightforward.
But, according to your map, the Arctic is found in the middle of the Earth not at either extreme......give it up.
-
Neil,
They have not been debunked at all. Please provide references of this so called debunking. Everybody is still waiting for you to explain where the missing 500 feet went to in the first video. You just didn't respond, so it stands to reason you won't even look at the other two.
These provide proof that there is no curvature on the flat earth.
Being paid, most likely, for your contributions here on Cathinfo, you have a vested interest in saying silly, unsubstantiated things like this. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
.
Yes, they most certainly HAVE been debunked from start to finish, kiwiboy-with-alzheimer's.
If you can't remember my earlier responses where I went to the trouble of repeating my annotations of those silly videos, why then would you be able to recognize them if I were to do it yet again?
.
You don't hear my answer the first time, or the second time so why would you hear it the third time?
.
There is no "missing 500 feet" as you say, the elevation above sea level at the top of the hill is not included in the calculation for the view at a distance, and the proximity of the water to the shoreline videos is not recognized in regards to how it obscures the view of the distant hills. This is why a sailor climbed into the crow's nest to see afar off, because from up there he got a view that those down on the deck were incapable of getting. Ships with crow's nests were able to win naval battles, so that's why they had them and used them. On a "flat" earth a crow's nest wouldn't make enough difference to make it an advantage.
.
These videos provide no proof whatsoever because they're cheap, amateurish nonsense.
.
Who is paying you for your posts here? Why do you bother? If you were not being paid you would have to be an idiot.
.
Okay, then maybe that's the answer. I rest my case.
.
You're just flailing in the wind, accomplishing nothing, and being rude in the process.
.
-
.
Yes, they most certainly HAVE been debunked from start to finish, kiwiboy-with-alzheimer's.
If you can't remember my earlier responses where I went to the trouble of repeating my annotations of those silly videos, why then would you be able to recognize them if I were to do it yet again?
.
You don't hear my answer the first time, or the second time so why would you hear it the third time?
.
There is no "missing 500 feet" as you say, the elevation above sea level at the top of the hill is not included in the calculation for the view at a distance, and the proximity of the water to the shoreline videos is not recognized in regards to how it obscures the view of the distant hills. This is why a sailor climbed into the crow's nest to see afar off, because from up there he got a view that those down on the deck were incapable of getting. Ships with crow's nests were able to win naval battles, so that's why they had them and used them. On a "flat" earth a crow's nest wouldn't make enough difference to make it an advantage.
.
These videos provide no proof whatsoever because they're cheap, amateurish nonsense.
.
Who is paying you for your posts here? Why do you bother? If you were not being paid you would have to be an idiot.
.
Okay, then maybe that's the answer. I rest my case.
.
You're just flailing in the wind, accomplishing nothing, and being rude in the process.
.
If I ask you what time you are going to the mall today and you say "the sky is blue", you have responded to my question, but you haven't answered it. It is the same with you Neil. You make a response but don't actually answer the question.
Everything is included in the calculation and you can see that full well. You are now lying through your teeth. Unless you are trying to refer to the picture taken from on high, which is only for comparative purposes, in which case you are being deceptive in the extreme.
Either way, you are not facing up to the facts; We should not be seeing these objects.
Don't know how you do your job at NASA well with this level ignoring hard facts.
-
.
Certainly one of the several flat-earther experts here on this thread can answer the questions.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Why is the moon dark on the bottom side, here (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/catholic-intro-video-to-flat-earth/msg568238/#msg568238), where someone in Australia would see it?
.
How does someone in Australia see a full moon when they look up and see a dark moon?
.
Alternatively (and most likely!) you can run away from these questions like you have done so often recently.
.
Maybe these questions are just too difficult for you. If so, just say so, and then I'll stop asking them.
.
-
If I ask you what time you are going to the mall today and you say "the sky is blue", you have responded to my question, but you haven't answered it. It is the same with you Neil. You make a response but don't actually answer the question.
Everything is included in the calculation and you can see that full well. You are now lying through your teeth. Unless you are trying to refer to the picture taken from on high, which is only for comparative purposes, in which case you are being deceptive in the extreme.
Either way, you are not facing up to the facts; We should not be seeing these objects.
Don't know how you do your job at NASA well with this level ignoring hard facts.
.
You are either falling for the deception of the author or you don't know how to use the calculations any better than the author did.
.
Everything is NOT included in the calculation, and perhaps you CAN'T see that full well, I don't know, but in any case, you're missing out.
.
You miss out and you like it that way because then you can run on and on with your unsupportable self-deception of flat-earthism which is your golden-calf-false-god idol, which you worship.
.
You worship your false god fantasy while ignoring the obvious right before your eyes, and refuse to recognize the obvious all the while claiming something else is "obvious" with your nose-to-the-canvas outlook unable to see the big picture.
.
God does not require us to believe something when our 5 senses and our mind reveal to us the contrary.
.
We are not required to deny reality and believe in a subjective fantasy, regardless of WHAT it is.
.
And one such subjective fantasy is flat-earthism, which cannot be supported by the simplest of observations.
.
-
If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circuмference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
Bedford Level Experiment: Proof of no curvature
-
If we were living on a spinning globe airplane's would constantly have to dip their noses down every few minutes to compensate for the curvature of the earth (with a circuмference of 25,000 miles the earth would be constantly curving at the speed of an airplane). In reality however, they never do this! They learn how to fly based on a level flat plane. Also if the earth was spinning the airplane's going west would get to their destination much faster since the earth is spinning in the opposite direction. If the atmosphere is spinning with the earth then airplanes flying west would have to fly faster than the earth's spin to reach its destination. In reality, the earth is flat and airplanes just fly level and reach their destination easily because the earth is not moving.
-
The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.
-
Neil,
They have not been debunked at all. Please provide references of this so called debunking. Everybody is still waiting for you to explain where the missing 500 feet went to in the first video. You just didn't respond, so it stands to reason you won't even look at the other two.
These provide proof that there is no curvature on the flat earth.
Being paid, most likely, for your contributions here on Cathinfo, you have a vested interest in saying silly, unsubstantiated things like this. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
.
Okay, kiwiboy-with-alzheimer's, here you are for the THIRD TIME, the notes I provided for you two weeks ago:
.
.
I did reply to questions about this video, with the people walking down the stairs and the measurement from Miramar Beach to Anacapa island.
.
At the start, it begins with a very important inaccuracy, where it has the Camera Height at 3 feet. This is obviously false. You can easily see that the camera is on the sandy beach with rocky pebbles, high above the surf line. The camera might be 3 feet above the sand, but that place on the sand is at least 8 feet above the water level of the ocean, so the camera height is more like 11 feet, not 3 feet.
.
For the next 2 minutes, the video uses this fake beginning as a basis for drawing conclusions, but they're all fake because it started with a wrong elevation.
.
At minute 2 he could easily have had a helper hold a long stick vertically standing at the water's edge (in surveying it's called a Philadelphia Rod - see insert pic) going up to the line of the horizon, and then go measure how high that is (or read the markings on the rod). He doesn't do that because it would show that the camera's height is much greater than the 3 feet that he erroneously claims it is.
.
At 2:47, without explaining what's going on, he suddenly shows footage shot from the top of a hill somewhere and has, "I will compare with this image from 560 ft elevation view." Pause the video at minute 3:00 and pay close attention to the low point of the island on the right side, between West Anacapa and Middle Anacapa. You can clearly see the land of the islands coming to a low point and briefly touching the water line, which is the small channel between the two islands. This is the portion of the shot that he eliminates in a few seconds by scrolling up...
.
Then, to compound his error, at minute 3:13 you can see how he scrolls up the picture to eliminate the lower portion of his view, cutting off the bottom part of the island that you could easily see a few seconds before, and he pretends that's the water line viewed from a higher elevation at the beach. But it's not. It is his cropped picture that cuts off the part you could see plainly a few seconds before, at 3:00. Then the cropped picture wiggles up and down for all to see, and at at 3:32 he labels his arbitrary image "View from 560 ft. elevation" when it's not that at all. He just isn't showing the bottom 500 feet of the island!! He has falsified his own view to make it appear to support his bias. It's so obviously a deliberate distortion.
.
Then he says, "LET'S TRY SEA LEVEL" at 3:40, and starts walking down to the water's edge. At 3:57 (pause it to see) halfway down to the water, the top of a surfer's head is touching the horizon line at the distant island's base. That is the point at which the camera is 5 feet above the water, because the surfer's head is 5 feet above the water's surface -- he is standing on his surfboard with his feet at the water's level and he's about 5 feet tall.
.
At 4:03 he puts his camera down on the sand and you can easily see how the standing surfer out in the water is now with his head up against the sky. The surfer did not rise up, but the camera did lower down, and this lower angle of view changes the appearance of the surfer against the water. You can't see the water surface anymore because it's hidden by the breaking waves.
.
Then at 4:15 the same surfer is shown falling off his surfboard, so you know it's not fake. This is real footage, which is nice to see.
.
At 4:29 the wave washes up toward the camera and you can see the top of the water. The camera is obviously higher than the water's surface (mean sea level) or else you wouldn't be able to see the surface. The fact is, as the waves rush up the sand, the water moves uphill, and the furthest extent of the water's edge is ABOVE sea level by a few feet. This is always the case on the shoreline with breaking waves.
.
If he put his camera down at sea level it would get ruined by the water covering it up, and we wouldn't be seeing any picture at all. Like a periscope on a submarine that isn't quite out of the water yet or gets splashed by a wave.
.
All the way past minute 6 the camera shows views of the water's surface out to sea, proving that the camera is at 3' elevation, or even higher. But he pretends it's at 0, which is clearly false.
.
At 6:00 to 6:08 a surfer paddles past the camera's line of sight, with his head and body entirely below the water's surface in the distance. You would not be able to see that if the camera were at water level. The camera is above water level by at least 3 feet, perhaps 4 feet.
.
.
.
But you're not paying attention,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.
ANOTHER BAD FRUIT OF THE FLAT-EARTH POSITION:
THE INABILITY TO LEARN.
.
-
If we were living on a spinning globe airplane's would constantly have to dip their noses down every few minutes to compensate for the curvature of the earth (with a circuмference of 25,000 miles the earth would be constantly curving at the speed of an airplane). In reality however, they never do this! They learn how to fly based on a level flat plane. Also if the earth was spinning the airplane's going west would get to their destination much faster since the earth is spinning in the opposite direction. If the atmosphere is spinning with the earth then airplanes flying west would have to fly faster than the earth's spin to reach its destination. In reality, the earth is flat and airplanes just fly level and reach their destination easily because the earth is not moving.
.
You sound exactly like a Moslem here. Are you a Moslem?
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.islamophobiawatch.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FNew-Daily-Patriot-posts-Zakir-Naik-hoax.png&sp=1786865b10828d44389aae20aeca80de)
.
-
.
Why are Moslems insulted when someone says the earth is not flat?
.
Moslems are insulted because they believe they have to FACE MECCA several times every day to pray, and if the earth were flat, facing Mecca would be a simple matter of asking your local imam which way it is to Mecca, and after he tells you, then that's the way you have to face every day when you're in that region.
.
But with a spherical earth, the direction to Mecca can be rather controversial, because depending on how you want to explain it, you can say you're facing Mecca in just about any direction. Some directions might require you to travel several times around the world in a spiral fashion but eventually you'll be arriving at Mecca. You have the great circle route, or you have the method by which any two points on the globe's surface can be connected with an array of circular and/or semi-circular meridian-like lines, the layout of which is rotating about the two points. Certainly it's very simple to imagine if Mecca were at the South Pole and the Moslem far away were at the North Pole, any direction he faces would be the correct direction to Mecca. These two points are on opposite sides of the planet earth, and similarly there can be the same relationship drawn up for any two circuмpolar points on the spherical planet. But the route you're taking to Mecca doesn't necessarily have to be a great circle route, which (by the way) traveling would require you to constantly change your compass bearing unless you're on the same meridian. If, for example, you're on the same parallel, you could be facing Mecca by simple facing east -- or west! So then some Moslems would be facing to the left and some to the right and then they'd be facing each other instead of (properly) facing into each other's rear ends!! That would not be very much in accord with traditional practice whereby all Moslems must be facing into the rear ends of other Moslems except perhaps for the ones in the front row. In any event, being on the same parallel would mean you face, let's say west, and if you were to travel that way, you would not be going over a great circle route but rather a circuмference somewhat smaller than the great circle route, depending on how far Mecca is from the equator.
.
The point is, Mohammedans want the earth to be flat (a falsehood) so that they can practice their false religion (a falsehood).
.
-
Because this can only be done in the extreme north (Arctic) or extreme south (Antarctic) since the viewer is able to track the sun its entire 360 degree circuit due to the sun's proximity and the better sight lines for the horizon. This is very straightforward.
.
That's not "straightforward," that's retarded.
.
It has nothing to do with the sun's "proximity" but rather it is in regards to the angle of the sun's orbit above the equator, regardless of the distance to the sun.
.
In the summer (northern hemisphere) the sun orbits the earth at the tropic of cancer, and from that position is barely visible from the position of the north pole.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.britannica.com%2Feb-media%2F23%2F72223-004-18CAA9AC.jpg&sp=ef0b07f153d3f25f65c516e1510e856e)
.
There is no model of flat-earthism that explains this relationship of the sun's light to the earth's surface.
.
According to flat-earthism (a falsehood) the sun cannot illuminate half of the earth's surface at ALL TIMES as it does in the diagrams above.
.
Another way we know the world is round!
-
.
There is no model of flat-earthism that explains this relationship of the sun's light to the earth's surface.
.
Holy moly, you are stubborn AND dumb like a mule.
The angles of the sun's rays and perspective are fully explained in the video by P-brane. But I suppose you don't pay attention to anything a flat earther posts.
.
,..
The sun's angles at sunset appear "sideways" to you at your location due to perspective, because at both dawn and sunset the sun is at its GREATEST distance from you, e.g. 1-10 degrees, whereras at noon the sun is at its closest distance to you at its zenith, i.e. 90 degrees.
.
It is the same thing as when you look at a protractor: *you* are at "zero". Dawn in the east is at 1-10 degrees, noon is at 90 degrees, and sunset is in the west at 180 degrees.
.
It is the exact same principle in both the spring and the fall. Ever wonder why the quality of the suns' light is SO HARSH and seems to be coming at you SIDEWAYS at those times of year?? It's because they sun is LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY further to the north (spring) and south (fall) and so the angles are lower due to the greater distance.
.
You could literally demonstrate this for yourself with your salt shaker on the surface of your dinner table with a protractor, if you do not understand.
-
.
Certainly one of the several flat-earther experts here on this thread can answer the questions.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
[size={defaultattr}]
Why is the moon dark on the bottom side, here (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/catholic-intro-video-to-flat-earth/msg568238/#msg568238), where someone in Australia would see it?
.
How does someone in Australia see a full moon when they look up and see a dark moon?
.
Alternatively (and most likely!) you can run away from these questions like you have done so often recently.
.
Maybe these questions are just too difficult for you. If so, just say so, and then I'll stop asking them.
.
[/size]
.
Notice no answers from flat-earthers.
.
They really are repulsed by these questions, like they're radioactive or giving off terrible sound waves.
.
They must be really scary.
.
-
.
It has nothing to do with the sun's "proximity" but rather it is in regards to the angle of the sun's orbit above the equator, regardless of the distance to the sun.
.
In the summer (northern hemisphere) the sun orbits the earth at the tropic of cancer, and from that position is barely visible from the position of the north pole.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.britannica.com%2Feb-media%2F23%2F72223-004-18CAA9AC.jpg&sp=ef0b07f153d3f25f65c516e1510e856e)
.
You cannot accept this hybrid model of heliocentrism and geocentrism. The earth is NOT tilted. It is stable and DOES NOT MOVE. Straight from God's Word in the Bible.
Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. Ps. 104:5
And the sun in your heliocentric/93-Millions hybrid would be whizzing by us at 24 MILLION miles per hour. That is NOT what you see in the sky.
-
.
According to flat-earthism (a falsehood) the sun cannot illuminate half of the earth's surface at ALL TIMES as it does in the diagrams above.
.
AGAIN
.
.
You did not watch the video:
.
.
Clearly animated at 1:18
.
.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
-
Holy moly, you are stubborn AND dumb like a mule.
The angles of the sun's rays and perspective are fully explained in the video by P-brane. But I suppose you don't pay attention to anything a flat earther posts.
.
,..
The sun's angles at sunset appear "sideways" to you at your location due to perspective, because at both dawn and sunset the sun is at its GREATEST distance from you, e.g. 1-10 degrees, whereras at noon the sun is at its closest distance to you at its zenith, i.e. 90 degrees.
.
It is the same thing as when you look at a protractor: *you* are at "zero". Dawn in the east is at 1-10 degrees, noon is at 90 degrees, and sunset is in the west at 180 degrees.
.
It is the exact same principle in both the spring and the fall. Ever wonder why the quality of the suns' light is SO HARSH and seems to be coming at you SIDEWAYS at those times of year?? It's because they sun is LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY further to the north (spring) and south (fall) and so the angles are lower due to the greater distance.
.
You could literally demonstrate this for yourself with your salt shaker on the surface of your dinner table with a protractor, if you do not understand.
.
Anyone reading your reply, above, would have no idea what the topic is. Because you are not addressing the topic, as usual.
.
You resort to uncharitable name-calling instead. Shame on you.
.
Whether the protractor is seen at 0 degrees, 90 degrees or 180 degrees the distance to the center is identical.
.
The sun cannot illuminate half the earth at all times in the flat-earth model as you say it does, and the sun would always be visible all over the earth when it's immediately above it, as you claim.
.
Now answer the questions you keep avoiding -- or keep avoiding them and thereby answer by saying you won't answer.
.
-
AGAIN
.
.
You did not watch the video: [Yes, I did watch the video -- but you did not answer the questions -- see above]
.
.
Clearly animated at 1:18
.
.
https://youtu.be/GDaiw-G1VGE
.
Your retarded video does not animate the answer at all.
.
Your retarded video only shows the same thing again and again, the sun illuminating one-fourth of the earth's surface.
.
The question was, how does the sun ALWAYS illuminate ONE HALF of the earth's surface, depicted (by the way) as a semi-circle with a straight line going through the center, not with a circular spot shining down on the earth.
.
Furthermore, in the winter time, the sun illuminates NOTHING of the northern area inside the arctic circle for half the year, which your model is clearly incapable of showing.
.
Please don't bother saying your stupid video animates the answer -- oh, no, go ahead -- and thereby prove you're totally inept.
.
-
.
Notice no answers from flat-earthers.
.
They really are repulsed by these questions, like they're radioactive or giving off terrible sound waves.
.
They must be really scary.
.
.
Still no answer?
.
Must be really scary.
.
-
The artic summer videos I posted, stand on their own merit... When are you flat-tards going to put away your finger-paints and start giving more professional and convincing medium?
-
You cannot accept this hybrid model of heliocentrism and geocentrism. The earth is NOT tilted. It is stable and DOES NOT MOVE. Straight from God's Word in the Bible.
Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. Ps. 104:5
And the sun in your heliocentric/93-Millions hybrid would be whizzing by us at 24 MILLION miles per hour. That is NOT what you see in the sky.
.
I agree with you that the diagram is not just right, since it shows the sun rays always going horizontally and the earth's axis tilting.
.
But all you have to do is imagine the earth's axis remaining straight up and down and the sun's rays changing angle instead, using the same diagrams.
.
In any case, the angle of the sun's light changes over the year just as these images show, if one's view is from outer space with the sun always kept to the same direction.
.
All the diagrams I could find show the earth changing its axis direction, which actually makes it easier to see the principles involved because you don't have to keep track of where the sun is in each picture. It's always directly to the left side.
.
-
The sun cannot illuminate half the earth at all times in the flat-earth model as you say it does,
Of course it does!
.
This can be seen just by looking at the sunrise/sunset times, which correspond to the flat earth model.
.
You can literally "follow the circle" of the sun's throw of light over the earth's flat plane.
.
.
Maybe I'll start a thread about this very topic since it is such a mystery to you globe-tards.
-
The artic summer videos I posted, stand on their own merit... When are you flat-tards going to put away your finger-paints and start giving more professional and convincing medium?
Here's something interesting from probably the most honest flat-tard, that I've seen, who may ACTUALLY have a brain!
https://youtu.be/yWKCnoKM_BI (https://youtu.be/yWKCnoKM_BI)
-
Here's something interesting from probably the most honest flat-tard, that I've seen, who may ACTUALLY have a brain!
https://youtu.be/yWKCnoKM_BI (https://youtu.be/yWKCnoKM_BI)
Maybe the "marks" will wake up.
-
Of course it does!
.
This can be seen just by looking at the sunrise/sunset times, which correspond to the flat earth model.
.
You can literally "follow the circle" of the sun's throw of light over the earth's flat plane.
.
.
You're contradicting yourself, again. (As usual. No surprise.)
.
All the models you flat-earthers have provided show the sun illuminating a circular patch on the surface of your "flat" earth, and that circle is not half the area of the so-called flat earth shown.
.
It is obviously about 1/4 of the total area which you show illuminated, but then you claim that it's "half" the area.
.
Maybe you ought to take some geometry or rudimentary math first before you make a fool of yourself, again.
.
-
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Notice -- still no answers from flat-earthers!
.
They really are repulsed by these questions, like they're radioactive or giving off terrible sound waves.
.
They must be really scary.
.
.
The question flat-earthers refuse to answer.
.
-
.
You're contradicting yourself, again. (As usual. No surprise.)
.
All the models you flat-earthers have provided show the sun illuminating a circular patch on the surface of your "flat" earth, and that circle is not half the area of the so-called flat earth shown.
.
It is obviously about 1/4 of the total area which you show illuminated, but then you claim that it's "half" the area.
.
Maybe you ought to take some geometry or rudimentary math first before you make a fool of yourself, again.
.
Guess a "standardized" FE map is out of the question, what with one pile of bull pats being unmanageble as it is.
-
.
You're contradicting yourself, again. (As usual. No surprise.)
.
All the models you flat-earthers have provided show the sun illuminating a circular patch on the surface of your "flat" earth, and that circle is not half the area of the so-called flat earth shown.
.
It is obviously about 1/4 of the total area which you show illuminated, but then you claim that it's "half" the area.
.
Maybe you ought to take some geometry or rudimentary math first before you make a fool of yourself, again.
.
Don't frustrate yourself, it’s like debating with an abortionist.
-
Nutt'n but crickets over here on this thread... what happened to the you-know-whos?
-
Nutt'n but crickets over here on this thread... what happened to the you-know-whos?
Juice boxes and floor mats?
-
Don't frustrate yourself, it’s like debating with an abortionist.
Try to use your intelligence and make the distinction between theory and what is proven. It is proven that their is no curvature on the earth. After that is is theory, but well informed theory based on tradition.
-
Try to use your intelligence and make the distinction between theory and what is proven. It is proven that their is no curvature on the earth. After that is is theory, but well informed theory based on tradition.
You have proven nothing and, as a matter of fact, all of the proof is against you. The sad part is that you really and truly believe it. Very pathetic, as I said, it’s like debating an abortionist.
-
You have proven nothing and, as a matter of fact, all of the proof is against you. The sad part is that you really and truly believe it. Very pathetic, as I said, it’s like debating an abortionist.
If you have been following the flat earth threads, you will see that is a total lie. But presuming you have not here are some links to get you started. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
The proof is not against us because the round earth idea is a theory. You presume it as fact, yet you have no basis for this.
Please don't comment anymore until you have researched the issue first. There is no curvature on the earth.
-
You have proven nothing and, as a matter of fact, all of the proof is against you. The sad part is that you really and truly believe it. Very pathetic, as I said, it’s like debating an abortionist.
Troll speaks with a forked tongue...
-
The proof is not against us because the round earth idea is a theory.
Principle, Catholic scholastic principle is, first of all reflex principle, is.
You presume it as fact, yet you have no basis for this.
1. Try a little more Scholastic Philosophy and a "little less" as in no "Ecuмenical" shindig website "science"
1. Start with just familiarizing yourself with:
1. What Catholic popes have had to say about how to approach things like this, i.e. "how to think"
2. Epistemology.
3. Criteriology.
2. Then get to basics. From what I can tell you and every single one of your comrades on CI know piss all about the faith, particularly when compared with the "teachings" of the likes of Eric Dubay, Pastor Bob.....
Or you can keep throwing in your lot with pagans, at least when you're not trashing classic ones, heretics...
-
Is that your best argument against his findings, we win! Attack the messenger since you can't argue against his message. LOL! :applause:
It's a leftist tactic promoted by Saul Alinksy; ramp up ad hominem attacks when you cannot discredit the position of the speaker. Shout down the opposition, stamp out the exchange of ideas.
Never engage is a proper debate, just shout, call names, stamp your feet. It is Marxism on parade.
-
It's a leftist tactic promoted by Saul Alinksy; ramp up ad hominem attacks when you cannot discredit the position of the speaker. Shout down the opposition, stamp out the exchange of ideas.
Never engage is a proper debate, just shout, call names, stamp your feet. It is Marxism on parade.
...and shall we take a look at the "living magisterium" of FEism?
"... proper debate..." :) You crack me up sometimes miss/ma'am.
-
Did you really just post a video from drug-using, well-known occultist, atheist and heliocentrist extraordinairre CARL SAGAN?
Are you having a senior moment??
Even granting arguendo all that you charge, just where does the Church teach that we can discount out of hand what someone says, particularly as regards their professional qualifications, out of hand?
As one often on the business end of the "charity bat", I ask you, are we only to exercise justice and charity when it comes to those of our "tribe"?
That sounds more "Yeshiva" than "Summa" from where I sits.
Less "flat", more Faith. "MORE COWBELL!"
Do us all a favor, and have a Catholic "moment".
-
Even granting arguendo all that you charge, just where does the Church teach that we can discount out of hand what someone says, particularly as regards their professional qualifications, out of hand?
As one often on the business end of the "charity bat", I ask you, are we only to exercise justice and charity when it comes to those of our "tribe"?
That sounds more "Yeshiva" than "Summa" from where I sits.
Less "flat", more Faith. "MORE COWBELL!"
Do us all a favor, and have a Catholic "moment".
:laugh1:
Written in a manner that even peewee-boy can understand...
:laugh2:
-
If you have been following the flat earth threads, you will see that is a total lie. But presuming you have not here are some links to get you started.
This is what you remind me of...
(http://arizonabeehive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Bookmark-BOM1.jpg)
-
This is what you remind me of...
(http://arizonabeehive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Bookmark-BOM1.jpg)
When h/acne'd "elders" attack...
-
If you have been following the flat earth threads, you will see that is a total lie. But presuming you have not here are some links to get you started. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/f9-flat-earth-proofs
The proof is not against us because the round earth idea is a theory. You presume it as fact, yet you have no basis for this.
Please don't comment anymore until you have researched the issue first. There is no curvature on the earth.
I was debating this a year and a half ago on this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944)
-
Troll speaks with a forked tongue...
I assume you didn’t mean me.
-
:laugh1:
Written in a manner that even peewee-boy can understand...
:laugh2:
:cheers:
I apologize to English for getting out of hand with the "out of hand".
-
I was debating this a year and a half ago on this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944)
Well, you see... truth is very flexible, so you need to keep up with the times.
I'm just waiting for their logic to come to fruition...
(https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/maxresdefault-3.jpg)
-
I assume you didn’t mean me.
Sorry about that... you were not my intended target... I spoke poorly, as usual...
:cheers:
-
I was debating this a year and a half ago on this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/scientific-proof-earth-is-not-a-globe/msg500944/#msg500944)
Well then clearly you didn't learn very much.
Not a single explanation from you as to why we can see objects beyond the horizon. As listed in the cases I gave.
Instead of actually researching something, you just looked for whatever confirmed your bias so you can go back to sleep.
-
It's a leftist tactic promoted by Saul Alinksy; ramp up ad hominem attacks when you cannot discredit the position of the speaker. Shout down the opposition, stamp out the exchange of ideas.
Never engage is a proper debate, just shout, call names, stamp your feet. It is Marxism on parade.
This post above is a finger-wagging post directed at me, however, my words she is reprimanding me for were a reply to the below quote of Tradplorable. « Reply #6 on: September 18, 2017, 09:17:09 AM »
Notice its okay for them to do the ad hominem attacks. How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E?
Did you really just post a video from drug-using, well-known occultist, atheist and heliocentrist extraordinairre CARL SAGAN?
Are you having a senior moment??
-
This post above is a finger-wagging post directed at me, however, my words she is reprimanding me for were a reply to the below quote of Tradplorable.
Notice its okay for them to do the ad hominem attacks. How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E?
Miss/ma'am, have you gotten a confirmation on that, because it seems rather ambiguous from here.
-
It's a leftist tactic promoted by Saul Alinksy; ramp up ad hominem attacks when you cannot discredit the position of the speaker. Shout down the opposition, stamp out the exchange of ideas.
Never engage is a proper debate, just shout, call names, stamp your feet. It is Marxism on parade.
Well now, Myrna sure knows how to hurl some insults and epithets, rather than engage in debate, and a whole lot of foot-stamping for an older lady.
.
Just sayin'..
-
Well now, Myrna sure knows how to hurl some insults and epithets, rather than engage in debate, and a whole lot of foot-stamping for an older lady.
.
Just sayin'..
I'm with you, kiwi, I even asked him if English was his first language.
.
.
He writes in a virtually unintelligible manner, yet I am CERTAIN he thinks himself to be quite witty.
.
.
I found DZ's picture on the interwebz:
.
(https://thefunnyplace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/I-dont-always-say-something-stupid.jpg)
Yes, you most certainly are "gam-gam"
-
Well then clearly you didn't learn very much.
Not a single explanation from you as to why we can see objects beyond the horizon. As listed in the cases I gave.
Instead of actually researching something, you just looked for whatever confirmed your bias so you can go back to sleep.
No you are wrong, I did learn alot! I learned that I shouldn’t waste my time debating with gullible fanatics.
-
No you are wrong, I did learn alot! I learned that I shouldn’t waste my time debating with gullible fanatics.
Wow, you actually got to the "debate" part; that, in itself, is impressive.
-
No you are wrong, I did learn alot! I learned that I shouldn’t waste my time debating with gullible fanatics.
You learned that your Freemasonic intellect is your worst enemy.
-
Miss/ma'am, have you gotten a confirmation on that, because it seems rather ambiguous from here.
Had to give a thumbs up, for your ability to make this one old lady laugh. ;D
-
You learned that your Freemasonic intellect is your worst enemy.
Freemasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee12TfjGSag)
-
Who is the Freemason here? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y-XZvynduY)
-
I was wondering why this thread was moved since I originally put it into General Discussion because of the bolded below, at that time I thought it fit there.
General Discussion (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)
Chat with like-minded Catholics about anything. Member introductions, Catholic and world news, current events, jokes, and light conversation on any topic (especially topics unrelated to traditional Catholicism). No profanity or blasphemy.
However, since those who insist that we who do not believe the world is flat, are often accused of following the Masons teachings.
The videos above teach a different tune, and as usual, Mattew is correct to move it here under Freemasons stuff and errors of flat earth indoctrination.
Thanks Matthew!
-
I was wondering why this thread was moved since I originally put it into General Discussion because of the bolded below, at that time I thought it fit there.
General Discussion (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)
Chat with like-minded Catholics about anything. Member introductions, Catholic and world news, current events, jokes, and light conversation on any topic (especially topics unrelated to traditional Catholicism). No profanity or blasphemy.
However, since those who insist that we who do not believe the world is flat, are often accused of following the Masons teachings.
The videos above teach a different tune, and as usual, Mattew is correct to move it here under Freemasons stuff and errors of flat earth indoctrination.
Thanks Matthew!
Globe-earthers are Freemasons/
-
Globe-earthers are Freemasons/
You just simply don't care how wicked, or stupid, an assertion like that is; do you?
-
You just simply don't care how wicked, or stupid, an assertion like that is; do you?
Actually, the globe earth belief is Baal worship. Baal worship is Satanism.
-
Actually, the globe earth belief is Baal worship. Baal worship is Satanism.
Truth is Eternal speaks the truth.
.
.
.
The ancient mystery religion of Kabbalah (Ba'al worship) is the foundation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Pythagoras was a disciple. Pythagoras taught his students that the earth was a ball according to the mystery religion.
It is literally from the devil to believe the earth is a ba'al.
-
(https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.pinterest.com/jamiercline/the-thinker/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjxpuSvkcvWAhUDQSYKHThUDoQQwW4IKjAK&usg=AFQjCNF8OoX0dbJFRrqmSzm-5q9W9sQ41Q)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbWklyn37rIOg6E07iDhdHcIZA6eWyf7Q2Ea5ro7uoaFr7jkevurObvg)
-
I was wondering why this thread was moved since I originally put it into General Discussion because of the bolded below, at that time I thought it fit there.
General Discussion (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/)
Chat with like-minded Catholics about anything. Member introductions, Catholic and world news, current events, jokes, and light conversation on any topic (especially topics unrelated to traditional Catholicism). No profanity or blasphemy.
However, since those who insist that we who do not believe the world is flat, are often accused of following the Masons teachings.
The videos above teach a different tune, and as usual, Mattew is correct to move it here under Freemasons stuff and errors of flat earth indoctrination.
Thanks Matthew!
.
Flat-earthers prefer to hide in other forums so they can avoid difficult questions.
.
-
This is the flat earth subforum. Don't hang out here if you don't like it. Plenty of other thread to puke your garbage on.
-
This is the flat earth subforum. Don't hang out here if you don't like it. Plenty of other thread to puke your garbage on.
This kid has serious pride issues. I suggest that no one responds to his posts as it only encourages him to be more belligerent.
-
This kid has serious pride issues. I suggest that no one responds to his posts as it only encourages him to be more belligerent.
Speaking of my belief in the Bible's account of God's Creation is not pride.
.
.
.
Your UN-belief in the Bible's account of God's Creation IS pride.
-
This kid has serious pride issues. I suggest that no one responds to his posts as it only encourages him to be more belligerent.
We are glad you are here. ;) :applause:
-
We are glad you are here. ;) :applause:
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Didn't quote you. Didn't say "... he is here..."